Halakhah su Levitico 18:78

The Talmudic maxim "to save one life is tantamount to saving a whole world" (Sanhedrin 37a) indicates that the value of human life is infinite. A fraction of infinity is still infinity. Nothing in this world is of higher value or greater ethical import than human life. Even Torah commandments of the Holy One, blessed be He, must give way to the higher value of preserving human life. The Biblical verse "You shall study and observe My laws and live thereby" (Lev. 18:5) is interpreted in the Talmud (Yoma 85b) to mean that the saving of a life takes precedence over Sabbath observance. By inference, all other Torah laws must also be suspended to save a life since none are more important than the Sabbath laws.

We are not permitted to follow the ways of the gentiles, nor adopt their styles in dress or in hair style or similar things, as it is said: "You shall not follow the ways of the gentile."³Leviticus 20:33. It is [also] said: "In their ways you shall not follow"⁴Leviticus 18:3. It is [also] said: "Guard yourself lest you be ensnared to follow them."⁵Deuteronomy 12:30. You should not wear a garment which is specifically worn by them as a symbol of ostentation, such as a garment of high-ranking officers. For example, the Talmud states:⁶Maseches Sanhedrin 74a. that it is forbidden for a Jew to be similar to them even in regard to shoelaces; if their practice was to tie one way and the practice of Jews to tie another way, or if their practice was to wear red shoelaces and Jews wear black shoelaces because the color black indicates humility, submissiveness and modesty. [In all such instances] it is forbidden for a Jew to deviate. From these examples everyone should learn how to apply these standards to his time and place. A garment designed for showiness or immodesty must not be worn by a Jew, but rather his clothing should be made in a style which suggests humility and modesty. The following is mentioned in Sifrei: You should not say that since they go out with scarlet I shall go out with scarlet, since they go out with kulsin (the word kulsin meaning weaponry) I also shall go out with kulsin, because these practices are indicative of arrogance and haughtiness which are not the heritage of Jacob. Rather, our heritage demands of us to be modest and humble, and not be influenced by the haughty. Similarly, any custom or statute of which there is a suspicion of idolatrous intent or background should be avoided by Jews. Similarly, you should not cut your hair or style your hair as they do, but rather you should be distinct, in your clothing and speech and all other endeavors just as you are distinct in your perspectives and concepts. Similarly, it is said: "I have set you apart from the nations."⁷Leviticus 20:26.

A husband whose wife disappears may not remarry without proof of her death. We are much more lenient, however, for men whose wives disappear, as the prohibition for a married man to marry a second wife is only rabbinic in nature, whereas the prohibition for a married woman to marry another man involves a capital Biblical offense (see Pitchei Teshuvah, Even Ha’ezer 1:14). Rav Yonah Reiss,³Citations of Rav Reiss throughout this chapter come from two lectures that I heard him deliver, as well as personal conversations. Director of the Beth Din of America, informed me that a number of husbands called the Beth Din of America after their wives disappeared in the World Trade Center attacks. Rav Reiss said that the Beth Din followed the view of the Gesher Hachaim (1:19 note 4), who rules that a husband may remarry if adequate evidence exists that his wife was at the place where a tragedy occurred, and that most people who were in her location and situation perished.⁴See Teshuvot Minchat Yitzchak (1:6) regarding the necessary level of evidence in order to permit a man to marry his wife’s sister during her lifetime, a Biblical prohibition (Vayikra 18:18).

Behold that there are commands and warnings that appear in the Torah that are not about a specific thing, but rather include all of the commandments. It is as if it says, "Do everything I have commanded you to do and be careful about anything from which I have prohibited you"; or "Do not transgress anything of what I have commanded you about." And there is no room to count this command on its own - as it does not command us to do a specific act, such that it should be a positive commandment; nor does it warn us from doing a specific act, such that it should be a negative commandment. And this is like its saying, "Be on guard concerning all that I have told you" (Exodus 23:13); and what is stated, "And you shall keep my statutes" (Leviticus 19:19); "And you shall keep my judgements" (Leviticus 18:4); "and you shall keep My covenant" (Exodus 19:5); "And you shall keep My charge" (Leviticus 18:30), and many like these. And [others] have already erred in this principle, such that they counted, "You shall be holy" (Leviticus 19:2), to be included among the positive commandments. And they did not know that "You shall be holy," and "you shall sanctify yourselves and be holy" (Leviticus 11:44) are commands to keep the whole Torah. It is as if it said, "Be holy by doing everything I have commanded you and being careful about anything I have prohibited to you." And the words of the Sifra (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 1:1) are, "'You shall be holy' - you shall be separated - meaning to say, separate from all the disgraceful things that I have prohibited to you." And in the Mekhilta (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 22:30:1), "Issi ben Yehudah says, 'When the Holy One, Blessed be He, originates a commandment for Israel, He adds holiness to them'" - meaning to say this command is not a command in itself, but rather follows from the commands that they have been commanded. So one who fulfills this command will be called, holy. And there is no difference between it saying, "You shall be holy," or if it had said, "Do my commandments." Would you see that that which is being said [here] is a positive commandment, in addition to the commandments that it is referring back to, that we have been commanded? Likewise should we not say that "You shall be holy," and that which is similar to it, is a commandment - for it has not commanded us to do anything besides what we [already] know. And the words of the Sifrei (Sifrei Bamidbar 115:1): "'You shall be holy' - that is the holiness of the commandments.' Hence behold what we have been working around is clear. And also based on this principle is its saying, "Cut away the thickening about your hearts" (Deuteronomy 10:16) - meaning to say, that one accept and obey all of the commandments already mentioned. And so too, "and stiffen your necks no more" (Deuteronomy 10:16) - meaning to say, do not harden your heart and accept that which I commanded you, and do not transgress it.

Behold that there are commands and warnings that appear in the Torah that are not about a specific thing, but rather include all of the commandments. It is as if it says, "Do everything I have commanded you to do and be careful about anything from which I have prohibited you"; or "Do not transgress anything of what I have commanded you about." And there is no room to count this command on its own - as it does not command us to do a specific act, such that it should be a positive commandment; nor does it warn us from doing a specific act, such that it should be a negative commandment. And this is like its saying, "Be on guard concerning all that I have told you" (Exodus 23:13); and what is stated, "And you shall keep my statutes" (Leviticus 19:19); "And you shall keep my judgements" (Leviticus 18:4); "and you shall keep My covenant" (Exodus 19:5); "And you shall keep My charge" (Leviticus 18:30), and many like these. And [others] have already erred in this principle, such that they counted, "You shall be holy" (Leviticus 19:2), to be included among the positive commandments. And they did not know that "You shall be holy," and "you shall sanctify yourselves and be holy" (Leviticus 11:44) are commands to keep the whole Torah. It is as if it said, "Be holy by doing everything I have commanded you and being careful about anything I have prohibited to you." And the words of the Sifra (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 1:1) are, "'You shall be holy' - you shall be separated - meaning to say, separate from all the disgraceful things that I have prohibited to you." And in the Mekhilta (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 22:30:1), "Issi ben Yehudah says, 'When the Holy One, Blessed be He, originates a commandment for Israel, He adds holiness to them'" - meaning to say this command is not a command in itself, but rather follows from the commands that they have been commanded. So one who fulfills this command will be called, holy. And there is no difference between it saying, "You shall be holy," or if it had said, "Do my commandments." Would you see that that which is being said [here] is a positive commandment, in addition to the commandments that it is referring back to, that we have been commanded? Likewise should we not say that "You shall be holy," and that which is similar to it, is a commandment - for it has not commanded us to do anything besides what we [already] know. And the words of the Sifrei (Sifrei Bamidbar 115:1): "'You shall be holy' - that is the holiness of the commandments.' Hence behold what we have been working around is clear. And also based on this principle is its saying, "Cut away the thickening about your hearts" (Deuteronomy 10:16) - meaning to say, that one accept and obey all of the commandments already mentioned. And so too, "and stiffen your necks no more" (Deuteronomy 10:16) - meaning to say, do not harden your heart and accept that which I commanded you, and do not transgress it.

And all the sacrifices are all from all the laws are. Sages said, that for the work of sacrifice the world stands; That in the making of laws and judgments the righteous gain the life of the next world. And the Torah preceded a commandment on the laws, which is said (Leviticus 18: 5): "And ye have kept my statutes and my judgments, which if a man do, he shall even live in them":

(Aleph)⁶Starting from here, each paragraph begins with a letter from an acrostic that sequentially includes all of the letters of the Hebrew alphabet, followed by the author’s name. The Rabbis said (Bereishit Rabbah 8:5), “At the time that the Holy One, blessed be He, wanted to create man, He created a group of angels, etc. And they said (Ps. 8:5), ‘What is man that you should consider him’ [and so, they opposed his creation].” At first glance, [we would wonder] why the angels would care about man’s creation. [To answer this, we must understand the nature of man:] As the essence of man’s creation is [that he be] upon the earth. Even though the [human] soul benefits from the radiance of the glory from [the One from] which it has been hewn, and there is nothing lacking in the house of the King; [nevertheless] the Divine Wisdom, may His name be blessed, decreed that [the human soul] should be brought down [to the world], in order to test it with the performance of His commandments and the keeping of His Torah. And when ‘it is very righteous,’ ‘so will it multiply and so will it expand’ and ‘grow upwards,’ until ‘it returns to God who gave it’ ‘with great strength’ and ‘with abundance of power.’ And it is written in the Zohar 1:60a [to explain the verse in Prov. 5:15], “Drink water from your own cistern, running water from your own well”; [that] when the soul is above, it only has the aspect of a cistern, which does not [produce its own water], but is rather filled from others. In of itself, however, it is empty. But when it comes down to this lowly world and achieves what it is supposed to achieve – like the wisdom of His decree, may His name be blessed – then it has the aspect of a well, which is an overflowing spring and is emanating from itself. And in this way it will not [acquire] the bread of shame.⁷The roots of this this idea – that unearned reward is a source of shame – are from several places in the Zohar. See, for example Zohar 1:4a. The basis for the metaphor, however is found in Talmud Yerushalmi Orlah 1:3, 61b. And the first well-known use of the actual phrase is only found later in R. Yosef Karo’s Maggid Mesharim 2:8, which was written in the 1500’s. As the essence of the matter is that anyone who has nothing from himself is a poor person that is considered as if dead.⁸Zohar 2:119a, Nedarim 64b. This is as is written in Gur Aryeh,⁹Maharal, Gur Aryeh on Exod. 4:19:2. that the water of a well is called living waters because it [produces water] from itself (meaning, its underground spring) – which is not the case with the water of a cistern. And so this is why a poor person is considered as if dead. [Hence (as in Prov. 15:27)], “and the one who hates gifts, lives.” See there. And if so, the whole time that the soul is in its source, it has the aspect of a cistern that has no life; as it is empty from itself, besides from what is given to it. [This is] until it descends here and emanates from itself with the aspect of a well and has life. And this is why it states (Gen. 2:7), “He blew into his nostrils a living soul.” That is because the main aspect of the creation of man on the earth was so that the soul could have the aspect of “a living soul.” And this is [the meaning of], these are the commandments, “that a man should do and live through them” (Lev. 18:8).

Ramban, in his commentary on Yevamot 98a, joins many other scholars in questioning the propriety of Jacob's action in marrying two sisters, Rachel and Leah. Such marriages are explicitly enjoined by Leviticus 18:8 and rabbinic tradition maintains that the Patriarchs observed the commandments even prior to their revelation at Mount Sinai. This difficulty is resolved by other authorities in a variety of ways. Ramban offers an incisive explanation. Consanguineous relations are forbidden to Noachides, yet sexual liasons with close relatives of a spouse are incestuous only for Jews, but not for non-Jews. Ramban remarks that this is so because "ishut let lehu," i.e., non-Jews are excluded from the institution of ishut. Thus Jacob was able to marry his sister-in-law because, odd as it may sound, she was not the sister of a "wedded" wife. Assuredly, a relationship did exist between Jacob and his spouse, but it was significantly different from a sanctified matrimonial relationship since such relationships became hallowed only at Sinai.

A number of arguments auguring against use of data derived from Nazi experimentation have appeared in articles published in rabbinic journals. The most sweeping criticism of utilization of this information is based upon an appeal to a well known and fundamental principle of Jewish law: "Everything may be utilized for healing, save for idolatry, some forms of sexual licentiousness and homicide" (Pesaḥim 28a). It is alleged that it is this principle that is employed by Rambam in his Commentary on the Mishnah, Pesaḥim 66a, in explaining the basis of the approbation expressed by the Sages for certain actions on the part of King Hezekiah. The Gemara reports that Hezekiah suppressed a certain medical work and that his conduct found favor in the eyes of the Sages. Rambam, together with other classical commentators on the Talmud, is troubled by the Sages' endorsement of what appears to have been a singularly irrational act. Medical works are indispensable aids in effecting cures and preserving life. One would have anticipated that the Sages would have advocated the broadest possible dissemination of medical knowledge rather than its suppression. One explanation offered by Rambam in resolution of this perplexity is that the work in question advocated modes of therapy "which the Torah does not permit to be used for healing." Rambam's reference is either to practices that are themselves idolatrous in nature, or more likely, to the "ways of the Amorites" and kindred practices prohibited because of their association with idolatry and encompassed within the ambit of the prohibition "and you shall not walk in their statutes" (Leviticus 18:3). Nevertheless, in context, Rambam's comments must be understood as restricted to a ban against performance of an illicit act for therapeutic purposes, not as banning subsequent utilization of information gleaned from the performance of such an illicit act.

In addition, Ramban, in his Commentary on the Bible, Leviticus 25:36, interprets the verse, "And your brother shall live with you," as constituting a general obligation to preserve the life of one's fellow. Earlier, R. Aḥa'i Ga'on, She'iltot, She'ilta 38, adduced the discussion found in the Gemara, Baba Mezi'a 62a, in interpreting this verse in a similar manner. R. Shimon ben Ẓemaḥ Duran, Teshuvot Tashbaz, III, no. 37, declares that the verse "And he shall live by them" (Leviticus 18:5) constitutes yet another mizvah commanding the preservation of life. The Gemara, Yoma 85b, renders this passage as meaning, "And he shall live through [the commandments] but he shall not die by means of them," and accordingly interprets this verse as establishing the principle that mizvot are suspended in face of life-threatening dangers. The regulation mandating suspension of mizvot in face of danger, argues Tashbaz, must be understood as establishing a general obligation to preserve life whether or not violation of biblical law is necessary to accomplish that goal.

Indeed, even if such an obligation were to exist in our day, that obligation would be severely limited in nature. Minḥat Hinnukh, no. 425, raises an obvious question. All commandments, with the exception of the prohibitions against homicide, idolatry and certain sexual offenses, are suspended for the purpose of saving a life. Actions which otherwise would be prohibited are permissible, and indeed mandatory, in the event that there exists even a remote chance that a life may be saved as a result of their performance. Obligations which are otherwise mandated are suspended in face of even possible danger to life. Failure to wage an obligatory war is not enumerated as one of the cardinal sins demanding martyrdom rather than trangression. How, then, can the Torah command us to wage war? Yet war for the conquest of Erez Yisra'el as well as for the eradication of Amalek is a mandatory duty. Warfare obviously presents the possibility of casualties and, even in the most favorable of circumstances, poses a threat to life. The scriptural phrase "va-ḥai ba-hem—and he shall live by them" (Leviticus 18:5) is understood by the Sages as suspending the yoke of the commandments when fulfillment might mean that the person so obligated might "die by them" rather than "live by them." Minḥat Hinnukh resolves the problem by explaining that the commandments concerning war are unique. Warfare, by virtue of its nature, demands that a participant's life be placed in danger. Hence, in this case, the nature of the mizvah requires that one place one's life in danger. Since that is the very essence of the obligation, the mizvah cannot be suspended in face of possible danger.⁷Cf., R. Naphtali Zevi Yehudah Berlin, Meromei Sadeh, Eruvin 45a and Kiddushin 43a; and R. Yitzchak Ze’ev Soloveitchik, Ḥiddushei Maran Riz ha-Levi al ha-Torah (Jerusalem, 5723), Parshat Beshallaḥ, p. 32. These scholars quite appropriately note that, even in the absence of a miẓvah, considerations of endangerment of self or of others are set aside in time of war simply by virtue of the “laws of war,” i.e., the Torah’s very recognition and sanction of warfare constitutes dispensation for endangerment of lives in the conduct of war.
R. Joshua Aaronberg, Dvar Yehoshu’a, II, no. 48, extends this position in stating that, since considerations of self-endangerment are set aside in the conduct of war, war may not be eschewed if avoidance of war would result in infraction of even a rabbinic prohibition. Thus, for example, the prohibition, lo titen lahem ḥaniyah be-karka may not be violated because of considerations of pikuaḥ nefesh since there exists the option of waging war in order to prevent non-Jewish occupation of land. This writer finds Rabbi Aaronberg’s thesis unconvincing. The Torah permits self-endangerment in a milḥemet miẓvah; nowhere is there the slightest hint that an otherwise non-obligatory war becomes obligatory when necessary to avoid suspension of any prohibition in the face of danger. On the contrary, the Gemara, Gittin 56a, indicates that a blemished animal might be accepted as a sacrificial offering because refusal would offend the authorities and result in danger to Jews. There is no suggestion that war, even if potentially successful, must be undertaken in order to avoid such transgression. Moreover, the Brisker Rav, in his above cited comment, explicitly writes that the commandment haḥarem taḥarimem (Deuteronomy 20:17), qua miẓvah, is suspended even in time of war.

The Gemara (Yoma 82a) asserts that piku’ach nefesh overrides every Torah law except for the prohibitions of idolatry, sexual immorality, and murder. A few pages later (85a-85b), it offers numerous sources for why piku’ach nefesh overrides Shabbat. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah reasons that if circumcision overrides Shabbat despite affecting only one organ of the body, so the vital needs of the entire human body surely override Shabbat.²The Gemara thoroughly discusses the laws of circumcision on Shabbat in the nineteenth chapter of Shabbat. Rabbi Shimon Ben Menasya presents the famous principle, "Violate one Shabbat for [the endangered individual’s] sake so that he will observe many future Shabbatot.”³The Gemara derives this principle from the verse “And the Jewish people shall guard Shabbat” (Shemot 31:16). Rashi (s.v. Veshamru) explains that “guarding” any particular Shabbat includes ensuring that future Shabbatot will also be observed. (The same Hebrew word - “lishmor” - means both “to guard” and “to observe.”)
Although this reason implies that we may save only a Jew’s life on Shabbat in order that he will observe future Shabbatot, the Biur Halachah (329 s.v. Ela) writes that in practice one should violate Shabbat even to save a Jew who clearly will not observe Shabbat in the future (see, also, Halichot Olam 4:226 and Teshuvot Minchat Shlomo 2:34:39 and 40). Shmuel adds that the Torah (Vayikra 18:5) urges us to “live” by its laws (“Vachai bahem”), implying that observing the Torah should not cause death (“Velo sheyamut bahem”).

However, the Tur (Peirush Tur Ha’aroch on Bereishit 46:10) explains this midrash in a manner that seemingly indicates the exact opposite, that the ovum donor is the halachic mother in a case of surrogate motherhood. In analyzing the midrash (quoted by Rashi on Bereishit 46:10) that Shimon married his sister, Dinah, the Tur wonders why their union did not constitute incest. After all, Shimon and Dinah were both children of Leah, and marrying a maternal sister was prohibited even before the giving of the Torah. The Tur answers that, as quoted above from Targum Yonatan, Dinah began in Rachel’s womb. Even after she was switched to Leah’s womb, the Halachah still considered her to be Rachel’s daughter, so she and Shimon thus had different mothers. Before the Torah was given, one was allowed to marry a paternal half-sister.¹¹Even nowadays, Noachide Law (Halachah pertaining to non-Jews) permits marrying a paternal half-sister, while a Jew may not marry any half-sister; see Vayikra 18:9, Rambam (Hilchot Melachim 9:5), and Rashi (Bereishit 20:12). Therefore, Leah’s son, Shimon, did not violate the Halachah when he married Rachel’s daughter, Dinah. We thus see that according to the Tur, the Halachah defines motherhood by the woman whose egg forms the fetus, even if another woman gives birth to the baby. Of course, Aggadic passages usually cannot serve as definitive halachic proofs.¹²See Yerushalmi (Pe’ah 2:4), Encyclopedia Talmudit (1:62), Teshuvot Yabia Omer (vol. 8, Even Ha’ezer 21:2), and Nishmat Avraham (3:17). Nevertheless, the Tur’s words merit serious halachic consideration, especially because he is explaining how to understand the story from a halachic perspective.

Women who rub up on each other is forbidden, from it being like that of the forbidden sexual actions of the Egyptians (cf. Lev. 18:3), upon which we were warned. And it is appropriate to strike them with disciplinary flogging since they have committed a prohibited action. And there is for a man to be careful about his wife's activities in this regard and to hold back women who are known to be involved in this from coming into see his wife or for her to visit them.

When Israel’s awareness of its own spirit became foggy—“Israel rejects what is good”⁴²Hosea 8:3. See also Orot hakodesh, 3:140, where Rav Kook cites the same biblical verse to connote the spurning—by the individual or community—of one’s unique, divine source of being.—the people forgot its strength and pride. Looking superficially at their undeveloped and wild environment made them forget their inner greatness. The yearning for a refined, godly life slipped from their hearts, as did the sense of joyful strength that one has when life is clothed in deeds. Clear, simple, pure-hearted understanding ceased, and the light of justice was dimmed. In its place came the coarse imagination of a lawless society, and the dumb, evil delusions of idolatry, with all its attendant abominations. Under their burden, the sublime, divine character of the people was smothered, and there were no more pure, upright, and serene hearts. This moral collapse in the nation was matched by a decline in the spiritual character of the land, which had always been intertwined with the moral life of the people. As the people became spiritually weaker, the special qualities of the land could no longer find fulfillment. The spirit of the precious land, full of holy song and godly gladness, plummeted. “Thus the land became defiled; and I called it to account for its iniquity, and the land spewed out its inhabitants.”⁴³Lev. 18:25. The people absorbed bad influences, which coarsened its pure nature.

The Aruch Laner (commentary to Makkot 21a s.v. Gam Im), on the other hand, states that one violates a biblical prohibition even if his intention is not for idolatry. The Aruch Laner and Rav Gestetner note that the Rambam and Shulchan Aruch seem to agree with this view, as they do not confine this prohibition only to one whose intention is for idolatry. Moreover, Rav Gestetner observes that Tosafot (Gittin 20b s.v. B’chtovet) clearly indicate that a biblical prohibition is violated even if one’s intention is not for idolatry.⁹The Maharam Schick (commentary to Sefer Hamitzvot, mitzvah 254) contends that the prohibition of kitovet ka’aka is related to the prohibition to imitate gentile practices (Vayikra 18:3) and as such is violated as long as the tattoo is made for no (substantive) reason.

A similar distinction may be inferred from the comments of Me'iri, Sanhedrin 59a. Me'iri states that a non-Jew may study Torah if he does indeed intend to fulfill the precepts which he studies, but is deserving of punishment if he studies solely in order to acquire knowledge of "our Torah and our Talmud." Me'iri's inclusion of the phrase "our Talmud" would indicate that it is only the study of the Oral Law which is objectionable.¹⁶See Bet ha-Beḥirah al Masekhet Sanhedrin, ed. Abraham Sofer (Jerusalem, 5731), p. 229, n. 3. However, R. Ovadiah Yosef, Yabi‘a Omer, II, Yoreh De‘ah, no. 17, understands Me’iri’s phrase “our Torah” as including the Written Law. Again, in his commentary on Haggigah 13a, Me'iri speaks of "secrets of the Torah" which may not be imparted to non-Jews. It may be inferred that the Written Law, which is readily accessible to all, may be taught to a non-Jew. Among later authorities, Rabbi Naphtali Zevi Yehudah Berlin, Meshiv Davar, II, no. 77,¹⁷See also R. Naphtali Zevi Yehudah Berlin’s commentary on the Bible, Ha‘amek Davar, Harḥev Davar, Leviticus 18:15. rules that one may teach the Written Law to non-Jews as do Rabbi Judah Asad, Teshuvot Maharya, Yoreh De'ah, no. 135 and the son of this author in a gloss appended to Teshuvot Maharya, Oraḥ Hayyim, no. 4. Meshiv Davar points to the fact that "God commanded Joshua to translate the Pentateuch into seventy languages," presumably for the edification of non-Jews.¹⁸In response to Meshiv Davar’s argument, Divrei Yissakhar, Yoreh De‘ah, no. 96, states that only the content of the seven Noachide commandments were made available for non-Jews. There is, however, no hint of this distinction in the talmudic discussion recorded in Sotah 35b. See also Rashi, Deuteronomy 1:5, who interprets that passage as meaning that Moses expounded the Torah in seventy languages, presumably for the edification of the seventy gentile nations. See, however, Arugat ha-Bosem, Oraḥ Ḥayyim, no. 213, who opines that Moses’ exposition was for the benefit of Jews only and that he taught Torah in seventy languages in anticipation of the exile of Israel and the dispersal of Jews among the seventy nations. Cf., also Magen Avraham, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 334:17. See also R. Abraham I. Kook, Iggerot ha-Re’iyah (Jerusalem, 5722), I, no. 90, sec. 5, who declares that no normative halakhah can be derived from this narrative since the divine command was limited to a particular incident and occurred in conjunction with the exodus from Egypt and the revelation at Mount Sinai. During this unprecedented and unparalleled historical epoch the Divine Presence was perceived in some manner even by the gentile nations. A similar distinction is made by numerous other authorities including Sefer ha-Mezaref, no. 97; Rabbi Jonathan Eibeschutz, Ahavat Yonatan, Parshat Beshalaḥ; Ma'or va-Shemesh, Parshat Hukat; R. Jacob Meskin, Mishpat le-Ya'akov, no. 24; and Anaf Yosef, Haggigah 13a.¹⁹According to the authorities who maintain that non-Jews may study the Written Law it is somewhat difficult to understand the negative attitude toward translation of Scripture expressed in Midrash Tanḥuma, Parshat Ki Tissa, 34, Soferim 1:6, and elsewhere, Shulḥan Arukh, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 580:2, states that it is proper to fast on the eighth day of Tevet because on that day the Torah was translated into Greek in the time of Ptolemy “and there was darkness upon the world for three days.” [The statements in Soferim 1:6 and Oraḥ Ḥayyim 580:2 with regard to the translation at the behest of Ptolemy do not appear to present a difficulty since the published text of Soferim 1:6 indicates that the source of grief was the inadequacy of the translation, apparently a reference to the intentional mistranslation of a number of passages as reported in Megillah 9a. Tanḥuma cannot be resolved in this manner because it specifically decries translation as a means of making Torah accessible to non-Jews.] Teshuvot Maharaẓ Ḥayes, no. 32, resolves this difficulty by stating that making the Written Law available to non-Jews is not decried in these situations because of the prohibition against non-Jews studying Torah, but because the gentile nations failed to adhere to the Noachide Code, as stated in Avodah Zarah 2b. Under such circumstances, knowledge of Torah serves no beneficial purpose, particularly since the meaning of the Torah was distorted by them. However, continues Maharaẓ Ḥayes, there exists no continuing objection to translation of the Bible since translations are now readily available and the teaching of Scripture to non-Jews is not intrinsically forbidden. Cf., R. Moses Sofer, Torat Mosheh, Parshat Shemot, and Teshuvot Arugat ha-Bosem, Oraḥ Ḥayyim, no. 213. See, however, R. Ezekiel Landau, Ẓelaḥ al Masekhet Berakhot (New York, 5716), addendum to introduction, p. 110, who decries translation of the Bible. This statement should not be confused with statements against Mendelssohn’s translation of the Bible attributed to R. Ezekiel Landau. The statement contained in the introduction to Ẓelaḥ decries all translations but is not cited by R. Landau’s biographers or by scholars assessing his role in the Mendelssohn controversy. If this addendum is authentic it appears to be at variance with the same authority’s approbation of a facile German translation designed to aid students of the Hebrew text; see Ben-Zion Katz, Rabbanut, Ḥasidut, Haskalah (Tel Aviv, 1956), pp. 198-199 and Shlomoh Wind, R. Yeḥezkel Landau: Toldot Ḥayyav u-Pe‘ulotav (Jerusalem, 5721), pp. 118-119.

There is at least one early source which apparently declares that a male cannot acquire the status of a woman by means of surgery. Rabbi Abraham Hirsch (No'am 5733) cites the comments of Rabbenu Chananel, quoted by Ibn Ezra in his commentary on Leviticus 18:22. Rabbenu Chananel declares that intercourse between a normal male and a male in whom an artificial vagina has been fashioned by means of surgery constitutes sodomy. This would appear to be the case, according to Rabbenu Chananel, even if the male genitalia were removed.¹⁰It might be argued against R. Hirsch that citation of Rabbenu Chananel is not conclusive in showing that Halakhah does not recognize reversal of sexual identity. The situation depicted by Rabbenu Chananel, after all, refers to a homosexual act with a male in whom an artificial orifice has been constructed; Rabbenu Chananel clearly does not describe a situation in which sex reversal has also been undertaken by means of removal of the male genitalia. Nevertheless, in context, the argument has not lost its cogency. If surgical changes in sexual identity are recognized for purposes of Halakhah, it would stand to reason that just as male-female changes effect a change in sexual identity, the construction of female organs, when unaccompanied by removal of male organs, should similarly be recognized as effecting a change in sexual identity from male to hermaphrodite. Rabbenu Chananel, as is evident from the text of these remarks, does not view penetration of the female organ of a hermaphrodite by a male as constituting a homosexual act (although he does allow for such a position in subsequent remarks). Yet, according to Rabbenu Chananel, intercourse via the artificially constructed vagina does constitute sodomy. This, then, indicates that the individual is regarded as a male rather than a hermaphrodite. Therefore it follows that if surgical procedures do not effect a change in status from male to hermaphrodite, such procedures cannot create a change of status from male to female in the eyes of Halakhah.

Drawing a parallel from the commandment against the kidnapping and subsequent sale of a person into involuntary servitude, Rabbi Unterman³⁵No‘am, VI, 4 f; Shevet me-Yehudah, I, 9 f. cites the opinion of Rashi, Sanhedrin 85b, who maintains that this prohibition encompasses the sale of an unborn child as well. Although the fetus may not be considered a fully developed person, his kidnapper is culpable because he has stolen an animate creature whose status is conditioned by its potential development into a viable human being. Rabbi Unterman further notes that the unborn fetus lacks human status. Consequently, it is excluded from the injunction, "And he [man] shall live by them" (Lev. 18:5), which justifies violation of other precepts in order to preserve human life. Numerous authorities nevertheless permit violation of the Sabbath in order to preserve fetal life. Rabbi Unterman views such permission as being predicated upon a similar rationale. Anticipation of potential development and subsequent attainment of human status creates certain privileges and obligations with regard to the undeveloped fetus. Consideration of future potential is clearly evidenced in the talmudic declaration: "Better to violate a single Sabbath in order to observe many Sabbaths" (Shabbat 151b). Rabbi Unterman concludes that reasoning in these terms precludes any distinction which might otherwise be drawn with regard to the various stages of fetal development.

He prohibited us from following in the ways of the idolaters, and from behaving according to their practices - and even with their clothing and with their gatherings in their assemblies. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "You shall not follow the practices of the nation(s)" (Leviticus 20:23). And in the explanation (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Section 8:8), it appears - "I only said those that were established for them from their forefathers." And the language of the [Sifra] (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 13:8) is, "'And in their statutes you shall not walk' (Leviticus 18:3) - in their customs, those things that are established for them, such as theatres and circuses." And these were types of assemblies in which they would gather for worship of the images. "Rabbi Meir says, 'These are the ways of the Amorites, which the Sages enumerated.' Rabbi Yehudah says, 'that you not round [your face], and not cultivate locks, and not wear the hair komi.'" And one who does one of these things is liable for lashes. And the prohibition of this content was repeated in another place. And that is His saying, "Take heed unto yourselves, lest you are drawn in after them" (Deuteronomy 12:30). Lest you resemble them and do their deeds and it becomes a stumbling block; that you should not say, "Since they are going out with telusin, I will also go out with telusin" - and that is a type of weapon of the Persians. And you already know the language of the prophet (Zephaniah 1:8), "and all such as are clothed in foreign garments." And this is all to distance ourselves from them and to revile all of their practices, and even their clothes. And the regulations of this commandment have been explained in the sixth [chapter] of Shabbat. (See Parashat Kedoshim; Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 11.)

To not reveal the nakedness of a man's wife: To not have intercourse with a man's wife, as it is stated (Exodus 20:13), "You shall not commit adultery." And the explanation comes that the undifferentiated expression, "adultery," indicates with a man's wife, as they, may their memory be blessed, said (Rashi on Exodus 20:13), "Adultery is only with a man's wife." And this negative commandment is repeated in the Order of Achrei Mot, as there it is written explicitly (Leviticus 18:20), "And to your neighbor's wife, etc."

Indeed, even if such an obligation were to exist in our day, that obligation would be severely limited in nature. Minḥat Hinnukh, no. 425, raises an obvious question. All commandments, with the exception of the prohibitions against homicide, idolatry and certain sexual offenses, are suspended for the purpose of saving a life. Actions which otherwise would be prohibited are permissible, and indeed mandatory, in the event that there exists even a remote chance that a life may be saved as a result of their performance. Obligations which are otherwise mandated are suspended in face of even possible danger to life. Failure to wage an obligatory war is not enumerated as one of the cardinal sins demanding martyrdom rather than transgression. How, then, can the Torah command us to wage war? Yet war for the conquest of Erez Yisra'el as well as for the eradication of Amalek is a mandatory duty. Warfare obviously presents the possibility of casualties and, even in the most favorable of circumstances, poses a threat to life. The scriptural phrase "va-ḥai ba-hem—and he shall live by them." (Lev. 18:5) is understood by the Sages as suspending the yoke of the commandments when fulfillment might mean that the person so obligated might "die by them" rather than "live by them."³⁰Yoma 85b. Minḥat Hinnukh resolves the problem by explaining that the commandments concerning war are unique. Warfare, by virtue of its nature, demands that a participant's life be placed in danger. Hence, in this case, the nature of the mizvah requires that one place one's life in danger. Since that is the very essence of the obligation, the mizvah cannot be suspended in face of possible danger.

In both of those guises the blessing oseh ma'aseh bereshit is designed to underscore the notion that there is no sharp distinction between the miraculous and the natural. Nes, or miracle, and teva, or nature, are two sides of the same coin. Ramban, in numerous passages in his Commentary on the Pentateuch,¹³See, for example, Genesis 7:17, 35:13 and 46:15; Exodus 6:12; Leviticus 18:29 and 26:11; and Deuteronomy 11:13. eloquently formulates a distinction between a nes nistar, or a hidden miracle, and a nes nigleh, or an open miracle. The miraculous nature of hidden miracles is obscured by virtue of the fact that to the beholder the result appears simply as the manifestation of natural occurrences. Open miracles are perceived as the suspension of the natural order. Perhaps even more emphatic are the comments of R. Meir Simchah of Dvinsk, Meshekh Hokhmah, Parasḥat Beḥukotai. Meshekh Hokhmah comments that miracles are not designed as ends in themselves; on the contrary, a nes is entirely instrumental. Miracles are designed to impress upon us that all of teva is a nes; nature is miraculous; the natural order is the greatest of all miracles. The temporary suspension of that order is designed to make us realize that the order and regularity of nature is born of divine decree and subject to divine will. The problem for mankind is that we have become desensitized. Every day the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. We take that for granted, with the result that such phenomena no longer strike us as wondrous. From time to time it is necessary for us to be jolted out of our intellectual complacency. Observation of an extraordinary phenomenon is an occasion to be reminded that miracles are built into the principles governing the universe as variations in the regularity that is the hallmark of nature.¹⁴See Avot 5:6; Bereshit Rabbah 5:4; and Shemot Rabbah 21:16. See also Rambam, Commentary on the Mishneh, Avot 5:6; idem, Guide to the Perplexed, Part II, chaps. 25 and 29; and Ḥasdai Crescas, Or ha-Shem, Part II, p. 5. Miracles are designed to impress upon us that, in reality, teva is the greatest of all miracles. That is why, declares Meshekh Hokhmah, "one who recites hallel ha-gadol every day commits blasphemy" (Shabbat 118b). If a person recites hallel every day it is because he feels he must give thanks for what he perceives as miracles performed on his behalf on a daily basis. But God does not perform overt miracles on a daily basis; He does not disturb the laws of nature with any frequency. To presume that He does so is a form of blasphemy. But at the same time we are charged with recognizing that nature itself is miraculous. That is why, explains Meshekh Hokhmah, a person who recites ashrei thrice daily is assured of a share in the World to Come (Berakhot 4b). The omnipotence, grandeur and majesty of God is manifest in the ordinary, but regular and ongoing, phenomena described in ashrei: "You give them their food in due season. You open your hand and satiate every living creature with favor" (Psalms 145:15-16). Recitation of ashrei serves to acknowledge that the phenomena we regard as natural, ordinary and run of the mill are really miracles wrought by God.

1. Rambam records the prohibition against residence in Egypt both in Sefer ha-mizvot, negative commandment no. 46, and in Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Melakhim 5:7-8. In Sefer ha-mizvot Rambam cites three separate verses as sources for this prohibition: "You shall henceforth return no more this way" (Deuteronomy 17:16); "… by the way whereof I said unto you, 'You shall see it no more again' " (Deuteronomy 28:68); and "For whereas you have seen Egypt today, you shall see them again no more forever" (Exodus 14:13). In citing all three verses as negative commandments Rambam follows the Palestinian Talmud, Sukkah 5:1. The Babylonian Talmud, Sukkah 51b, however, cites only Deuteronomy 17:16. Maharsha explains that, for the Babylonian Talmud, Exodus 14:13 is a promise rather than a prohibition. Deuteronomy 28:68 is presumably viewed as a threatened punishment rather than as a prohibition. Basing himself upon the Palestinian Talmud, Rambam declares that the prohibition is limited to permanent residence. Accordingly, it is permissible to return to Egypt for business purposes or for other reasons which involve only temporary domicile. Rambam further rules that it is permissible to reside in Egypt if the land is conquered by "a king of Israel" with the approval of the Sanhedrin "since [the Torah] forbids [us] only return to [Egypt] as individuals or to dwell therein while it is in the hands of idolaters." The reason, as explained by Rambam, is that settlement in Egypt is forbidden because of the degenerate moral character of the ancient Egyptians. Reference to the immorality of ancient Egypt is made in Leviticus 18:13. Hence, when Egypt is under the dominion of Israel, Jews are permitted to reside in that land.

That is that He commanded the Levites to extract a tithe from the tithe that they take from Israel, and give it to the priests. And that is His saying, "Speak to the Levites and say to them, 'When you receive the tithes from the Children of Israel, etc.'" (Numbers 18:26) And Scripture explains that this is called the priestly tithe from the tithe (terumat maaser) and is given to a priest. And Scripture [also] explains that this tithe is taken either from the goodly part of it or from the superior part of it, by its saying, "from any of its best portion (chelbo)" (Leviticus 18:29). And that is His, may He be blessed, saying, "And you shall bear no sin by reason of it, when you have set aside from it, the best of it" (Leviticus 18:32). And this negative commandment is the negation of the obligation that He said, "And you shall bear no sin" when they extract it from the fine part. So it indicates that when they extract it from the inferior part, they sin. And its content is that of a negative commandment derived from a positive commandment, which is not counted with the negative commandments. This means to say that since He commanded to extract from the superior part, He indicated that they should not extract it from the inferior part. And the language of the Sifrei is, "From where [do we know to] say that if they extracted it not from the superior part that they have transgressed? [Hence] we learn to say, 'And you shall bear no sin by reason of it.'" And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Terumot, Maaserot and in some places in Demai. (See Parashat Korach; Mishneh Torah, Tithes 1.)

That is that He commanded the Levites to extract a tithe from the tithe that they take from Israel, and give it to the priests. And that is His saying, "Speak to the Levites and say to them, 'When you receive the tithes from the Children of Israel, etc.'" (Numbers 18:26) And Scripture explains that this is called the priestly tithe from the tithe (terumat maaser) and is given to a priest. And Scripture [also] explains that this tithe is taken either from the goodly part of it or from the superior part of it, by its saying, "from any of its best portion (chelbo)" (Leviticus 18:29). And that is His, may He be blessed, saying, "And you shall bear no sin by reason of it, when you have set aside from it, the best of it" (Leviticus 18:32). And this negative commandment is the negation of the obligation that He said, "And you shall bear no sin" when they extract it from the fine part. So it indicates that when they extract it from the inferior part, they sin. And its content is that of a negative commandment derived from a positive commandment, which is not counted with the negative commandments. This means to say that since He commanded to extract from the superior part, He indicated that they should not extract it from the inferior part. And the language of the Sifrei is, "From where [do we know to] say that if they extracted it not from the superior part that they have transgressed? [Hence] we learn to say, 'And you shall bear no sin by reason of it.'" And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Terumot, Maaserot and in some places in Demai. (See Parashat Korach; Mishneh Torah, Tithes 1.)

To not marry one of all the sexual prohibitions: To not indulge [we not indulge] in one of all of the [women forbidden by] sexual prohibitions - and they are the [close] relatives, a married woman and a menstruant - and even without intercourse, such as hugging and kissing and all that is similar to these evil acts that licentious ones, 'that go after vanity and become vanity,' develop expertise about. As it is stated (Leviticus 18:6), "Any man shall not approach any of his own flesh, to reveal nakedness" - and its understanding is as if it stated, "Do not do any approaching, which is what causes and brings a person to reveal nakedness." And so did they, may their memory be blessed expound (Sifra, Achrei Mot, Chapter 13:15, 21), "'Shall not approach to reveal' - I only have not to reveal. From where [do I know] not to approach? [Hence] we learn to say, 'And to a woman in the impurity of her menstruation you shall not approach' (Deuteronomy 18:19). I only have a menstruant with 'do not [approach' and 'do not] reveal.' From where [do I know] for all sexual prohibitions? [Hence] we learn to say, 'do not approach to reveal.'" And there it is said, "'And the souls that do, will be cut off' (Deuteronomy 18:29) - lest you say they will be liable for excision with approaching alone. [Hence] we learn to say, 'that do,' and not 'that approach.'"

And the negative commandment of this prohibition was repeated in its stating, "and you shall not do from any of [these] abominations" (Leviticus 18:26), which includes all of these matters which are an abomination to God, may He be blessed. [This] means to say, that one who does them distances himself from the good and removes from himself the providence of God, blessed be He. And this is the understanding of the abominable to the Lord, may He be blessed, in every place, according to that which I have heard. And also that which is written at the end of the matter, "for all of these abominations did the people of the land that were before you do" (Leviticus 18:27), "and I was disgusted with them" (Leviticus 20:23). And the matter is to say that the trait is very disgusting. And every thing that is bad and very vile, Scripture describes as if God, may He be blessed, hates. And it is all according to the matter that we said; and similar to what they, may their memory be blessed, said in every place (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 19:18:2), [it is] in order to break [to assuage] the ear to that which it can hear. And the language of Sifra, Achrei Mot, Section 8:8 is "'Like the deed of the land of Egypt and like the deed of the land of Canaan, etc.' (Leviticus 18:27) - perhaps they should not build or plant as they do? [Hence] we learn to say, 'and in their statutes you shall not walk.' I have only said those statutes which were instituted for them, and not their buildings. What did they do? A man would wed a man, and a woman, a woman; and a woman would wed two men."

And the negative commandment of this prohibition was repeated in its stating, "and you shall not do from any of [these] abominations" (Leviticus 18:26), which includes all of these matters which are an abomination to God, may He be blessed. [This] means to say, that one who does them distances himself from the good and removes from himself the providence of God, blessed be He. And this is the understanding of the abominable to the Lord, may He be blessed, in every place, according to that which I have heard. And also that which is written at the end of the matter, "for all of these abominations did the people of the land that were before you do" (Leviticus 18:27), "and I was disgusted with them" (Leviticus 20:23). And the matter is to say that the trait is very disgusting. And every thing that is bad and very vile, Scripture describes as if God, may He be blessed, hates. And it is all according to the matter that we said; and similar to what they, may their memory be blessed, said in every place (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 19:18:2), [it is] in order to break [to assuage] the ear to that which it can hear. And the language of Sifra, Achrei Mot, Section 8:8 is "'Like the deed of the land of Egypt and like the deed of the land of Canaan, etc.' (Leviticus 18:27) - perhaps they should not build or plant as they do? [Hence] we learn to say, 'and in their statutes you shall not walk.' I have only said those statutes which were instituted for them, and not their buildings. What did they do? A man would wed a man, and a woman, a woman; and a woman would wed two men."

To not reveal the nakedness of the father: That a man not reveal the nakedness of his father - meaning to say that he not lay with him, the layings of a woman, as it is stated (Leviticus 18:7), "The nakedness of your father [...] you shall not reveal." And this warning (negative commandment) about one who lays with his father is in addition to the general warning of laying with males about all men (Sefer HaChinukh 209), as it is stated (Leviticus 18:22), "And with a male you shall not lay, the layings of a woman." And so did they, may their memory be blessed, say in Sanhedrin 54a, "'The nakedness of your father [...] you shall not reveal' - your actual father." And they asked there, "That is extracted from, 'And with a male you shall not lay, the laying.'" And the one who answered, answered, "So as to make him liable for two [prohibitions], and it is like Rav Yehudah, as Rav Yehudah said, 'A gentile who has intercourse with his father is liable for two.'" And there they elucidated and said, "It is likely that the word of Rav Yehudah is with an Israelite, and inadvertent and with a sacrifice; and that which he said, 'a gentile,' is [because] he took a euphemistic expression." [This is] meaning to say that he did not want to mention this disgraceful matter with an Israelite, since it was possible to establish it with a gentile; as they are also commanded about sexual prohibitions, but the law is the same with an Israelite - that he is liable for two with his father, meaning that if he lay with him inadvertently, he is liable to bring two sin-offerings. The substance of this matter is revealed to all. There is no reason to be lengthy about its root, as it is fitting to distance this great ugliness from people, and to punish one who transgresses it [with] a great punishment. And therefore it made him liable for stoning.

To not reveal the nakedness of the father: That a man not reveal the nakedness of his father - meaning to say that he not lay with him, the layings of a woman, as it is stated (Leviticus 18:7), "The nakedness of your father [...] you shall not reveal." And this warning (negative commandment) about one who lays with his father is in addition to the general warning of laying with males about all men (Sefer HaChinukh 209), as it is stated (Leviticus 18:22), "And with a male you shall not lay, the layings of a woman." And so did they, may their memory be blessed, say in Sanhedrin 54a, "'The nakedness of your father [...] you shall not reveal' - your actual father." And they asked there, "That is extracted from, 'And with a male you shall not lay, the laying.'" And the one who answered, answered, "So as to make him liable for two [prohibitions], and it is like Rav Yehudah, as Rav Yehudah said, 'A gentile who has intercourse with his father is liable for two.'" And there they elucidated and said, "It is likely that the word of Rav Yehudah is with an Israelite, and inadvertent and with a sacrifice; and that which he said, 'a gentile,' is [because] he took a euphemistic expression." [This is] meaning to say that he did not want to mention this disgraceful matter with an Israelite, since it was possible to establish it with a gentile; as they are also commanded about sexual prohibitions, but the law is the same with an Israelite - that he is liable for two with his father, meaning that if he lay with him inadvertently, he is liable to bring two sin-offerings. The substance of this matter is revealed to all. There is no reason to be lengthy about its root, as it is fitting to distance this great ugliness from people, and to punish one who transgresses it [with] a great punishment. And therefore it made him liable for stoning.

To not reveal the nakedness of the mother: That a son not reveal the nakedness of the mother, as it is stated (Leviticus 18:7), "it is your mother, do not reveal her nakedness." About the reason for relatives, Rambam, may his memory be blessed, wrote (Guide for the Perplexed 3:49) that the matter is because the Torah distanced sexuality from people besides that which is needed for being fruitful and multiplying, or for the commandment. Therefore, the Torah forbade [close] relatives to us - as stumbling is found with them more, since they are always found (proximate). And Ramban, may his memory be blessed, said (Ramban on Leviticus 18:6) that this reason is very weak - that the Torah should make one liable for excision for one of these because of their being always found near him; and from another side, permit a man to marry one hundred women - or a thousand - if he wants. [Rather,] he, may his memory be blessed, said - and this is his language: "But according to logic, there is a matter of a secret from the foundations of creation this is implanted in the soul, and it is included in the 'secret of intercalation' (a play on words that can also mean conception), that we have already hinted to." To here [are his words]. And I have seen that Rambam, may his memory be blessed, wrote another reason about the matter (Guide for the Perplexed 3:49): From the angle of the simple understanding - according to my opinion - did he say [it is] because the Torah distanced [it], that he should not be brazen-faced to have intercourse with the woman that he is to treat with honor. And he pushes [it] to explain most of [the sexual prohibitions] from this angle, meaning to say on account of the trait of shame - all as it appears in his book; the matter would be [too] lengthy if we came to write it all.

To not reveal the nakedness of the wife of the father, even though she is not his mother: To not reveal the nakedness of the wife of the father, even though she is not his mother, as it is stated (Leviticus 18:8), "The nakedness of the wife of your father you shall not reveal."

To not reveal the nakedness of his sister, from any angle that she is his sister: To not reveal the nakedness of his sister - whether she is a sister only from the father or whether she is a sister only from the mother; whether she is a sister from a woman raped by his father, or whether she is a sister from a mother from infidelity. From all of these angles, she is called his sister, and [he] is liable for her, as it is stated (Leviticus 18:9), "The nakedness of your sister - the daughter of your father or the daughter of your mother, whether born into the household or born outside." And if you shall say, "If so, what is this that is stated in the Torah (Leviticus 18:11), 'The nakedness of the daughter of the wife of your father, who has born into your father’s household'; and what was the need for this verse, is he not liable for her on account of [her being] his sister" - this verse was truthfully only stated to make the daughter of the wife of the father when she is his sister, a sexual prohibition on its own, and as we will write below in its place (below, Sefer HaChinukh 196). And it comes out that one who has intercourse with his sister, who is the daughter from the marriage of his father, is liable for two: on account of the nakedness of his sister and the nakedness of the daughter of the wife of his father. (Yevamot 22b). And if he has intercourse with her inadvertently, he is liable for two sin-offerings.

To not reveal the nakedness of his sister, from any angle that she is his sister: To not reveal the nakedness of his sister - whether she is a sister only from the father or whether she is a sister only from the mother; whether she is a sister from a woman raped by his father, or whether she is a sister from a mother from infidelity. From all of these angles, she is called his sister, and [he] is liable for her, as it is stated (Leviticus 18:9), "The nakedness of your sister - the daughter of your father or the daughter of your mother, whether born into the household or born outside." And if you shall say, "If so, what is this that is stated in the Torah (Leviticus 18:11), 'The nakedness of the daughter of the wife of your father, who has born into your father’s household'; and what was the need for this verse, is he not liable for her on account of [her being] his sister" - this verse was truthfully only stated to make the daughter of the wife of the father when she is his sister, a sexual prohibition on its own, and as we will write below in its place (below, Sefer HaChinukh 196). And it comes out that one who has intercourse with his sister, who is the daughter from the marriage of his father, is liable for two: on account of the nakedness of his sister and the nakedness of the daughter of the wife of his father. (Yevamot 22b). And if he has intercourse with her inadvertently, he is liable for two sin-offerings.

To not reveal the nakedness of the daughter of the son: To not reveal the nakedness of the daughter of the son, as it is stated (Leviticus 18:10), "The nakedness of the daughter of your son, etc. do not reveal." And according to what appears, the prohibition is whether the son is fit or even if he is a mamzer - he is his son regardless - and whether the daughter of the son is fit or even if she is a mamzeret.

To not reveal the nakedness of the daughter of the daughter: To not reveal the nakedness of the daughter of the daughter, as it is stated (Leviticus 18:10) "or the daughter of your daughter, you shall not reveal, as it is your nakedness." All of its laws are like the law of the daughter of the son; and the ones secondary to her are also the daughter of the daughter of daughter and, likewise the daughter of the son of the daughter. And some say that there is no end to [the generations of] these prohibitions ever.

The laws of this commandment - meaning to say how did they, may their memory be blessed, learn it and from which verse - are in the Gemara Yevamot. As there (Yevamot 3a) they said, "The main prohibition of his daughter from a woman he raped, comes by interpretation (drasha), as Rava said [that] Rav Yitzḥak bar Avdimi said to [me], 'This prohibition comes [by means of an inferential comparison between] "their" (hena) and "their"; it comes [by an inferential comparison of] "licentiousness" and "licentiousness"'" - meaning to say, that the verse states with the son’s daughter and the daughter’s daughter, "it is their nakedness"; like it is written at the end of the section (Leviticus 18:17), "their flesh." Just like over there, it is explicit that her daughter is forbidden; so too here, wherein the verse prohibits the daughter of his son, the law is the same for his daughter even though the verse did not explain it - as we learn it from this inferential comparison. And they, may their memory be blessed, also learned with which death one who has intercourse with his daughter or with the daughter of his son or the daughter of his daughter is judged, from the strength of this inferential comparison. They, may their memory be blessed, learned it from it, after it was learned about it from another place. And from what other place was it learned about it? From that which is written (Leviticus 20:14), "And a man that takes a woman and her mother, it is licentiousness; with fire shall they be burnt, him and them." And they, may their memory be blessed, said (Sanhedrin 75b) [that] just like there, with a woman and her mother, about them which is written, "licentiousness," it is with burning; so too here, with a woman and her daughter or the daughter of her son or the daughter of her daughter, about them which is written, "their flesh, it is licentiousness," he is judged with burning. And from now, since we found that the judgement of one who has intercourse with a woman and her daughter or the daughter of her son or the daughter of her daughter is with burning - since we have already learned the prohibition of his daughter from it by the inferential comparison of "their, their"; we can further learn from all of the other laws in it, and say that the judgement of one who has intercourse with his daughter is also with burning. And about that which is similar to this, they say in the Gemara (Yevamot 78b), "Infer from it and from it" - meaning to say, when we learn one verse from its fellow, we do not learn it for only one thing about it, but rather we learn it for all its laws from it. And [this is the case] even when those laws that are with it are not like the understanding of that verse itself, but rather learned from other verses. Nonetheless, we learn from everything that is in it - whether from the verse itself or whether it is learned from another place. And they, may their memory be blessed, said in the Gemara Keritot 5a, "Let not an inferential comparison (gezara shava) be light in your eyes; as behold, his daughter from a woman he raped is one of the [important] bodies of Torah, and Scripture only taught it through a gezara shava - it comes by 'their, their'; 'licentiousness, licentiousness.'" [This is] meaning to say that we learned its prohibition and its judgement from these two inferential comparisons, as we explained. But his daughter from a woman he married is explicit in Scripture, as it is stated (Leviticus 18:17), "The nakedness of a woman and her daughter" - and there is no distinction whether she is his daughter and her daughter, or from another man. And this is speaking about a married woman, since it is written, "woman" (eeshah, which is also the word for wife), which implies the language of marriage (eeshut). And it is also written "you shall not take" - and taking also implies through marriage. But regarding his daughter from a woman he raped or the daughter of her son or daughter of her daughter, only, "you shall not reveal," is written. And Rambam, may his memory be blessed, wrote (in Sefer HaMitzvot LaRambam, Mitzvot Lo Taase 336), "Observe their, may their memory be blessed, saying 'The verse did not teach it,' and they did not say, 'We did not learn it' - since all of these matters are a transmission from the messenger (Moshe), peace be upon him, who transmitted the understanding [of the Torah] to the elders. And that is [the meaning] of their saying, 'body of Torah,' about this." And [this] brought the rabbi, may his memory be blessed, to write this as a fixed major principle for himself - that only what is explicit in the verse or that which they, may their memory be blessed, said explicitly that it is from the Torah, is in the tally of the six hundred and thirteen commandments, but not that which we learn from the thirteen hermeneutic principles. And Ramban, may his memory be blessed, already contradicted this with clear proofs (in Sefer HaMitzvot LaRambam, Root 2).

To not uncover the nakedness of his sister from the father, and she is the daughter of the wife of the father: To not uncover the nakedness of the daughter of the wife of the father when she is his sister - meaning to say, that she is the daughter of his father. As if she was the daughter of the wife of his father that is not his sister, we have already said above (Sefer HaChinukh 192) that he is permitted to marry her from the outset. Rather, the understanding [of the prohibition] is that it is the daughter of the wife of his father and she is his sister, as it is stated (Leviticus 18:11), "The nakedness of the daughter of your father [...] you shall not reveal." And I have already written above regarding the nakedness of the sister that this negative commandment comes in order to make his sister from the wife of his father a sexual prohibition by itself - and similar to what I wrote about his mother (Sefer HaChinukh 190): that if she is the wife of the father, he is liable with her for two - on account of the mother and on account of the wife of the father. And the proof is from that which they, may their memory be blessed, said in Yevamot 22b, "The Sages learned, 'He who has intercourse with his sister who is the daughter of his father’s wife, is liable on account of his sister and on account of the daughter of his father’s wife.' Rabbi Yose beRebbi Yehudah says, 'He is liable only on account of his sister alone.' What is the reason for the opinion of the rabbis? They said, 'How is it? Since it is written in the Torah, "The nakedness of your sister, the daughter of your father, etc." (Leviticus 18:9), for what do I need, "The nakedness of the daughter of the wife of your father, who has born into your father’s household," (Leviticus 18:11)? We understand from this, [that] it is to make him liable on account of his sister and on account of the daughter of his father’s wife.'" It comes out that there is only one negative commandment with one who lays with his sister who is from a woman that his father raped; but one who lays with his sister from a woman that his father married is liable for [the transgression of] two negative commandments - and [so] if inadvertent, he is obligated to bring two sin-offerings. And 'the judgments of God are righteous': Since the Torah distanced the sister, it is fitting to be stringent with the one that is his full sister - meaning to say from marriage, as she is called the [true] sister (of her mother). And like this matter did Ramban, may his memory be blessed, write (Ramban on Leviticus 18:9).

To not uncover the nakedness of his sister from the father, and she is the daughter of the wife of the father: To not uncover the nakedness of the daughter of the wife of the father when she is his sister - meaning to say, that she is the daughter of his father. As if she was the daughter of the wife of his father that is not his sister, we have already said above (Sefer HaChinukh 192) that he is permitted to marry her from the outset. Rather, the understanding [of the prohibition] is that it is the daughter of the wife of his father and she is his sister, as it is stated (Leviticus 18:11), "The nakedness of the daughter of your father [...] you shall not reveal." And I have already written above regarding the nakedness of the sister that this negative commandment comes in order to make his sister from the wife of his father a sexual prohibition by itself - and similar to what I wrote about his mother (Sefer HaChinukh 190): that if she is the wife of the father, he is liable with her for two - on account of the mother and on account of the wife of the father. And the proof is from that which they, may their memory be blessed, said in Yevamot 22b, "The Sages learned, 'He who has intercourse with his sister who is the daughter of his father’s wife, is liable on account of his sister and on account of the daughter of his father’s wife.' Rabbi Yose beRebbi Yehudah says, 'He is liable only on account of his sister alone.' What is the reason for the opinion of the rabbis? They said, 'How is it? Since it is written in the Torah, "The nakedness of your sister, the daughter of your father, etc." (Leviticus 18:9), for what do I need, "The nakedness of the daughter of the wife of your father, who has born into your father’s household," (Leviticus 18:11)? We understand from this, [that] it is to make him liable on account of his sister and on account of the daughter of his father’s wife.'" It comes out that there is only one negative commandment with one who lays with his sister who is from a woman that his father raped; but one who lays with his sister from a woman that his father married is liable for [the transgression of] two negative commandments - and [so] if inadvertent, he is obligated to bring two sin-offerings. And 'the judgments of God are righteous': Since the Torah distanced the sister, it is fitting to be stringent with the one that is his full sister - meaning to say from marriage, as she is called the [true] sister (of her mother). And like this matter did Ramban, may his memory be blessed, write (Ramban on Leviticus 18:9).

To not reveal the nakedness of the sister of the father: To not have intercourse with the sister of the father, as it is stated (Leviticus 18:12), "The nakedness of the sister of your father you shall not reveal, etc."

The nakedness of the sister of your mother you shall not reveal: To not have intercourse with the sister of the mother, as it is stated (Leviticus 18:13), "The nakedness of the sister of your mother you shall not reveal, etc." All of its content is like the sister of the father (Sefer HaChinukh 197).

The nakedness of the brother of your father you shall not reveal: To not have intercourse with the brother of the father. And it is from what appears that there is no difference whether he is the brother of his father from the father or from the mother, whether he is from marriage or whether from licentiousness; as it stated (Leviticus 18:14), "The nakedness of the brother of your father you shall not reveal" - and he is called the brother of his father regardless. And even though [a man] who has intercourse with any male is liable on account of "and with a male you shall not lay, etc.," this negative commandment is in addition [to that] for the one that has intercourse with the brother of his father. And if he was inadvertent, he is liable for two sin-offerings - on account of the negative commandment of the one who has intercourse with the male, and [on account of] the negative commandment of one who has intercourse with the brother of his father - and as we said also with his father (Sefer HaChinukh 189). And in the Gemara Sanhedrin 54a, they, may their memory be blessed, said, [that] one who has intercourse with the brother of his father is liable for two, according to the words of all.

The nakedness of the wife of the brother of your father, you shall not reveal: Not to have intercourse with the wife of the brother of your father. And this one is called his aunt (dodah) in Scripture, since she is the wife of his uncle (dod), as it is stated (Leviticus 18:14), "to his wife you shall not approach, she is your aunt (dodah)." And this warning is from when she was betrothed to his uncle - meaning to say, she was designated for him - and there is no need to say, after she married him. And [this is the case] whether [it is] in the lifetime of his uncle and even after he divorced her, or whether after his death (Yevamot 97a).

The nakedness of your daughter-in-law you shall not reveal: To not have intercourse with the wife of the son, which is his wife from the betrothal - and all the more so from the marriage - whether during his lifetime and even after he divorced her, or whether after his death. In any manner [above], she is called the wife of his son and she is forbidden to him, as it is stated (Leviticus 18:15), "The nakedness of your daughter-in-law you shall not reveal." And from that which appears, the liability is even with a son that is a mamzer - he is his son regardless. But the son from a maidservant or from a gentile is not called "his son" for anything.

The nakedness of the wife of your brother you shall not reveal: To not have intercourse with the wife of your brother, as it is stated (Leviticus 18:16), "The nakedness of the wife of your brother you shall not reveal." And it is one whether it is his brother from only his father or only his mother; and whether it is from marriage or whether from licentiousness - his wife is a sexual prohibition for him, since he is called, "his brother," regardless. And from when he betrothed her, she is called, "the wife of his brother," and is forbidden - and all the more so after he marries her. And it is whether it is in the lifetime of his brother or whether after he died, that she is forbidden to him on account of "the wife of the brother." [This is] except for the wife of the brother that did not leave a child, as the Torah commanded explicitly about that, that the brother should marry her. And that is the commandment of levirate marriage, as we will explain with God's help (Sefer HaChinukh 598).

The nakedness of a woman and her daughter, you shall not reveal: To not reveal the nakedness of a woman and her mother, as it is stated (Leviticus 18:17), "The nakedness of a woman and her daughter, you shall not reveal." And the explanation came that the liability is only in such a case that he married one first; and then when he had intercourse with the second, he becomes liable. But if he did not marry one of them, he does not become liable for them. [This is] since an expression of marriage is written about them - "taking," which implies through marriage. As so is it understood to us, that the expression of taking is an expression of marriage in every place. But the Sages decreed a fence and said that if a man has adultery with a woman, it is forbidden to marry her daughter - [even] all of her seven [delineated] relatives - so long as the unfaithful woman is alive. [This is] because the unfaithful woman comes to visit them and [so] he will isolate himself with her; and [since] his heart is coarse with her, he will perhaps come to a sin.

The nakedness of a woman and the daughter of her son: To not reveal the nakedness of a woman and the daughter of her son. And we have already said that this prohibition is always with marriage to the first one (as a condition), as it is stated (Leviticus 18:17), "the daughter of her son [...] you shall not take."

To not reveal the nakedness of a woman and the daughter of her daughter : To not reveal the nakedness of a woman and the daughter of her daughter. And we have already said that this prohibition is always with marriage to the first one (as a condition), as it is stated (Leviticus 18:17), "the daughter of her daughter you shall not take." And the expression of taking is understood by us to be an expression of marriage.

The nakedness of a woman and her sister: To not have intercourse with two sisters, meaning to say that a man not marry two sisters together - and not even this one after that one - during the lifetime of the first one; and even if he divorced the first one, as it is stated (Leviticus 18:18), "And a woman upon her sister shall you not take to be a rival, to reveal her nakedness upon her during her life." The explanation is a woman and her sister together, "shall you not take to be a rival," [which] is an expression of rivalry - meaning to say that he should not make one the rival of her friend; "during her life" comes to teach that even [if] he divorced the first, he shall not marry her sister - and that is [the meaning of] the expression, "during her life," meaning to say all the time that she is alive. But after the death of one, there is no doubt that it is permitted to marry the other. And that is what the verse stated, "during her life." And likewise, if he lays in the way of licentiousness with the sister after he married the first one or designated her, is also included in the prohibition; as the Torah was concerned about the the marriage of [only] the first one.

To not have intercourse with a menstruant woman: To not have intercourse with a woman when she is menstruant, as it is stated (Leviticus 18:19), "And to a woman in menstrual impurity, you shall not approach." And the time of her menstruation continues for seven days, as it is written (Leviticus 15:19), "seven days shall she be in her menstruation." And whether she [experiences blood] once during them or gushes all seven, she is a menstruant (Niddah 73a). And the entire time that she does not immerse (in a mikveh) - even after the seven - she is [considered] a menstruant; since the verse made it dependent upon days and immersion, as it is stated with impure people (Leviticus 15:18), "and they shall wash in water." And they, may their memory be blessed, said [that it is] a constructive paradigm (binyan av) to any impure one, that he is with his impurity until he immerses (see Rabbenu Bachya on Leviticus 15:19 in the name of the Geonim). And likewise, they, may their memory be blessed, also expounded (Shabbat 64b), "'Shall she be in her menstruation' - she shall be in her menstruation until she goes into water."

That we should not give from our seed to Molekh: That we should not give some of our sons, to pass them in front of an idol that people would make during the time of the giving of the Torah, the name of which was Molekh; as it is stated (Leviticus 18:21), "And from your seed, you shall not give to pass to Molekh" - meaning some of your seed. And the warning is repeated in a different place, as it is written (Deuteronomy 18:10), "There shall not be found in you, one who passes his son or his daughter in the fire." And so would they do - the father would hand him over to the priests for the sake of the abominations (idols), similar to that which is written about fit offerings (Leviticus 15:14), "and he shall give them to the priest." And it is possible that the priests would do a waving or a presentation in front of the Molekh, and they would give him back to the father afterwards. And they would burn a big fire in front of the Molekh and the father would take his son and pass him through the flame of the fire. And so did they say in Talmud Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 7:10, "He is not liable until he gives [him] over to the priests and he takes him and passes him through. But the opinion of the rabbi, Rashi, may his memory be blessed (Rashi on Sanhedrin 64b, s.v. shragah) and Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 6:3), may his memory be blessed, is that he would not burn him, but rather the worship was to pass him through alone. And once he passed him as it was their way of passing, he is liable. And the opinion of Ramban, may his memory be blessed, (Ramban on Leviticus 18:21) is that he would pass him through the flame until his soul departs - and his proofs are in the commentary to the Pentateuch that he made.

[For a man] to not have intercourse with males: To not have intercourse with males, as it is stated (Leviticus 18:22), "And with a male you shall not lay, the layings of a woman." And Rambam, may his memory be blessed, wrote (Sefer HaMitzvot, Mitzvot Lo Taase 350), "And this negative commandment about this very matter is repeated in another place, as it is written (Deuteronomy 23:18), 'and there shall not be a kadesh from the Children of Israel.'" It appears that the rabbi, may his memory be blessed, does not agree with that which Onkelos translated (Onkelos on Deuteronomy 21:18), "and a man of the Children of Israel shall not marry a woman maidservant" - the understanding of which is a Canaanite (gentile) maidservant. Rather, his opinion is that " there shall not be a kadesh" only comes as additional negative commandments for male homosexuality, [just] as there are several [other] warnings (negative commandments) that are repeated with different words. And I have seen about Ramban, may his memory be blessed, (Ramban on Deuteronomy 21:18) that he also does not agree with the translation, but would say that the negative commandment of "there shall not be a kadesh" comes to warn that we not allow there to be among us - the holy nation - a kadesh; and that is a man who is designated to lay with men, as is known about them in the lands of the Yishmaelites to this day. And because of this, it is stated "from the Children of Israel" - since we are not warned from this with the [other] nations. As if there was a kadesh from the nations - and even amongst us - we are not warned about him; as we are not warned (commanded) about others besides us, except for idolatry alone.

And let it not be difficult to you [that], if so that we do not say like the words of the translator (Onkelos) - from which verse do we learn the negative commandment of marrying a maidservant? And lest you say, from that which it is written (Deuteronomy 7:3), "Do not get married with them" - that is not [correct], as behold, it is explained in the Gemara that this is coming [specifically] for the seven [Canaanite] nations, and about them is it written. And [it is speaking about] specifically in their conversion; as in their gentileness, the expression, "marriage," is not applicable - and as we will write with God's help in its place, in the Order of Ve'etchanan (Sefer HaChinukh 427). But it is possible to say that we learn the prohibition of a maidservant as included in the prohibition of all the nations that are not Israelites, that it is prohibited to cling to them. And [it is] like the Sages expounded (Kiddushin 68b) from that which is written (Deuteronomy 7:4), "For they will remove your son from after Me" - to include all who remove. And likewise, a Canaanite maidservant is included in those who remove, since she is not a full Israelite; as behold, there are some commandments about which she is not obligated. And those are the ones in the section of the Torah in which it is explicitly written, "Speak to the Children of Israel" (e. g. Leviticus 18:2), to exclude anyone who is not from the Children of Israel, as it is explained in the Gemara in a few places. And with this, they are included in those that remove.

To not lay with a beast: To not lay with a beast - whether the man had intercourse with the beast or brought the beast upon himself, it is all included (Sanhedrin 54b); and also included in beast is a [wild] animal - as it is stated (Leviticus 18:23), "And to any beast you shall not give your laying."

That women not lay with the beasts: That women not lay with the beasts, as it is stated (Leviticus 18:23), "and a woman shall not stand in front of a beast to mate with it." And Rambam, may his memory be blessed, wrote (Sefer HaMitzvot, Mitzvot Lo Taase 349) that this a commandment on its own in the tally of the commandments and it is not subsumed in the commandment before it. As the prohibition of the male to have intercourse with the beast and the prohibition of the woman to not bring the beast upon herself are two distinct prohibitions. And were it not for the negative commandment that came explicitly about [the women], we would not have learned this one from that one. And he brought a proof from that which they, may their memory be blessed, said in the first chapter of Keritot 2a, "There are thirty-six excisions in the Torah," and they enumerated them. And they counted among them [a man] who has intercourse with a beast as one, and the woman who brings a beast upon herself as another, even as they were [only] counting the main categories of things there.

And Rambam, may his memory be blessed, wrote (Sefer HaMitzvot, Mitzvot Lo Taase 352) that excision came from the Torah with a clear language about these sexual prohibitions that we wrote are with excision (karet, literally, cutting off). And it is like the verse stated after their enumeration (Leviticus 18:29), "For all who do from all of these abominations shall be cut off from their people." And likewise, that which we have written about them that one who transgresses them is liable for the death penalty of the court, is likewise the language of the Torah. However, the variation of the death penalty and our saying about some of them, stoning, about some of them, strangulation, and about some of them, burning - some of them are from Scripture and some are through tradition. And [with] all of the sexual prohibitions, in all of them in which one was an adult and the other a minor, the adult is liable and the child is exempt, as we said above. And likewise, if they were both adults, but one was sleeping, the one sleeping is exempt - even though it is possible that he had a little pleasure when he was still sleeping. And with all of the sexual prohibitions - and so [too,] with all of the sins that a liability of the court comes upon them - there needs to be two or more fit witnesses there, warning the transgressor and seeing him violate the transgression with their [own] eyes (see Sanhedrin 37a). And nonetheless regarding the matter of the sexual prohibitions, our Sages have instructed us (Makkot 7a) that there is no need for the witnesses to see the matter of adultery completely - meaning to say that they see the evil act like a brush in a tube. Rather, from when they see them [acting] like adulterers - meaning to say like the way of all those having intercourse - behold, they are killed with this sight. And we do not say, maybe he did not insert [himself] - as the assumption of this position is that he inserted. And they, may their memory be blessed, also said (Kiddushin 80a) about this matter that anyone who is assumed to be from the same flesh is killed according to [that] assumption - even though there is no clear proof about the relation besides the assumption alone. [This means] that people say x is the son of y or the brother of z or her father. And we lash, burn, stone and strangulate [based] on this assumption.

The second collective part is when a person commits a sin without desire for it or pleasure; but [rather] with his action, he intends to anger [God]. This is also profaning the Name of the Heavens and he is lashed. And therefore it stated (Leviticus 19:12), 'And you shall not swear falsely in My name and profane the Name of your God.' As this one displays the causation of anger with this thing, since there is no physical pleasure in it. And the part which is upon the individual is when a person who is famous for acts of kindness and good deeds commits an act which appears to the public as a sin, such that this act is unfitting for a pious person like this to do - even if it is a permissible act, he has profaned the Name. And this is [the understanding of] their, may their memory be blessed, saying (Yoma 86a), 'How is profaning the Name? [...] "Such as if I purchase meat from the butcher and do not give him money immediately." [...] Rabbi x said, "Such as if I walk four ells without tefillin and without words of Torah."' And this negative commandment is already repeated elsewhere and it is stated (Leviticus 18:21), 'and you shall not profane the Name of your God, I am the Lord.'" To here [are his words.]

The commandment of sanctification of the Name: That we were commanded to sanctify the Name, as it is stated (Leviticus 22:32), "and I will be sanctified in the midst of the Children of Israel," - meaning to say that we surrender our souls for the observance of the commandments of the religion. And they, may their memory be blessed, have already elucidated from the tradition and from the verses in which manner and for which commandment, we are commanded about this. And even though it is written in the Torah, "and live by them" (Leviticus 18:5), which implies, and not that you should die by them - they already received that this verse is not stated in every matter and for every sin. And [it is] through the tradition that we live in all [the] words of the Torah. And in explanation, they, may their memory be blessed, said (Sanhedrin 74a) that there are three commandments which one is always obligated to be killed and not transgress them. And these are: idolatry and any of its trappings - meaning, all of its matters that are prohibited on the strength of its specific negative commandments, as we will explain below with God's help; and also, sexual immorality and all of its trappings; and murder. Such that if they say to a person, "Worship idolatry or we will kill you," he should be killed and not worship. Even though his heart is pure in his faith with the fear of God, nonetheless he is commanded that he be killed and not commit this evil act, and not give room to the assailant to think that he has denied God. And the language of Sifra, Emor, Chapter 9:6, "For this reason I took you out of the Land of Egypt, so that you will publicly sanctify My name." And likewise for the other two that we mentioned - he must be killed and not transgress, as we said.

He prohibited sexual intercourse with the daughter of his father's wife, when she is is sister. And that is His saying, "The nakedness of the daughter of your father's wife who is born to your father; she is your sister, you shall not uncover her nakedness" (Leviticus 18:11). And this negative commandment comes to place the daughter of the father's wife as a separate negative commandment, such that one who has sexual intercourse with his sister from his father - from his father's spouse - is liable for two: On account of [her being] his sister; and on account of [her being] the daughter of his father's wife - as we explained. And this is their language about this: They said in the second chapter of Yevamot (Yevamot 22b), "The Sages taught, 'He who has sexual intercourse with his sister, who is the daughter of his father’s wife, is liable on account of two [sins]: On account of [her being] his sister; and on account of [her being] the daughter of his father’s wife.' Rabbi Yose ben Yehuda says, 'He is liable only on account of [her being] his sister alone.' What is the reason of the Rabbis? Since it is written (Leviticus 18:9), 'The nakedness of your sister, your father's daughter,' why do I need, 'The nakedness of the daughter of your father's wife who is born to your father?' Understand from this, [that it is] to make him liable on account of [her being] his sister and on account of [her being] the daughter of his father’s wife." And one who transgresses this negative commandment as well - meaning, the sister from the father and the mother - is [punished] with excision, only when it was volitional; But if it was inadvertent, he is liable for a fixed sin-offering.

He prohibited us from sexual intercourse with the daughter herself. But this was not explicitly made clear in the Torah; and, "the nakedness of your daughter you shall not uncover," did not appear in Scripture. However since it mentioned the daughter of the son and the daughter of the daughter, you can take it as a proof to clarify the matter and reveal it: Since He forbade the daughter of the son and the daughter of the daughter - all the more so, the daughter [herself]! And in the Gemara of Yevamot (Yevamot 3a), they said, "[With regard to] his daughter, the main aspect of this prohibition is derived by homiletical interpretation. As Rava said, 'Rav Yitzḥak bar Avdimi said to me, "[This prohibition is derived by means of a verbal analogy of the words,] theirs (hena), and they (hena); and lewdness (zimah) and lewdness (zimah)."'" [This] means to say that He said about the daughter of your son and daughter of your daughter, "for theirs (hena) is your own nakedness" (Leviticus 18:10). And He [also] said about the prohibition of a woman and her daughter and the daughter of her son and the daughter of her daughter, "they (hena) are kin; it is lewdness" (Leviticus 18:17). Just like with the prohibition of a woman and her daughter, her [actual] daughter is forbidden; so [too] with the prohibition of a daughter of his son and the daughter of his daughter, is his [actual] daughter also forbidden. And He said about the punishment of "a man who took a woman and her mother, it is lewdness; they shall be burned in fire, he and them" (Leviticus 20:14). [So] likewise is a woman and the daughter of her son and the daughter of her daughter [punished] with burning, because, "lewdness," appeared [also] about them - so we learn it from the verbal analogy [created by the common use of the word,] zimah. And regarding this punishment, the same is the law for his daughter and the daughter of his son and the daughter of his daughter. As we learn it about them from the verbal analogy [created by the common use of the word,] hena. For hena is written about the daughter of his son and the daughter of his daughter, just like it appears with a woman and her daughter. And the language of the Gemara, Keritot (Keritot 5a), is, "A verbal analogy should never be regarded lightly in your eyes, as [the prohibition of] one’s daughter is one of the essential laws of the Torah, and Scripture taught it only through a verbal analogy. It came from [the common use of] hena, and [the common use of] zimah." And understand their saying, "Scripture taught it only," and not saying, "and they (the Rabbis) taught it only" - for all of these things are a tradition from the prophet (Moshe), peace be upon him. It is an explanation that was received, as we explained at the beginning of our great composition, the Commentary of the Mishnah. However Scripture [itself] refrained from mentioning it, since it was possible to have it learned from a verbal analogy. And that is the content of their saying, "Scripture taught it only through a verbal analogy." And it is sufficient that they said, "one of the essential laws of the Torah." Behold it is explained from all that precedes that one who transgresses the negative commandment of his daughter and the daughter of his daughter and the daughter of his son is [punished] with burning. But if the testimony was not ratified, it is with excision if it was volitional. And if he was inadvertent regarding one of them, he must sacrifice a fixed sin-offering.

He prohibited us from sexual intercourse with the daughter herself. But this was not explicitly made clear in the Torah; and, "the nakedness of your daughter you shall not uncover," did not appear in Scripture. However since it mentioned the daughter of the son and the daughter of the daughter, you can take it as a proof to clarify the matter and reveal it: Since He forbade the daughter of the son and the daughter of the daughter - all the more so, the daughter [herself]! And in the Gemara of Yevamot (Yevamot 3a), they said, "[With regard to] his daughter, the main aspect of this prohibition is derived by homiletical interpretation. As Rava said, 'Rav Yitzḥak bar Avdimi said to me, "[This prohibition is derived by means of a verbal analogy of the words,] theirs (hena), and they (hena); and lewdness (zimah) and lewdness (zimah)."'" [This] means to say that He said about the daughter of your son and daughter of your daughter, "for theirs (hena) is your own nakedness" (Leviticus 18:10). And He [also] said about the prohibition of a woman and her daughter and the daughter of her son and the daughter of her daughter, "they (hena) are kin; it is lewdness" (Leviticus 18:17). Just like with the prohibition of a woman and her daughter, her [actual] daughter is forbidden; so [too] with the prohibition of a daughter of his son and the daughter of his daughter, is his [actual] daughter also forbidden. And He said about the punishment of "a man who took a woman and her mother, it is lewdness; they shall be burned in fire, he and them" (Leviticus 20:14). [So] likewise is a woman and the daughter of her son and the daughter of her daughter [punished] with burning, because, "lewdness," appeared [also] about them - so we learn it from the verbal analogy [created by the common use of the word,] zimah. And regarding this punishment, the same is the law for his daughter and the daughter of his son and the daughter of his daughter. As we learn it about them from the verbal analogy [created by the common use of the word,] hena. For hena is written about the daughter of his son and the daughter of his daughter, just like it appears with a woman and her daughter. And the language of the Gemara, Keritot (Keritot 5a), is, "A verbal analogy should never be regarded lightly in your eyes, as [the prohibition of] one’s daughter is one of the essential laws of the Torah, and Scripture taught it only through a verbal analogy. It came from [the common use of] hena, and [the common use of] zimah." And understand their saying, "Scripture taught it only," and not saying, "and they (the Rabbis) taught it only" - for all of these things are a tradition from the prophet (Moshe), peace be upon him. It is an explanation that was received, as we explained at the beginning of our great composition, the Commentary of the Mishnah. However Scripture [itself] refrained from mentioning it, since it was possible to have it learned from a verbal analogy. And that is the content of their saying, "Scripture taught it only through a verbal analogy." And it is sufficient that they said, "one of the essential laws of the Torah." Behold it is explained from all that precedes that one who transgresses the negative commandment of his daughter and the daughter of his daughter and the daughter of his son is [punished] with burning. But if the testimony was not ratified, it is with excision if it was volitional. And if he was inadvertent regarding one of them, he must sacrifice a fixed sin-offering.

He prohibited us from sexual intercourse with a married woman. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "And to the wife of your kinsman do not give your lying for seed to become unclean to her" (Leviticus 18:20). And there are distinctions about the punishment for one that transgresses this negative commandment: And that is that [in a case of] a married woman that was [just] a betrothed maiden, both of them are liable for stoning, as Scripture explained. But if she was fully married: If she was an Israelite and fully married, they are both liable for strangulation. However if she was the daughter of a priest and fully married, her law is [the punishment of] burning, and he - meaning the one who had intercourse [with her] - is [punished] with strangulation. And that is when the testimony is ratified. But if he was inadvertent, he must sacrifice a fixed sin-offering. And the prohibition about this was already repeated with His saying, "you shall not commit adultery" (Exodus 20:13) - meaning to say with this, not to have sexual intercourse with a married woman. And the language of the Mekhilta (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 20:13:2) is, "'You shall not commit adultery' - why is it stated? Since it states, 'The adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death' (Leviticus 20:10), we understand the punishment. From where [do we know] the prohibition? [Hence] we learn to say, 'You shall not commit adultery.' It is the same for the man and for the woman." And this is not like, "And to the wife of your kinsman" - for that is a prohibition that does not include an adulterer and an adulteress, but is a prohibition for the adulterer alone. And likewise with the other sexual prohibitions. It was impossible that they not derive [the prohibition] also for the woman, from His saying, "you (plural) shall not approach to uncover [their] nakedness" (Leviticus 18:6): "Behold there are two (it is plural)! To prohibit a man with a woman and a woman with a man" (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 13:1). And in the Gemara, Sanhedrin (Sanhedrin 51b), they said, "All [adulterers] were included in, 'The adulterer and the adulteress.' Scripture singled out the daughter of a priest for burning, and the betrothed maiden for stoning." And the explanation of this matter has already been discussed in the introduction to this essay.

He prohibited us from sexual intercourse with a married woman. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "And to the wife of your kinsman do not give your lying for seed to become unclean to her" (Leviticus 18:20). And there are distinctions about the punishment for one that transgresses this negative commandment: And that is that [in a case of] a married woman that was [just] a betrothed maiden, both of them are liable for stoning, as Scripture explained. But if she was fully married: If she was an Israelite and fully married, they are both liable for strangulation. However if she was the daughter of a priest and fully married, her law is [the punishment of] burning, and he - meaning the one who had intercourse [with her] - is [punished] with strangulation. And that is when the testimony is ratified. But if he was inadvertent, he must sacrifice a fixed sin-offering. And the prohibition about this was already repeated with His saying, "you shall not commit adultery" (Exodus 20:13) - meaning to say with this, not to have sexual intercourse with a married woman. And the language of the Mekhilta (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 20:13:2) is, "'You shall not commit adultery' - why is it stated? Since it states, 'The adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death' (Leviticus 20:10), we understand the punishment. From where [do we know] the prohibition? [Hence] we learn to say, 'You shall not commit adultery.' It is the same for the man and for the woman." And this is not like, "And to the wife of your kinsman" - for that is a prohibition that does not include an adulterer and an adulteress, but is a prohibition for the adulterer alone. And likewise with the other sexual prohibitions. It was impossible that they not derive [the prohibition] also for the woman, from His saying, "you (plural) shall not approach to uncover [their] nakedness" (Leviticus 18:6): "Behold there are two (it is plural)! To prohibit a man with a woman and a woman with a man" (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 13:1). And in the Gemara, Sanhedrin (Sanhedrin 51b), they said, "All [adulterers] were included in, 'The adulterer and the adulteress.' Scripture singled out the daughter of a priest for burning, and the betrothed maiden for stoning." And the explanation of this matter has already been discussed in the introduction to this essay.

He prohibited us from sexual intercourse with a male. And that is His saying, "Any you shall not lie with a male as one lies with a woman" (Leviticus 18:22). And the prohibition about this exact content has already been repeated with His saying, "and there shall not be a male prostitute from the Children of Israel" (Deuteronomy 23:18). And that is the correct approach - that this negative commandment is repeated to strengthen it; and not that it is a prohibition about the one who receives intercourse. Rather, we learn from His saying, "You shall not lie," [both] about the one who lies and the one who is lain with. And in the Gemara, Sanhedrin (Sanhedrin 54b), it is explained that it is Rabbi Yishmael that positions, "and there shall not be a male prostitute," as a prohibition for the one being lain with. Hence one who has sexual intercourse with a male and has a male have sexual intercourse with him in one forgetful spell, is liable for two [sin-offerings] according to the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael. But Rabbi Akiva says, "It is not necessary. Behold, He says, 'And you shall not lie (tishkav) with a male.' Read into it, 'You shall not be lain with (tishakhev).'" Hence one who has sexual intercourse with a male and has a male have sexual intercourse with him in one forgetful spell is only liable for one [sin-offering]. And they said about the reason for this, "You shall not lie and you shall not be lain with are the same." However, "and there shall not be a male prostitute," appears - according to my opinion - to strengthen [it]; like He said, "you shall not commit adultery" (Exodus 20:13), which is the prohibition of a married woman, as we explained, yet afterwards He said, "And to the wife of your kinsman do not give your lying for seed" (Leviticus 18:19). And there are many examples like this, as we explained in the Ninth Principle. And one who transgresses this negative commandment is liable for stoning; and if he is not stoned, he is surely [punished] with excision if he was volitional. But if he was inadvertent, he must sacrifice a fixed sin-offering.

He prohibited us from sexual intercourse with the father. And that is His saying, "The nakedness of your father [...] you shall not uncover" (Leviticus 18:7). And one who transgresses this negative commandment is also liable for stoning; such that one who has sexual intercourse with his father is liable for two [sins] - on account of laying with a male, and on account of revealing the nakedness of his father. And in the Gemara in Sanhedrin (Sanhedrin 54a), it is explained that His saying, "The nakedness of your father [...] you shall not uncover," literally [means] your father. And they asked there, "That is derived from, 'You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a woman' (Leviticus 18:22)!" And they answered, "[It is] to render him liable for two [sin-offerings]. And it is in accordance with Rav Yehudah in the name of Rav. As he said, 'A gentile who has sexual intercourse with his father is liable for two.'" And there, they explained and said, "It stands to reason that the statement of Rav Yehudah is with regard to a Jew, when inadvertent, and concerning a sacrifice. And that which he said, 'gentile' - [it is because] he chose the language of euphemism." [Hence] anyone who is inadvertent with his father is liable for two sin-offerings, as if he was inadvertent with two [separate] sexual prohibitions; whereas one who is inadvertent with a random male is only liable for one sin-offering.

He prohibited - to not have sexual intercourse with the father's brother. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "The nakedness of your father's brother you shall not uncover" (Leviticus 18:14) - such that one who is inadvertent with his father's brother is liable for two sins-offerings, as we explained with his father. And in the Gemara, Sanhedrin (Sanhedrin 54a), they said [that] everyone agrees that one who has sexual intercourse with his father's brother is liable for two [sin-offerings], as it is written, "The nakedness of your father's brother you shall not uncover." And know that my saying [earlier concerning several commandments], "the testimony has been ratified" - is that there be two or more proper witnesses there that warn him, that [the testimony] be in a proper court of twenty-three [judges], that they give their testimony about them and that this be in a time when capital punishment is practiced. And it is clear about all of these sexual prohibitions that have been mentioned above, that excision appeared about them explicitly in the Torah. And that is His saying - after listing them - "For anyone who will do any of these abominations, their souls shall be cut off, those who do these things" (Leviticus 18:29). And likewise, anything about which we mentioned that they are liable for death penalties of the court, is also written in the Torah. However the different death penalties - that we said about some of them, stoning; some of them, strangulation; and some of them, burning - some of them are a tradition and some of them are written in the Torah. And the laws of these sexual prohibitions have been explained in Tractate Sanhedrin and in Keritot. And it has already been explained in Keritot (Keritot 24b) that every sin for which one is liable for its volitional [transgression], excision; and for its inadvertent [transgression], a fixed sin-offering - one is liable for its uncertain [transgression], an uncertain guilt-offering. And the content of a fixed sin offering is that it only be from the beasts. And when you observe all of the negative commandments, one by one, and examine the punishment that is mentioned for each and every commandment, you will find that with every iniquity for which we are liable excision when volitional and a sin-offering when inadvertent - that that sin-offering is fixed, except for two sins. In each one of those, we are liable for excision when volitional, but a sin-offering which is not fixed - but rather variable - when inadvertent. And these two iniquities are the impurity of the Temple and the impurity of its consecrated items. What I mean when I say - "impurity of the Temple," is an impure person who entered the [Temple] courtyard; and "impurity of its consecrated items," is an impure person who ate a consecrated food. And it has also been made clear to you that every negative commandment for which we are liable excision when volitional, we are liable for a sin offering when inadvertent, except for one iniquity. And that is the one who blasphemes; as [although] his [punishment] is excision when volitional, it is not a sin-offering when inadvertent. And likewise has it been made clear to you that anyone who is liable for a death penalty of the court - whatever death penalty it may be - behold, that man is also [punished] with excision, when the court did not kill him or it it did not know about it - except for ten [cases in which] one is liable for a death penalty of the court, but they do not have excision [placed] upon them. And they are the inciter, the subverter, the false prophet, one who prophesies in the name of idolatry, a rebellious elder, a stubborn and rebellious son, one who steals (kidnaps) a Jewish soul, a murderer, one who hits his father and mother and one who curses his father and mother. And when the testimony for each one of these is ratified, he is killed. But if he is not killed - such that the court could not kill him or it was not known to it - behold [even though he has] made himself susceptible to a death penalty, he is not up for excision. And hold on to these principles and remember them.

He prohibited approaching one of these forbidden sexual relations - even without intercourse - such as [with] hugging and kissing, and similar such licentious acts. And that is His saying about its prohibition, "Each and every man - to any of his close kin - you shall not approach to uncover nakedness" (Leviticus 18:6) - as if to say, do not make any approach that leads to uncovering nakedness (sexual intercourse). And the language of the Sifra (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 13:15) is, "'You shall not approach to uncover nakedness' - I only know of nakedness. From where [do we know] not to approach? [Hence] we learn to say, 'To a woman, while in her menstrual impurity, you shall not approach to uncover her nakedness' (Leviticus 18:19). I only know about a menstruant, that she is [forbidden] with, do not approach and with, do not reveal. From where [do we know] about all of the sexual prohibitions, that they are [forbidden] with, do not approach and with, do not reveal? [Hence] we learn to say, 'you shall not approach to uncover.'" And there (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 13:21), they said, "'Their souls shall be cut off, those who do' (Leviticus 18:29) - what do we learn to say [from this]? Because it is stated, 'You shall not approach,' perhaps they would be liable for excision for approaching. [Hence] we learn to say, 'who do' - and not who approach." And the prohibition about these illusions was already repeated with His saying, "that you shall not do any of the abominable customs" (Leviticus 18:30). However His saying, "After the practice of the Land of Egypt in which you have lived, you shall not do; and the practice of the Land of Canaan, to which I am bringing you, you shall not do," is not only prohibiting the abominable customs - but indeed also prohibiting the actual abominations that He explained after this. And that which He brings two general negative statements about all of the prohibited sexual relations - is because when He prohibited not doing like the practice of the Land of Egypt and the practice of the Land of Canaan, this includes the lewdness, [but it also includes] the work of the land, the shepherding of animals and the settlement of the land as well. So He came back to explain that the actions that He prohibited [originally] were such and such sexual prohibitions that one should not uncover - and it is as He explained at the end of the [section], when He said, "For all of these abominations were done by the people of the land" (Leviticus 18:27). And the language of the [Sifra] (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Section 8:8) is, "Perhaps they should not build houses or plant vineyards like them. [Hence] we learn to say, 'and in their statutes (chukoteichem) you shall not walk' - only those statutes (chukim) which were instituted (chakukim) for them and for their forefathers." And there, they said, "What did they do? A man would wed a man, and a woman, a woman; and a woman would wed two men." Behold it has been made clear that these two negative commandments - being, "After the practice of the Land of Egypt [...] and the practice of the Land of Canaan [...] you shall not do" - are general commandments, being the prohibition of all of the sexual prohibitions (hence they not counted in the tally of the commandments). And afterwards, He repeated the prohibition of each sexual prohibition individually. And we ourselves have explained the regulations of these commandments in the seventh [chapter] of Sanhedrin in our great composition (Commentary on the Mishnah), and we explained that we are lashed for it. And it is from that which is fit for you to know that [in the case of] any woman for whom we would be liable excision, the [child] born from that intercourse is called a mamzer. And it is God, may He be exalted, who called him a mamzer (Deuteronomy 23:3). Whether that intercourse is volitional or whether it was inadvertent, the embryo is a mamzer - except specifically for the menstruant. One born from her is not a mamzer; however it is called the child of a menstruant. And this has already been explained in the fourth [chapter] of Yevamot. (See Parashat Achrei Mot; Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Intercourse.)

He prohibited approaching one of these forbidden sexual relations - even without intercourse - such as [with] hugging and kissing, and similar such licentious acts. And that is His saying about its prohibition, "Each and every man - to any of his close kin - you shall not approach to uncover nakedness" (Leviticus 18:6) - as if to say, do not make any approach that leads to uncovering nakedness (sexual intercourse). And the language of the Sifra (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 13:15) is, "'You shall not approach to uncover nakedness' - I only know of nakedness. From where [do we know] not to approach? [Hence] we learn to say, 'To a woman, while in her menstrual impurity, you shall not approach to uncover her nakedness' (Leviticus 18:19). I only know about a menstruant, that she is [forbidden] with, do not approach and with, do not reveal. From where [do we know] about all of the sexual prohibitions, that they are [forbidden] with, do not approach and with, do not reveal? [Hence] we learn to say, 'you shall not approach to uncover.'" And there (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 13:21), they said, "'Their souls shall be cut off, those who do' (Leviticus 18:29) - what do we learn to say [from this]? Because it is stated, 'You shall not approach,' perhaps they would be liable for excision for approaching. [Hence] we learn to say, 'who do' - and not who approach." And the prohibition about these illusions was already repeated with His saying, "that you shall not do any of the abominable customs" (Leviticus 18:30). However His saying, "After the practice of the Land of Egypt in which you have lived, you shall not do; and the practice of the Land of Canaan, to which I am bringing you, you shall not do," is not only prohibiting the abominable customs - but indeed also prohibiting the actual abominations that He explained after this. And that which He brings two general negative statements about all of the prohibited sexual relations - is because when He prohibited not doing like the practice of the Land of Egypt and the practice of the Land of Canaan, this includes the lewdness, [but it also includes] the work of the land, the shepherding of animals and the settlement of the land as well. So He came back to explain that the actions that He prohibited [originally] were such and such sexual prohibitions that one should not uncover - and it is as He explained at the end of the [section], when He said, "For all of these abominations were done by the people of the land" (Leviticus 18:27). And the language of the [Sifra] (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Section 8:8) is, "Perhaps they should not build houses or plant vineyards like them. [Hence] we learn to say, 'and in their statutes (chukoteichem) you shall not walk' - only those statutes (chukim) which were instituted (chakukim) for them and for their forefathers." And there, they said, "What did they do? A man would wed a man, and a woman, a woman; and a woman would wed two men." Behold it has been made clear that these two negative commandments - being, "After the practice of the Land of Egypt [...] and the practice of the Land of Canaan [...] you shall not do" - are general commandments, being the prohibition of all of the sexual prohibitions (hence they not counted in the tally of the commandments). And afterwards, He repeated the prohibition of each sexual prohibition individually. And we ourselves have explained the regulations of these commandments in the seventh [chapter] of Sanhedrin in our great composition (Commentary on the Mishnah), and we explained that we are lashed for it. And it is from that which is fit for you to know that [in the case of] any woman for whom we would be liable excision, the [child] born from that intercourse is called a mamzer. And it is God, may He be exalted, who called him a mamzer (Deuteronomy 23:3). Whether that intercourse is volitional or whether it was inadvertent, the embryo is a mamzer - except specifically for the menstruant. One born from her is not a mamzer; however it is called the child of a menstruant. And this has already been explained in the fourth [chapter] of Yevamot. (See Parashat Achrei Mot; Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Intercourse.)

He prohibited approaching one of these forbidden sexual relations - even without intercourse - such as [with] hugging and kissing, and similar such licentious acts. And that is His saying about its prohibition, "Each and every man - to any of his close kin - you shall not approach to uncover nakedness" (Leviticus 18:6) - as if to say, do not make any approach that leads to uncovering nakedness (sexual intercourse). And the language of the Sifra (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 13:15) is, "'You shall not approach to uncover nakedness' - I only know of nakedness. From where [do we know] not to approach? [Hence] we learn to say, 'To a woman, while in her menstrual impurity, you shall not approach to uncover her nakedness' (Leviticus 18:19). I only know about a menstruant, that she is [forbidden] with, do not approach and with, do not reveal. From where [do we know] about all of the sexual prohibitions, that they are [forbidden] with, do not approach and with, do not reveal? [Hence] we learn to say, 'you shall not approach to uncover.'" And there (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 13:21), they said, "'Their souls shall be cut off, those who do' (Leviticus 18:29) - what do we learn to say [from this]? Because it is stated, 'You shall not approach,' perhaps they would be liable for excision for approaching. [Hence] we learn to say, 'who do' - and not who approach." And the prohibition about these illusions was already repeated with His saying, "that you shall not do any of the abominable customs" (Leviticus 18:30). However His saying, "After the practice of the Land of Egypt in which you have lived, you shall not do; and the practice of the Land of Canaan, to which I am bringing you, you shall not do," is not only prohibiting the abominable customs - but indeed also prohibiting the actual abominations that He explained after this. And that which He brings two general negative statements about all of the prohibited sexual relations - is because when He prohibited not doing like the practice of the Land of Egypt and the practice of the Land of Canaan, this includes the lewdness, [but it also includes] the work of the land, the shepherding of animals and the settlement of the land as well. So He came back to explain that the actions that He prohibited [originally] were such and such sexual prohibitions that one should not uncover - and it is as He explained at the end of the [section], when He said, "For all of these abominations were done by the people of the land" (Leviticus 18:27). And the language of the [Sifra] (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Section 8:8) is, "Perhaps they should not build houses or plant vineyards like them. [Hence] we learn to say, 'and in their statutes (chukoteichem) you shall not walk' - only those statutes (chukim) which were instituted (chakukim) for them and for their forefathers." And there, they said, "What did they do? A man would wed a man, and a woman, a woman; and a woman would wed two men." Behold it has been made clear that these two negative commandments - being, "After the practice of the Land of Egypt [...] and the practice of the Land of Canaan [...] you shall not do" - are general commandments, being the prohibition of all of the sexual prohibitions (hence they not counted in the tally of the commandments). And afterwards, He repeated the prohibition of each sexual prohibition individually. And we ourselves have explained the regulations of these commandments in the seventh [chapter] of Sanhedrin in our great composition (Commentary on the Mishnah), and we explained that we are lashed for it. And it is from that which is fit for you to know that [in the case of] any woman for whom we would be liable excision, the [child] born from that intercourse is called a mamzer. And it is God, may He be exalted, who called him a mamzer (Deuteronomy 23:3). Whether that intercourse is volitional or whether it was inadvertent, the embryo is a mamzer - except specifically for the menstruant. One born from her is not a mamzer; however it is called the child of a menstruant. And this has already been explained in the fourth [chapter] of Yevamot. (See Parashat Achrei Mot; Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Intercourse.)

He prohibited approaching one of these forbidden sexual relations - even without intercourse - such as [with] hugging and kissing, and similar such licentious acts. And that is His saying about its prohibition, "Each and every man - to any of his close kin - you shall not approach to uncover nakedness" (Leviticus 18:6) - as if to say, do not make any approach that leads to uncovering nakedness (sexual intercourse). And the language of the Sifra (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 13:15) is, "'You shall not approach to uncover nakedness' - I only know of nakedness. From where [do we know] not to approach? [Hence] we learn to say, 'To a woman, while in her menstrual impurity, you shall not approach to uncover her nakedness' (Leviticus 18:19). I only know about a menstruant, that she is [forbidden] with, do not approach and with, do not reveal. From where [do we know] about all of the sexual prohibitions, that they are [forbidden] with, do not approach and with, do not reveal? [Hence] we learn to say, 'you shall not approach to uncover.'" And there (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 13:21), they said, "'Their souls shall be cut off, those who do' (Leviticus 18:29) - what do we learn to say [from this]? Because it is stated, 'You shall not approach,' perhaps they would be liable for excision for approaching. [Hence] we learn to say, 'who do' - and not who approach." And the prohibition about these illusions was already repeated with His saying, "that you shall not do any of the abominable customs" (Leviticus 18:30). However His saying, "After the practice of the Land of Egypt in which you have lived, you shall not do; and the practice of the Land of Canaan, to which I am bringing you, you shall not do," is not only prohibiting the abominable customs - but indeed also prohibiting the actual abominations that He explained after this. And that which He brings two general negative statements about all of the prohibited sexual relations - is because when He prohibited not doing like the practice of the Land of Egypt and the practice of the Land of Canaan, this includes the lewdness, [but it also includes] the work of the land, the shepherding of animals and the settlement of the land as well. So He came back to explain that the actions that He prohibited [originally] were such and such sexual prohibitions that one should not uncover - and it is as He explained at the end of the [section], when He said, "For all of these abominations were done by the people of the land" (Leviticus 18:27). And the language of the [Sifra] (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Section 8:8) is, "Perhaps they should not build houses or plant vineyards like them. [Hence] we learn to say, 'and in their statutes (chukoteichem) you shall not walk' - only those statutes (chukim) which were instituted (chakukim) for them and for their forefathers." And there, they said, "What did they do? A man would wed a man, and a woman, a woman; and a woman would wed two men." Behold it has been made clear that these two negative commandments - being, "After the practice of the Land of Egypt [...] and the practice of the Land of Canaan [...] you shall not do" - are general commandments, being the prohibition of all of the sexual prohibitions (hence they not counted in the tally of the commandments). And afterwards, He repeated the prohibition of each sexual prohibition individually. And we ourselves have explained the regulations of these commandments in the seventh [chapter] of Sanhedrin in our great composition (Commentary on the Mishnah), and we explained that we are lashed for it. And it is from that which is fit for you to know that [in the case of] any woman for whom we would be liable excision, the [child] born from that intercourse is called a mamzer. And it is God, may He be exalted, who called him a mamzer (Deuteronomy 23:3). Whether that intercourse is volitional or whether it was inadvertent, the embryo is a mamzer - except specifically for the menstruant. One born from her is not a mamzer; however it is called the child of a menstruant. And this has already been explained in the fourth [chapter] of Yevamot. (See Parashat Achrei Mot; Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Intercourse.)

“The order of the reading of the Torah and of circumcision on Yom Kippur” - Containing six paragraphs.
We take out (from the ark) two Torah scrolls.¹⁶⁸Two Torah scrolls are taken out on the festivals because portions from two separate sections of the Torah are read. The Torahs can be set before hand so that they can be opened to the correct portion without the necessity of rolling the scroll from one portion to the next. In the first Torah six men read from the portion “אחרי מות”, (Leviticus 16:1-18:30) until “and he did as the Lord commanded (Moses)”, (Leviticus 16:34). But if (Yom Kippur) falls on Shabbat, seven (men read from the first Torah), and the Maftir¹⁶⁹Maftir, מפטיר, means literally "one who concludes". It is the name given to the man who is the last to read in the Torah and he also usually reads the haftarah (see footnote 170), the section of the prophets that corresponds to the Torah reading. Maftir is also the name given to the three or more concluding verses of the regular weekly Torah portion as well as to the final verses read on festivals and public fast days.
Editorial Staff, E. J., v. 11, p. 685. (the last reader) reads from the second (Torah scroll) from the portion, Pinḥas, (Numbers 25:10-30:1), the section “and you shall have on the tenth day of this seventh month”, (Numbers 29:7-11). The Maftir (the Haftarah section from the Prophets¹⁷⁰The Haftarah, הפטרה, is a portion from the Prophets section of the Bible read after the Torah is read on Sabbaths, festivals, and fast days. On Sabbaths and festivals the haftarah is read during the Morning, Shaḥarit Service (see footnote 17), but on fast days it is read only during the Afternoon, Minḥah Service (see footnote 40). The exception to this is Yom Kippur and Tishah be-Av (see footnote 102) where there is a haftarah after the Torah reading in both the Morning and the Afternoon Service.
The Torah in its regular portions is read straight through during the year but such is not the case on festivals and some special Sabbaths. The haftarot are selected in parts from both the Former and Latter Prophets. Only two prophetic books are read in their entirety as haftarot, the Book of Obadiah which has only twenty-one verses and is read after the Torah portion Va-Yishlaḥ (Genesis 32:4-36-43) according to the Sephardi rite, and the Book of Jonah which is the haftarah for the Minḥah Service on Yom Kippur (see the Shulḥan Arukh, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 622:2).
Haftarot were usually selected so there would be some similarity in content between the Pentateuchal and the Prophetic portions, but often this did not happen and haftarot were chosen because of historical events or because of some special date. Special haftarot are read on special Sabbaths and the haftarah for each festival is based on the nature of the festival.
When the custom of reading the haftarah got started is not known for sure, but it is thought that it began during the persecutions of the Antiochus Epiphanes which preceded the Hasmonean revolt. The Torah was not permitted to be read by the Jews during the persecution for it was felt that the reading of it kept the Jews together and gave them a special strength. As a substitute for the Torah reading, sections form the Prophets were chosen that would remind the Jews of the corresponding Torah portion. Appearantly when the ban against reading the Torah was lifted, the practice of reading the haftarah continued. The first mention of the practice of the reading of the haftarah is found in the New Testament. Acts 13:15 states, "after the reading of the law and the prophets". Haftarot are also discussed in the Talmud as to which are to be read at specific times and festivals. In Mishnaic times different communities read different haftarot, and a set order was probably not established until talmudic times. Some haftarot today differ from those recorded in the Talmud, and there are differences in the Sephardi and Ashkenazi rites.
The maftir, the one who reads the haftarah also reads the last part of the weekly portion, (i.e., the Torah reader reads it for him). On the Sabbath, after the seventh reader from the Torah, the maftir usually rereads the last three verses of the weekly portion. On festivals and the four special Sabbaths, the maftir reads the special section from the second scroll which is usually a short description of of the festival found in the Torah. Before the haftarah is read (or chanted) the maftir precedes the haftarah with two blessings and after he ends the haftarah he recites three blessings to which a fourth one is added on Sabbaths and festivals. This fourth blessing changes with the nature of the day. The Sabbath haftarah usually has a minimum of twenty-one verses while the festival has at least fifteen verses. Lately it has become the custom for the Bar Mitzvah boy (a man upon reaching the age of thirteen) to chant the haftarah to display his ability with a Hebrew text.
Louis Isaac Rabinowitz, E. J., v. 16, pp. 1342-44.) comes from Isaiah, “and shall say, cast you up, cast you up, prepare the way” until “for the mouth of the Lord has spoken it”, (Isaiah 57:14-58:14).

We take out the Torah scroll and three (men) read from the portion “עריות” (Incest), (Leviticus 18:1-21) until the end of the portion and the third (man reads) the Maftir (Haftarah) from the Book of Jonah¹⁹⁵Maftir, מפטיר, and Haftarah, הפטרה; see footnotes 169 and 170. and concludes with, “who is a God like You etc.,” (Micah 7:18-20) and he says the blessings before and after (the Haftarah), and if (Yom Kippur) falls on Shabbat he mentions in (the blessings of the Haftarah) the Sabbath and he concludes with the blessing of the Sabbath.¹⁹⁶The blessing that comes after the Haftarah on the Sabbath mentions the fact that it is the Sabbath day with the words "shel ha-Shabbat", "of the Sabbath".
Hagah: But he does not say (the part of the blessing that states) “for the Torah and for the Service, etc.¹⁹⁷These words are included in the prayers normally said on the Sabbath in the blessings after the Haftarah but during the Minḥah (see footnote 40) Service on Yom Kippur they are omitted.” during the Afternoon Service, (הגמ״יי סוף הלכות י״כ ומהרי״ל ומנהגים והגהות מרדכי).¹⁹⁸Hagahot Maimuniyyot, the end of the Laws of Yom Kippur, and Maharil, and Minhagim and Hagahot Mordekhai, הגמ״יי סוף הלכות י״כ ומהרי״ל ומנהגים והגהות מרדכי.
For Hagahot Maimuniyyot, הגהות מיימוני; see footnote 27.
For Maharil, מהרי״ל; see footnote 8.
For Minhagim, מנהגים; see footnote 13.
Hagahot Mordekhai, הגהות מרדכי, is a collection of notes and commentaries on Mordekhai written by Samuel Sohlettstadt in 1376 which was a result of the popularity of the Mordekhai in Europe in the fourteenth century (see footnote 24).
Samuel ben Aaron Schlettstadt was an Alsatian rabbi who lived in the second half of the fourteenth century. He was the head of the yeshivah in his home town of Schlettstadt. Little is known of his life other than the fact that he apparently had to hide for a number of years due to the revenge caused by his sentencing to death two conspirators who were working for the knights of Andlau. One of the conspirators was killed and the other fled and apostatized. It seems as if a number of Jews were involved in the affair for financial gain and Samuel eventually made his way to Babylonia where he obtained deeds of excommunication (see footnote 29) from the nesi'im, the heads of the academies, against those who were involved in the affair.
Samuel's best known work, Hagahot Mordekhai is also referred to as Ha-Mordekhai ha-Katan, Ha-Mordekhai ha-Kaẓer, and Kiẓẓur Mordekhai. It is an abridgment of the Mordekhai by Mordecai b. Hillel (see footnote 24). It seems as if the work had an independent value apart from the major work upon which it was based. It was mentioned in numerous halakhic works by such scholars as Isserlein (see footnote 96), Weil (see footnote 27), Moellin (see footnote 8), and Landau (see footnote 223).
Samuel added notes containing rulings and additions from the work of various posekim, halakhic decision makers, to the Mordekhai, and the notes have appeared as an appendix to the major work since the edition published in 1559 of Riva di Trento.
Shlomoh Zalman Havlin, E. J., v. 14, pp. 974-75.