레위기 19:39의 주석

You shall be holy etc - Holiness is an expression of separation and an expression of belonging and invitation, that is, the Holy One of Blessing warns Israel that they will be separated from all things that carry idolatry, and are invited and belong to the service to the Blessed One.

You shall be holy. As I heard that in the parasha Kedoshim it opens with "you shall be holy" [also an explanation that it is a reassurance that they will be holy in everything that is written in the parsha] that is impossible for a person to do all the mitzvot written in the parsha if one is not holding oneself in holiness in what is written beforehand. And he said, as example, that "love your neighbor as yourself" is impossible to do, what can one do if in one's heart one hates the fellow nonetheless, or maybe just does not love the fellow, and all the exertions of one's heart will definitely not help if beforehand one has not reached the level of holiness.

"You should be holy because I Hashem your G-d am holy:" To explain this, this is similar to what our sages say that if there's is a letter that's used as a prefix to G-d's name that it can be erased, but if it's used as a suffix it can't be erased like the name Elokiechem because the letters are sanctified with the Name in the front. This hinted in the Torah as it says "you should cleave to Hashem your G-d" and "You should cleave to Hashem." What this means it that you should cleave to Hashem via mitzvot and good deeds. Our sages are alluding that even though one achieved devikut to Hashem that they have not reached the higher level and always stand in front of Hashem because a person like this can fall all the way down, chas veshalom. The real path is that a person shouldn't considered himself important at all. Even if they reached the highest level, they should think nothing of themselves like Avraham Avinu who said "I am but dust and ashe." and like King David "I have drawn my heart to do your mitzot and I will always still be a heel." What that means is even though I drew my heart to do miztvot and I reached the highest level, I am still a heel, the lowliest of people. This is also what it means when it says "I have not gone to do things which are greater than me and more wonderous than me." This what our sages mean when they say that a "prefix" which means secondary in Hebrew [in front and in the beginning of the word] what this means that he thinks that he is secondary and is attached and is always in front of Hashem he can fall [be erased]. But anything that is a suffix to Hashem, that he is lowly and humble and follows after Hashem, this kind of person will not be erased and will merit to cleave to Hashem. This is the meaning of the verse that "you should walk behind Hashem and cleave to Him"... and this is what the Torah means when it says "you shall be holy" if you're able to estimate yourself as being like the verse continues "I am Hashem your G-d is holy" when you consider yourself attached to Hashem behind, like -leichem, you should be holy. The Gemera says that in food if there's a primary part and a secondary part and that you should make a blessing on the primary part. What this means is make a bracha on the major part of Hashem's name and through this you'll elevate the first part of the Name. This is explains the story in the Gemara where R Chanina ben Doysa prayed for rain and R Yochanan Zachai confirmed why his prayers were answered. He said that [to R Chaina ben Doysa] "you're like a servant to behind" and I'm "like a minister in front of Hashem."

דבר אל כל עדת בני ישראל SPEAK UNTO ALL THE CONGREGATION OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL — This (the addition of the words כל עדת) teaches us that this section was proclaimed in full assembly because most of the fundamental teachings of the Torah are dependent on it (contained in it) (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 1 1; Vayikra Rabbah 24:5).

SPEAK UNTO ALL THE CONGREGATION OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL. Our Rabbis have already said¹Torath Kohanim at beginning of Seder Kedoshim. Quoted also in Rashi. that this section was addressed to the full assembly [of all Israel] because most of the fundamental principles of the Torah are dependent on it,²Mizrachi on Rashi offers two explanations of this text: (a) Since the laws of this chapter are so fundamental, it was necessary for all the congregation to be present, so that if a doubt arises in anyone’s mind as to precisely what Moses said, the other people can easily clarify it to him, which would not have been the case if the laws of this section were not declared to the full assembly. (b) Since these laws are so fundamental, men, women, and children were all present when Moses addressed them, whereas in the other sections of the Torah only the elders and the men were present. this being the reason for the expression, speak unto all the congregation of the children of Israel. This section, however, was mentioned here in [the book of] Torath Kohanim³Literally: “the Law of the Priests,” which is another name for the Book of Vayikra, or Leviticus. In other words, since the laws of this section are so fundamental to the entire congregation of Israel, why were they placed in the book which is essentially devoted to the laws of the priests and the offerings? The answer follows in the text. because it contains laws concerning the thanks-offering,⁴The Tur, quoting the language of Ramban, writes: “peace-offerings.” That is correct, since the following verses [5-8] refer only to the peace-offerings, and not the thanks-offering. There are important differences between them. A thanks-offering may be eaten only on the same day that it was slaughtered until midnight, whilst a peace-offering could be eaten for two days and the intervening night. Therefore Verses 6 and 7, speaking of permission to eat the offering for two days, could not possibly refer to the thanks-offering. and also because it states the punishments⁵Further, Chapter 20. He commanded us to execute on those who do the abominable deeds mentioned [in the preceding sections], as well as [those for] the forbidden sexual relationships. These subjects have been included in this book [of Torath Kohanim] for the reason that we have written at the beginning of this book.⁶See Ramban’s introduction to this book where he writes: “As a result of mentioning these laws, He warned afterwards about forbidden sexual relationships etc.”

דבר אל כל עדת...קדושים תהיו; after the presence of G’d had manifested itself among the Jewish people, sanctifying them for eternal life, as had been the meaning of the verse in Exodus 19,6 “you shall become for Me a nation of priests a holy nation,” and taking into consideration G’d’s statement in Leviticus 11,45 “I have led you out of the land of Egypt in order to be your G’d and your becoming holy,” G’d had in the meantime separated the Jewish people from impurity through the legislation concerning forbidden foods, skin eczemas, ritual impurity contracted through cohabitation with menstruant women, or women afflicted with excretions from their vaginas at times other than when they were experiencing menstruation.
G’d had also elaborated on other ritual contaminations contracted through sinful contact. The objective of all these parts of Torah legislation was to establish a nation that could be described as “holy,” not least of it the legislation concerning incest.
At this point, i.e. after achieving this “holiness,” i.e. emulating the Creator’s holiness in the maximum manner possible for creatures, the Torah spells out this objective by saying כי קדוש אני, “For I the Lord am holy;” the message is that the original intention in creating man in the image of G’d (Genesis 1,26) had already had as its declared goal for this “image” to become something constant. The Torah now proceeds to list laws which appeared on the first of the Two Tablets, whose objective it is to ensure enduring life for the Jewish people as we explained on Exodus 20,11.

אל כל עדת בני ישראל, "to the whole community of the children of Israel." Torat Kohanim explains why the Torah writes the words "to all." Seeing that most of the important commandments of the Torah are contained in this portion Moses addressed them to the whole nation as outlined in Eyruvin 54. Rabbi Eliyahu Mizrachi describes the logistics of this [seeing they did not have a public address system in those days, Ed.] as distinctly different from other occasions when Moses revealed legislation. Whereas usually the people approached Moses in group after group- "a group" meaning a בית אב,- in this instance they all approached simultaneously. This is very difficult. If the Rabbi meant that whereas usually the elders came to Moses first to be followed by the people at large in groups, Moses would have had to repeat the same lecture more than 65 times. According to the Baraitha in Eyruvin 54 Moses taught the same legislation only four times. The Talmud there describes that by the time Moses taught the legislation to the people at large, Aaron had heard it four times, etc. If Rabbi Mizrachi meant by the words "group after group," that Aaron was one group, Nadav and Avihu a second group, and the elders a third group, whereas in this instance the Israelites, the elders, Nadav and Avihu and Aaron all came at the same time, the question is why Moses used a different system when he taught all the other commandments. Why did Moses not teach all of the people these commandments 4 times? Surely if the other commandments warranted that Aaron would hear them 4 times, in this instance it was warranted that all the people hear these commandments 4 times! It would be better if they heard it each time from Moses directly than just once, and the other times only from people who themselves had heard it only from Moses. I believe there are one of two possible reasons for the manner in which Moses normally taught the Torah precepts G'd had revealed to him. 1) He wanted to accord honour to the different levels of spiritual achievements attained by his respective listeners. Accordingly, he would first honour Aaron, then his sons, followed by the elders, and finally the people at large. 2) He wanted to ensure true transmission of his words. Seeing that he taught each group of people separately, when they in turn discussed what they had learned they would be able to compare if each one remembered exactly the same. If the entire people had learned the same lesson from Moses four times in a row, there would not have been any way to compare any discrepancies due to someone's faulty memory. This is something that the listener would be well aware of. It would therefore have been better to follow the pattern of teaching the legislation separately to different groups at different times in this portion also. Why would Moses deprive Aaron of his privileged status when teaching this legislation, or, why would he deprive everyone of the chance to double-check if he heard and remembered correctly? The more important the legislation, the more important that there should be unanimity about exactly what the legislation consisted of! On the other hand, if it was appropriate to teach these commandments to all the people at the same time, why was it not appropriate to have done so with the commandments Moses revealed prior to this occasion? It appears, at least when we look at this superficially, that the Torah's departure from its norm in this case represented a change for the worse!

קדושים תהיו, seeing that most commandments are designed to sanctify you and to be observed by you.

קדושים תהיו, ”you shall be holy;” Our sages in Torat Kohanim state that this was one of the portions of the Torah which was read out in public once every seven years on Sukkot on the occasion of “hakhel,” the public reading of the Torah by the King before the assembled nation, men women and children (compare Deuteronomy 31,10, the penultimate of the 613 commandments). The reason was that it contains so many of the basic laws of the Torah, such as the laws about offering personal voluntary peace-offerings, the penalty for disregarding the laws abut incest and sexual mores. We must understand that holiness can only develop as a result of abstaining from all the items that the Torah has described as an abomination in the eyes of Hashem. Nachmanides writes that he has examined the wording in his edition of the Torat Kohanim, and has not found anything spelled out there about being especially פרוש, i.e. keeping one’s distance from the subject covered by sexual mores, but that we are to be generally פרושים, discreet, and discriminating in our conduct, as a result of which holiness will develop. [My edition of the Torat Kohanim, printed in Torah Shleymah bears out what Nachmanides writes. Ed.] G’d is quoted as saying: “just as I keep apart (from contact with what is unbecoming, so shall you keep yourself apart from contact with matters that are unbecoming for you.” It follows that the subject of פרישות includes abstaining and keeping one’s distance from all the subject matter mentioned in the Talmud as subject to such warnings by our sages. Nachmanides uses as an example the fact that whereas on the one hand, the Torah has permitted sexual intercourse, it imposed limitations with whom such sexual intercourse may be indulged in, similarly, it has also permitted the eating of foods which are palatable and non poisonous, but has imposed limitations in forbidding Jews foods which gentiles clearly enjoy without apparent harmful effects. Holiness, if aspired to, is therefore possible by imposing upon oneself restrictions and not considering everything that has not been expressly forbidden as permitted, but to train oneself to be moderate in enjoying the material attractions the world has to offer. These attractions may be enjoyed when they are intended to make the performance of a commandment more meaningful both esthetically and artistically, for instance. A person intent on attaining a level of holiness would not seek out such attractions for their own sake. [When someone loves silver trinkets and collects them, this does not further his path to attaining holiness, although he did not do something forbidden. If, however, he indulges his whim by buying beautiful ethrog boxes, mezuzah housings, kiddush cups, etc., then he may at one and the same time indulge his sense of what is esthetically beautiful, and come closer to attaining degree of holiness. Our sages, in limiting the frequency of marital relations with one’s wife even, suggested that a Torah scholar limit himself to such marital intercourse once a week, while an ordinary uneducated worker is allowed to indulge in such activity more often. (Compare Chagigah 18, Berachot, 22 and other places in the Talmud) Nachmanides points out that it is possible not to violate a single one of the 613 commandments in the Torah and still not only to remain far from “holy,” but to continue to be a gross and uncouth individual, eating to excess, drinking to excess, indulging in legally permitted sex at every opportunity, etc. If the ideal of a Torah personality could be the result of merely not violating any of the 613 commandments, Moses would not have had to write in Deut. 6,18 ועשית הישר והטוב בעיני ה', “do what is fair and good in the eyes of Hashem.” In halachic parlance, our approach to life should be to act לפנים משורת הדין, “to stay well within what is allowable legally.” The meaning of the dictate in our verse therefore is:

During an assembly. You might ask: Moshe taught the whole Torah to Israel as Rashi says in parshas Ki Sisa. The answer is: This parshah was said to them in an assembly of women and children [too] as it is written, “the entire congregation [of] Bnei Yisroel,” and [also] as it is written in parshas Vayeilech (Devarim 31:12), “Assemble the people — the men and the women and the infants.” But [generally], Moshe taught the men only. Another answer is: Moshe [generally] taught them in groups, one after the other, but this parshah was in the assembly of all Israel. The difference [of teaching in this manner] was that no one could say, “I do not accept this mitzvah because I have questions against it, and the reason I did not ask Moshe immediately is because not all Israel were present there.” Therefore, [here] all Israel were together so that no one could say this. [See Re’m]

קדושים תהיו, “you shall strive to attain holiness.” The meaning of this verse is made clear in verse four where the Torah adds that “you must not turn to idols, etc;” even if the purpose of your preoccupation with idols is to understand why they are completely useless, so that you think that what you do is לשם שמים, “for the sake of heaven,” do not do so! Seeing that only the Lord is holy, there would be no point in studying other nations’ ideologies.

דבר אל כל עדת בני ישראל, “speak to the entire congregation of the Children of Israel;” This verse teaches that this legislation was revealed to the whole people while they were all assembled. What is the reason for this? Because so many laws are contained in it that address all the people in their daily lives. Our author enumerates a synopsis of all these laws contained in the 37 verses of this chapter showing how even the Ten Commandments were repeated here also.

קדשים תהיו YE SHALL BE HOLY — This means, keep aloof from the forbidden sexual relations just mentioned and from sinful thoughts. [It is evident that this is the meaning of קדשים תהיו because] wherever you find in the Torah a command to fence yourself in against such relations you also find mention of “holiness". Examples are: (Leviticus 21:7) “[They shall not take] a wife that is a harlot, or a profane etc.", and in the next verse "for I, the Lord, who sanctifieth you, [am holy]"; (Leviticus 21:15) “Neither shall he profane his seed (by the forbidden unions mentioned in the preceding verses) for I the Lord do sanctify him"; (Leviticus 21:6) "They shall be holy… followed by (v. 7) "[they shall not take] a wife that is a harlot or a profane" (cf. Vayikra Rabbah 24:4-6).

כי קדוש אני ה' אלוקיכם, “for I, the Lord your G’d am holy.” Naturally, G’d did not expect that we, the creatures, become like He, the Creator. But, He hopes and expects that we will try and emulate as many of His characteristics as it is possible for us to emulate, seeing we are only creatures. By doing this we can achieve דבקות, a measure of close attachment to the Divine, something the Torah encouraged us to do on several occasions (compare Deut. 10,20; 11,22; 30,20) In a way, this was the message of G’d revealing Himself to us in the first of the Ten Commandments.

From sexual crimes. Because [one may have thought that] holiness is only discernable in Jews when they are separate and apart from the nations, through acts like tzitzis, etc., and tefillin and [by keeping] other positive commandments. But separation is not discernable by keeping negative commandments. And he explains: “Separate yourselves etc.,” meaning that this [command] applies even to sexual prohibitions mentioned above. When Rashi says “from transgression,” he also means the transgression of sexual prohibitions.

I believe that the solution to our problem is that up until now Moses had not taught the commandments directly to the women but had spoken only to the men even when he addressed the people at large. In this instance G'd ordered Moses to speak directly also to the women and even to the children. They were to line up just as they had lined up at the revelation at Mount Sinai. We will offer an alternate solution shortly.

YE SHALL BE HOLY. “Abstain from the forbidden sexual relationships [mentioned in the preceding section] and from [other] sin,⁷So explained in Gur Aryeh on Rashi. because wherever you find [in the Torah] a warning to guard against immorality, you find the mention of ‘holiness.’” This is Rashi’s language. But in the Torath Kohanim I have seen it mentioned without any qualification [i.e., without any particular reference to immorality, as Rashi expressed it], saying:⁸Torath Kohanim, at beginning of Seder Kedoshim. “Be self-restraining.” Similarly, the Rabbis taught there:⁹Ibid., Shemini 12:4. “And ye shall sanctify yourselves, and be ye holy, for I am Holy.¹⁰Above, 11:44. Just as I am Holy, so be you holy. Just as I am Pure, so be you pure.” And in my opinion, this abstinence does not refer only to restraint from acts of immorality, as the Rabbi [Rashi] wrote, but it is rather the self-control mentioned throughout the Talmud, which confers upon those who practice it the name of P’rushim (Pharisees), [literally: “those who are separated” from self-indulgence, as will be explained, or those who practice self-restraint]. The meaning thereof is as follows: The Torah has admonished us against immorality and forbidden foods, but permitted sexual intercourse between man and his wife, and the eating of [certain] meat and wine. If so, a man of desire could consider this to be a permission to be passionately addicted to sexual intercourse with his wife or many wives, and be among winebibbers, among gluttonous eaters of flesh,¹¹Proverbs 23:20 and speak freely all profanities, since this prohibition has not been [expressly] mentioned in the Torah, and thus he will become a sordid person within the permissible realm of the Torah! Therefore, after having listed the matters which He prohibited altogether, Scripture followed them up by a general command that we practice moderation even in matters which are permitted, [such as in the following]: One should minimize sexual intercourse, similar to that which the Rabbis have said,¹²Berachoth 22 a. “So that the disciples of the Sages should not be found together with their wives as often as the hens,” and he should not engage in it except as required in fulfillment of the commandment thereof. He should also sanctify himself [to self-restraint] by using wine in small amounts, just as Scripture calls a Nazirite “holy” [for abstaining from wine and strong drink],¹³Numbers 6:8. and he should remember the evils which the Torah mentioned as following from [drinking wine] in the cases of Noah¹⁴Genesis 9:21. and Lot.¹⁵Ibid., 19:33. Similarly, he should keep himself away from impurity [in his ordinary daily activity], even though we have not been admonished against it in the Torah, similar to that which the Rabbis have said:¹⁶Chagigah 18 b. “For the P’rushim (Pharisees), the clothes of the unlearned are considered as if trodden upon by a zav” [or zavah — a man or woman having suffered a flux], and just as the Nazirite is called “holy” because of guarding himself from the impurity of the dead.¹⁷Numbers 6:6-7. Likewise he should guard his mouth and tongue from being defiled by excessive food and by lewd talk, similar to what Scripture states, and every mouth speaketh wantonness,¹⁸Isaiah 9:16. and he should purify himself in this respect until he reaches the degree known as [complete] “self-restraint,” as the Rabbis said concerning Rabbi Chiya,¹⁹See my Hebrew commentary p. 116, for different personalities to whom this character trait has been ascribed in Rabbinic sources. I have not found a clear source for Ramban’s version here. that never in his life did he engage in unnecessary talk. It is with reference to these and similar matters that this general commandment [Ye shall be holy] is concerned, after He had enumerated all individual deeds which are strictly forbidden, so that cleanliness of hands and body, are also included in this precept, just like the Rabbis have said:²⁰Berachoth 53 b. “And ye shall sanctify yourselves.¹⁰Above, 11:44. This refers to the washing of hands before meals. And be ye holy.¹⁰Above, 11:44. This refers to the washing of hands after meals [before the reciting of grace]. For I am holy — this alludes to the spiced oil” [with which they used to rub their hands after a meal]. For although these [washings and perfuming of the hands] are commandments of Rabbinic origin, yet Scripture’s main intention is to warn us of such matters, that we should be [physically] clean and [ritually] pure, and separated from the common people who soil themselves with luxuries and unseemly things. And such is the way of the Torah, that after it lists certain specific prohibitions, it includes them all in a general precept. Thus after warning with detailed laws regarding all business dealings between people, such as not to steal or rob or to wrong²¹Further, 25:17. one another, and other similar prohibitions, He said in general, And thou shalt do that which is right and good,²²Deuteronomy 6:18. thus including under a positive commandment the duty of doing that which is right and of agreeing to a compromise [when not to do so would be inequitable]; as well as all requirements to act “beyond” the line of justice [i.e., to be generous in not insisting upon one’s rights as defined by the strict letter of the law, but to agree to act “beyond” that line of the strict law] for the sake of pleasing one’s fellowman, as I will explain when I reach there [that verse], with the will of the Holy One, blessed be He. Similarly in the case of the Sabbath, He prohibited doing certain classes of work by means of a negative commandment,²³Exodus 20:10. and painstaking labors [not categorized as “work,” such as transferring heavy loads in one’s yard from one place to another, etc.] He included under a general positive commandment, as it is said, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest.²⁴Ibid., 23:12. I will yet explain this²⁵See further, 23:24. with the help of G-d.

ואמדת אליהם, "and say to them." According to Vayikra Rabbah 24, the reason we find both the harsh דבר and the softer ואמרת is that seeing this portion contains so much basic legislation G'd wanted it presented in a manner similar to the revelation at Mount Sinai. We find the combination of דבר ואמרת also in Exodus 19,3 where the dual form of כה תאמר ותגד is also explained as both harsh speech and softer speech.

FOR I THE ETERNAL YOUR G-D AM HOLY. This means to say that we will merit to cleave unto Him by being holy. This expression [I the Eternal your G-d] is similar to that of the first commandment in the Ten Commandments [which begins, I am the Eternal thy G-d].²⁶Exodus 20:2. He commanded here, Ye shall fear every man his mother, and his father,²⁷Verse 3. for there [in the Ten Commandments] He commanded that we honor them,²⁸Exodus 20:12. and here it is about fearing them. And he states here, and ye shall keep My Sabbaths,²⁷Verse 3. for there [in the Ten Commandments] He commanded concerning remembering it,²⁹Ibid., Verse 8 (Vol. II, pp. 306-311). and here about keeping it. We have already explained the meaning of both terms.²⁹Ibid., Verse 8 (Vol. II, pp. 306-311).

קדושים תהיו, "be holy!" We need to analyse what precisely G'd meant when He commanded us to either be or become "holy." I believe the Torah wanted to add a positive commandment as a corollary to the string of negative commandments we have just read in chapter 18. Inasmuch as G'd commanded us to be holy, a person who violates any of the transgressions of a sexual nature is not only guilty of violating a negative commandment but also simultaneously violates the commandment to strive and be holy.

Furthermore, our verse may reflect something we have learned in Kidushin 39: "If a person sits quietly and refrains from committing a transgression he is given a reward as if he had performed a positive commandment. This is the meaning of our verse. If you are presented with an opportunity to commit a sin and you refrain from grasping that opportunity, you have fulfilled the commandment to be or to become holy. The reason G'd commanded Moses to tell this commandment directly to the whole congregation of Israel was to inform them directly of this and to show them how easy it is to be counted amongst the people described as "holy." Every single individual can achieve that spiritual level by merely fighting off the desire to violate a commandment when the opportunity presents itself. Every Israelite is on the same spiritual level concerning the acquisition of this merit. This also explains why the Torah used both the harsh דבר and the softer ואמרת when introducing this comandment. The harsh דבר reminds us that violation of a commandment in chapter 18 is simultaneously a violation of the commandment to be holy. The softer ואמרת is a reminder that the merit of becoming holy can be attained by simply not violating a commandment when presented with an invitation to do so. Possibly, it is only the Israelites who qualify for reward simply for resisting the invitation to commit a sinful act. To assure us that this is so the Torah may have written the words: "to all the children of Israel."

כי קדוש אני, "for I am holy." What kind of a reason is this? Besides, how can a creature be expected to be similar to its Creator? Does not G'd possess many virtues and attributes not found amongst the Israelites? If the Torah wrote this line to explain that the reason why G'd commanded us to strive to be holy is that He Himself is holy, i.e. He wants us to be as much like Him as possible, but that this is not a reason which obligates us to be so, why would the Torah suddenly feel it incumbent upon itself to state a reason why G'd wishes us to behave in a certain manner?

It appears that our sages were sensitive to this point and that this is why they said the following in Torat Kohanim "If you sanctify yourselves I will account it for you as if you Had sanctified Me." Accordingly, we must view the word קדוש not merely as an adjective, but as a description of the usefulness of our action as well as of its reverse. If we were to do the reverse, G'd forbid, our moral failure would impair the very holiness of G'd Himself! The sages in Torat Kohanim phrased it thus: "If you do not strive to become holy, I will account it for you as if you had failed to sanctify Me." Possibly this is also a reason why the Torah used the dual דבר ואמדת, to teach us through the word דבר how seriously the Torah views the mere lack of effort to sanctify ourselves. On the other hand, ואמרת alludes to the Torah viewing a person who does try to sanctify himself as someone achieving spiritual stature.

Another way of explaining this verse is this. In the last chapter G'd issued a number of directives all of which ask us to deny a natural biological urge, something that threatens to dominate and subvert our רצון, our will, which is seated in the mind. I have already written concerning this subject on Leviticus 18,2 when the Torah referred to practices rampant both in Egypt and in the land of Canaan. We explained in that context that it is impossible to resist the lure of one's biological urge unless one not only avoids visual exposure but also makes a conscious effort not to allow one's imagination to dwell on the subject. Seeing that G'd did command us to procreate and thereby to insure the continuity of the human species, one cannot totally dissociate oneself from the subject of sex and all that this entails. Not only that, there are times when the very preoccupation with that subject becomes a positive commandment, how else is one to engage in one's marital duty at the right time and place? Is this not what Solomon (Proverbs 30,19) had in mind when he spoke of דרך גבר בעלמה, "the way of a man with a maiden?" He referred to the duty to procreate, something which cannot be done by total denial of any thoughts involving one's sexuality.

The Torah commanded us to be holy in order that we elevate the subject of procreation to a spiritual experience, not to the fulfilment of a mere biological urge. Marital relations are not to be merely a means to gratify the urges of one's body. The act is to be performed as a מצוה, much like putting on טלית ותפלין. When a person feels himself assailed by thoughts of sex unrelated to the duty to sire children, he should reject such thoughts and suppress them. He should conduct himself in accordance with the story told by a woman of her husband's conduct during marital relations (Nedarim 20). She described the reason why they were blessed with exceedingly handsome looking children as due to her husband's rigorous self-control even during the act of procreation. She said that her husband acted as if the very act itself were forced upon him by a demon. Such a person can truly be described as holy, and it is this the Torah wishes us to strive for and emulate.

Seeing that man will ask how it can be expected of him to suppress thoughts and emotions which overcome him without his having invited them, and how would he know which thoughts are inspired by simply physical urges, the Torah writes כי קדוש אני ה׳ אלוקיכם, that whenever someone performs a מצדה, G'd's holy name will come to rest on one of his organs. It will invariably be the organ involved in performance of that מצוה. It follows that if man uses his male organ only for the performance of the commandment to procreate and to multiply that he will enjoy a heavenly assist helping him control his biological urges (Tikkuney Ha-Zohar 70). In fact our verse alludes to the type of מצוה which secures one this heavenly assist. I have explained on Leviticus 18,4 why half the holy name of G'd is spelled recognisably while the other half is spelled in a deliberately obscure fashion (page 1181).

Another approach to the words כי קדוש אני is that these words are a reminder of the mutual bond between Israel and its G'd. We know from Deut. 4,4 that "you who cleave to the Lord are alive this day," that the key to our survival is the דבקות, the affinity we maintain with G'd. This theme has been repeated by the prophet Jeremiah in Jeremiah 13,11 where the prophet (G'd) describes this relationship in these words: "for as a loincloth clings close to the loins of a man, so I brought close to Me the whole House of Israel;" G'd therefore has the right to demand of us: קדושים תהיו, "be and maintain your sanctity because I am holy and you adhere to Me." If you were to argue: "how can one compare the straw to the grain," G'd answers "I am the Lord your G'd." This is a clear allusion to the principle that the presence of the שכינה in our midst is directly related to the degree of affinity we display in our relationship with G'd.

Another reason why the Torah writes: "be holy for I am holy," is that had it not been for this line we would have thought that as long as we had refrained from violating any of the sexual mores legislated in chapter 18 in deed, we had conformed with G'd's wishes. We would have thought that mere visual contact or fantasizing about such unions is not forbidden. We are told in Berachot 61 that even counting coins into the hands of a woman (in order to have an excuse to look at her) is forbidden. This prohibition is even derived from a biblical verse (Proverbs 11,21): יד ליד לא ינקה רע, "when [man and woman] join hands they will not be considered innocent of doing evil." (compare my translation of Alshich's commentary on that verse, page 209). In this instance G'd commanded the words "be holy," i.e. matters which are designed to maintain our distance from direct involvement with the women forbidden to us as sexual partners. The Zohar on 19,4 has interpreted the words: "do not turn in the direction of idols" in a similar manner. The Torah was not concerned with idolworship in that verse but with a mode of life which brings us into proximity with idols. We have interpreted Deut. 23,11 to mean that a ritually pure person will not experience involuntary seminal emission during his sleep. This is based on the same approach as the Torah employs here. He who does not entertain thoughts of forbidden sexual unions will not be aroused and lose control. A person is liable to claim that such nocturnal emissions during his sleep are entirely beyond his control, why should they be held against him? The Torah replies: "for I the Lord your G'd am holy." G'd implies: "I am able to protect you against such experiences for I will prevent a Jewish person falling victim to this kind of defilement unless the Israelite in question allows himself to dwell on the subject of forbidden sexual unions."

We may also interpret the words קדושים תהיו by emphasizing the future tense, i.e. תהיו, "you shall become holy." The implication is that this is a commandment which is an ongoing process. The Torah asks us to eat מצה on Passover, to sit in huts on סוכות, to abstain from certain kinds of activities on the Sabbath, etc. The common denominator of all those commandments is that they apply on certain days or on certain dates only. Not so the commandment of "be holy." This commandment applies day in day out throughout our lifetime. The imperative to strive for sanctity is one that we cannot take a vacation from. Even while we are busy performing this commandment it is one that we never have mastered completely. Whatever sanctity we attain is superior to what we had achieved previously but inferior to what we still hope to achieve. We know from our prophets that they too possessed sanctity in varying degrees, Moses having achieved the relatively highest level of sanctity. Nonetheless it is entirely possible that one can achieve even greater heights of sanctity than the level attained by Moses. The level of sanctity that will have been achieved by the Messiah when he reveals himself will prove to be even superior to that of Moses. We know this from Isaiah 11,2 in which the attributes of the Messiah are described. They include: "The spirit of the Lord shall descend upon him, a spirit of wisdom and insight, etc. etc." If we accept the words of Bamidbar Rabbah 19 and Devarim Rabbah chapter 2 that Moses himself will be the Messiah, this is further proof that there is no upper limit to the "holiness" described here by the Torah. The Torah writes תהיו in order to remind us that the ultimate realisation of the ideal of holiness will forever remain "in the future."

The Torah supplies the reason for this with the words "for I the Lord your G'd am holy." G'd implies that just as there is no limit to His holiness, so our striving for holiness must remain something that has no upper limit. G'd desires that His favourite creatures engage in an ongoing process of becoming more and more like their father in Heaven.

When G'd supplied the reason that we have to strive to become holy as "for I am holy," He meant that if one wants to compare oneself to someone superior the degree of effort one has to make depends on the relative loftiness of one's ideal, of the person one wants to emulate. Seeing that it is G'd who wants us to emulate Him, we can imagine that the effort to strive for holiness is not merely a relative one but the task is monumental inasmuch as our ideal is so indescribably superior to us. When a junior minister invites the king to be his guest, he makes suitable preparations so that the king will feel at home in his house. When we invite G'd to make His residence amongst the Jewish people must we not make extraordinary preparations to merit His presence on a permanent basis? This is what the Torah reminds us of when it describes G'd as "for I the Lord your G'd am holy."

You are familiar with the statement in Shabbat 112 that if "former generations could be compared to angels then we nowadays are merely like ordinary mortals; if, however, even the earlier generations were comparable only to ordinary mortals, then our generation is comparable to donkeys." This only underlines how much and how hard we have to strive to fulfil the commandment the Torah has legislated in our verse. As an illustration of how hard even the members of former generations worked at this, look at the example of Rabbi Eleazar ben Azaryah (compare Shabbat 54). When the cow of his neighbour [the text in our Mishnah speaks of Rabbi Eleazar's own cow, Ed.] left her stable on the Sabbath wearing a strap between her horns -something the Rabbis disapproved of-although according to the view of Rabbi Eleazar it was perfectly permissible, he fasted so many days that his teeth turned black (compare Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat chapter 5) as a form of penitence. The Torah uses the word דבר when introducing this commandment to alert us to the extraordinary demands this commandment makes upon us; on the other hand, the Torah continues with ואמרת, to remind us of the extraordinary spiritual benefits that accrue to people who take observance of this moral directive seriously. The words אל כל עדת בני ישראל are necessary so we should not say that a commandment demanding such stature could only be addressed to the elite of the people. The Torah stressed that everyone is included in this commandment to teach us that every single Israelite could become a potential Moses if he tried (compare Tannah be bey Eliyahu, and Maimonides hilchot Teshuvah chapter 5).

Yet another meaning of the words קדושים תהיו views this call as an ivitation to become like the angels who are called קדושים. We know this from Daniel 8,13 where Daniel reports overhearing a קדוש speak, etc. We must understand this as similar to Psalms 82,6 in which the Psalmist Assaph describes the human species as אלוהים, divine beings prior to Adam's sin. Seeing that G'd used to reside in the heavens, the domain of the angels, it is no more than reasonable to describe the Israelites as angels once they qualified to provide G'd's new home on earth. You may be interested to read about the reaction of the angels in the celestial regions when they found out that G'd took up residence amongst the humans on earth. (compare Zohar volume 2 page 140). In view of the agitation amongst the angels in the celestial regions who heard that G'd intended to move His residence to earth, He decided to command the Israelites to be holy like angels in order that the angels should cease complaining. This lends additional meaning to the words "I am the Lord your G'd." Thus far the Zohar on the subject.

איש אמו ואביו תראו means, EVERYONE OF YOU SHALL FEAR HIS MOTHER AND HIS FATHER; this is the literal sense. The Halachic explanation of the verse, however, is as follows: Since Scripture says איש I have here only the law that a man must fear his father and his mother, whence do I know that this applies also to a woman? Because Scripture states תיראו (in the plural), it is evident therefore that it speaks here of two (man and woman). But if this be so (that Scripture means to include a woman also) why does it use the term איש, a man? Because it is the man who has the means to do it, whilst the woman is under the control of others (what she does is dependent upon her husband’s consent)(Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 1 3; Kiddushin 30b).

The Torah now begins to explain in detail the commandment to honour father and mother, by writing that everyone is to relate with reverence to his mother and father respectively. These words teach that in addition to providing for aged and economically unstable parents with food, drink and clothing, the children (adults by then) must not look down on their parents who in the meantime have become economically dependent on their children. Our sages spelled this out in Kidushin 31 where they said: “sometimes someone feeds his father the most delicious and expensive dishes while the manner in which he does this contributes to the son’s losing his share in the hereafter, whereas on the other hand, a son could earn his share in the hereafter even by expecting his father to perform physically hard labour.” In the latter case, the son explains to the father lovingly why he cannot offer him luxuries but he treats him with love and concern and listens to his father’s words of advice. Having dealt with the implications of the fifth of the Ten Commandments, the Torah now turns to the fourth of the Ten Commandments, that of Sabbath observance, and writes:

איש אמו ואביו תיראו, "Each one of you shall fear his mother and father." The reason the Torah wrote this commandment next to the commandment to be holy is also related to the legislation about forbidden sexual unions. Our sages in Sotah 36 interpret Genesis 49,24: "and his arms were made firm by the hand of the Mighty One of Jacob" as a reference to how his father's image helped save Joseph from the temptation he experienced at the hands of the wife of Potiphar. At the critical moment, when Mrs Potiphar grabbed hold of Joseph's tunic, he saw a vision of his father's face outside the window. This caused him to resist the advances of Mrs Potiphar and to leave the tunic in her hand and flee her presence. According to the Talmud, Joseph's semen escaped via his hands instead of via his male organ, etc. I have heard it said in the name of Kabbalists (Kav Hayashar chapter 2) that the image of one's father's face strengthens the forces of sanctity within his son and helps him resist becoming a victim to temptation involving sexual abominations. The reason the Torah speaks about "his mother and his father you shall fear," at this juncture close to chapter 18 is that anyone in the throes of carnal temptation should summon up the image of his parents before his eyes. He will find that this will help him resist the temptation.

ואת שבתותי תשמורו, just as in the Ten Commandments the command to honour parents appeared next to the commandment to observe the Sabbath, honouring parents is almost on a par with honouring the Creator Himself, the Torah placed these two commandments next to one another here too. This is the plain meaning of the text.

איש אמו ואביו תיראו, ”everyone is to revere his mother and his father.” Whereas in the Ten Commandments the Torah demands that one honour one’s parents, there the demand to honour one’s father precedes the demand to honour one’s mother. The Torah continues:

Each one of you. Rashi is answering the question: “Man” is the singular [form], but תיראו is the plural form?

איש אמו ואביו תיראו, “everyone is to revere his mother and father.” Whereas in the parallel commandment in the Ten Commandments, the father is mentioned first, here the mother is mentioned first; the reason is that a baby becomes familiar with his mother before it becomes familiar with his father. When it comes to the observance of the laws governing the Sabbath, and how it is to be observed, the father is addressed first as it is he who has to train his young sons in observing it.

אמו ואביו תיראו EVERYBODY OF YOU SHALL FEAR HIS MOTHER AND HIS FATHER — Here Scripture mentions the mother before the father because it is manifest to Him that the child fears the father more than the mother and therefore by mentioning the mother first Scripture stresses the duty of fearing her. In the case of honoring one's parents, however, Scripture mentions the father before the mother because it is manifest to Him that the child honors the mother more than the father because she endeavors to win him over by kindly words. Therefore by mentioning the father first Scripture emphasizes the duty of honoring him (Kiddushin 30b - Kiddushin 31a).

ואת שבתותי תשמורו, words which do not only refer to the Sabbath of Creation, but to a variety of “Sabbath” legislations such as the “Sabbath” of the land known as sh’mittah, as well as the Sabbath of “money,” i.e. the demand for the lender to forego repayment of past due debts by the debtor at the end of the sh’mittah year. Al these types of “Sabbath” legislation are testimony to the fact that the Creator Who legislates such laws was the originator of the universe, hence His right to demand such obeisances from His creatures.

את שבתותי תשמורו, “you are to observe My Sabbath days.” Comparison with the Ten Commandments shows that the emphasis was on ”remembering” the Sabbath, not on observing it, i.e. not to violate the restrictions in one’s activities that apply on the Sabbath.

Two are [implied]. If so, why is “man” mentioned? You might ask: We say that Scripture equates woman to man (Kiddushin 35a) [and therefore “man” implies women as well]? The answer is: This only applies where Scripture writes a masculine expression, but where it writes “man,” women are excluded unless there is an inclusive expression. A concept similar to this we find in Tosfos (Sanhedrin 66a). I found this.

We also have a hint here that if someone indulges in forbidden sex he shames the honour of his father. This is why the Torah wrote the commandment to fear mother and father so close to the legislation dealing with fordidden sex. In other words, indulgence in forbidden sex is equivalent to a violation of the commandment to fear one's mother and father. The parents would curse a son who commits such an act because they feel ashamed to have brought such a son into the world. This is also the reason the mother is mentioned here first as she feels the shame more deeply than her husband. Solomon explained this in Proverbs 10,1 when he wrote: "and a foolish son is his mother's sorrow." [The "foolishness" of the son is that he was invaded by a spirit of foolishness else he would not have committed the sin. See commentary of Alshich on that verse, my translation page 179. Ed.]

The essence of Sabbath observance is to imitate G-d the Creator, Who took time out on that day. The commandment to observe the Sabbath as a holy day of rest appears in the Ten Commandments immediately prior to the commandment to honour one’s parents. One of the reasons that the commandment to observe the Sabbath appears before that of obeying one’s parents, is to remind us that when the parents’ orders conflict with G-d’s commandments, the commandment to honour one’s parents by desecrating the Sabbath is automatically overruled. One might at first glance have thought that it was not necessary for the Torah to make this point, as we have a rule that a positive commandment, which generally is considered as overriding a negative commandment, does not do so when the negative commandment had also been expressed as positive commandment, as is the case with the commandment to observe the Sabbath, in the first set of the Ten Commandments. Someone might have interpreted the line of את ה' מהונך כבד, “honour the Lord by using part of your wealth,” (Proverbs 3,9) as imposing limits on the fulfillment of that commandment when compared to honouring one’s parents where no such limiting factor is built in. These arguments are discussed in the Talmud, tractate Baba Metzia, folio 32. This still leaves the possible argument that the commandment to honour high ranking individuals, i.e. political heads etc., has been provided with an escape clause when the Torah wrote in Exodus 22,27: ונשיא בעמך לא תאור, “and do not curse a high ranking political figure amongst your people,” where the prefix letter ב implies that this commandment only applies to such figures as long as they conduct themselves as upstanding citizens of your people. This could have been applied to a father and mother who do not observe the laws of the Torah as not deserving your respect. Our Rabbis therefore limited the need to disregard parents’ commanding their children to disregarding orders to disregard Biblical prohibitions of the Sabbath, but to carry out orders from father or mother of requests which “only” violate Rabbinical restrictions. (This last paragraph does not appear in the handwritten manuscripts of the author.)

ואת שבתתי תשמרו AND MY SABBATHS SHALL YE KEEP — Scripture places the commandment of observing the Sabbath immediately after that of fearing one’s father in order to suggest the following: “Although I admonish you regarding the fear due to your father, yet if he bids you: "Desecrate the Sabbath", do not listen to him” — and the same is the case with any of the other commandments. This, it is evident, is the meaning since Scripture adds —

But a woman is under the control of others. You might ask: If so, why does the Torah include a woman? The answer is: [To include] a divorced woman or a widow, for example, who is not under the control of others.

Having appreciated this, we can now understand why the second half of our verse speaks about the need to observe the Sabbath legislation. The Zohar volume 2 page 277 and volume 3 page 301 explains that the seven days of the week were allocated to seven righteous people. [They are identical with the seven "guests" we welcome in our Sukkah, a different one each day. Ed.] According to the Zohar Chadash at the beginning of Parshat Toldot the Sabbath was allocated to Joseph. He represents the mystical dimension of peace. This is the reason we greet each other with the greeting שבת שלום on the Sabbath. It is also the reason that we re-phrase the conclusion of the prayer השכיבנו on Friday nights by adding the words "spread over us the the tabernacle (shelter) of Your peace, etc." Joseph earned his title "the righteous" because he preserved the covenant G'd had concluded with all Jews through the circumcision when He put the stamp of that holy covenant on our very flesh. When the Torah speaks of "My Sabbath days" in the plural, it refers to two dimensions of the Sabbath. The first is the generally accepted meaning of the word, i.e. the need to observe the Sabbath itself. The second is the need not to defile the holy covenant of the circumcision. Actually, both commandments are merely two sides of the same coin, so to speak. This is the reason that both circumcision and the Sabbath are referred to in the Torah as אות, a visible sign. The Sabbath is called אות in Exodus 31,13, whereas the circumcision is called אות in Genesis 17,11. The two commandments are different when it comes to their performance as an activity; [Sabbath is repetitive for instance, commitment having to be renewed weekly, whereas circumcision is once in a lifetime, and other differences, Ed.] from a passive point of view, i.e. the spiritual credit accruing to people observing these commandments both are so similar as to be considered one. Anyone who actively observes either one of these commandments confers the benefit of both commandments on his soul. This is why the Torah speaks of שבתתוי.

אני ה' אלהיכם “I am the Lord your God" (the plural) — both you and your father are equally bound to honour Me! Do not therefore obey him if it results in making My words of no effect (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 1 10; Bava Metzia 32a). — What is implied in the term מורא? That one should not sit in his (the father's) seat, nor speak in his stead (i. e. when he is expected to speak), nor contradict his words. And what is implied in the term כבוד? That the child gives the parents to eat and to drink, provides them with clothes and shoes, leads them into the room and out if they are infirm (Kiddushin 31b).

שמשדלתו. Explanation: She wins him over [lit. seduces him] as Targum translates כי יפת, “If a man seduces” (Shemos 22:15), ארי ישדל.

ואביו תיראו, "and fear your (his) father." Torat Kohanim draws attention to the fact that whereas here the Torah mentions the mother first, the father is mentioned first in the Ten Commandments where the Torah commands us to "honour your father and your mother." The reason the Torah varies the order is to teach us that both father and mother are of equal importance; however, the father takes precedence over the mother when it is impossible to accord honour to both simultaneously seeing that both father and mother (wife) are obligated to honour the father i.e. husband. The Baraitha in Kidushin 31 also deals with this subject: Rabbi said "it is clear to G'd that it is natural for a son to honour his mother more than his father, and that it is natural for a son to fear his father more than his mother. This is why G'd mentioned the need to honour one's father before He mentioned the need to honour one's mother, and He mentioned the need to fear one's mother before He mentioned the need to fear one's father." I have difficulties with both the reasoning underlying the exegesis of Torat Kohanim and that of Rabbi in the Talmud. If we really think about these two verses we will find that the Torah gave more weight to the father in both. In the Ten Commandments the word "father" appears next to the word "honour." In our verse the word "you shall fear" also appears next to the word "his father." It is a fact that our sages follow the above-mentioned method of Rabbi on numerous occasions in their exegesis. If it were not for the fact that the exegesis is designed to teach us a halachah, I would not hesitate to accept this interpretation as we are entitled to use the method used by Rabbi. Our sages did not mind as long as a departure from their rules did not result in a הלכה which is contrary to our tradition. In this instance, however, there would result a difference in the הלכה, i.e. that if we accept the above exegesis the father would not take precedence in situations where there are conflicting claims on the son's sense of respect for either parent. If you accept our interpretation, for instance, if both mother and father ask the son to give them some water to drink, the son would have to give first to his father based on both interpretations. If, however, father and mother were divorced so that the mother (ex-wife) no longer is obligated to honour her (ex) husband, according to our interpretation the son would be obligated to first give water to his father, whereas according to both the Talmud and Torat Kohanim the son would have the choice whose request he wanted to honour first. In fact, the Talmud presents the scenario of the son of a widowed mother asking Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua: "what is the הלכה if father and mother are divorced and they both want to be given water? The answer given by Rabbi Eliezer was to put a bowl of water at the disposal of both father and mother so both can help themselves from it. It is apparent that Rabbi Eliezer felt that father and mother are absolutely equal as far as the son's obligation to honour them is concerned.

Are obligated. Rashi is answering the following question: Why do we explain that the verses are juxtaposed to teach that even though I warned you regarding the fear of one’s father and mother, this does not push aside Shabbos? Rashi says the opposite in parshas Vayakhel (Shemos 35:2), that whatever is mentioned first in the verse is the more important as he says there. And here since the fear of one’s father and mother precedes Shabbos, perhaps fear of one’s father and mother should push aside Shabbos? In addition, how can Rashi say, “And so it is in regard to all the other mitzvos”? Perhaps only Shabbos is not pushed aside because of its severity that it includes a positive commandment and a negative commandment, whereas other mitzvos would be pushed aside by [fear of one’s] father and mother? Therefore Rashi explains: “’I am Adonoy your God.’ You and your father [are obligated to honor Me].”

It is possible that this is based on a further piece of exegsis we find in Torat Kohanim on this verse. Here is the quotation: "The Torah writes איש אמו ואביו תיראו. From the word איש I know only that the duty to fear mother and father applies to males. How do I know it also applies to females? This is why the Torah wrote the word תיראו in the plural. If so, why did the Torah commence the verse with the word איש? Answer: "Usually the man is free to observe this commandment whereas most women are preoccupied with carrying out prior commitments." Thus far Torat Kohanim. According to this last Baraitha the word איש is restrictive and excludes women when it comes to paying honour to father and mother [seeing the Torah does not use such phraseology in the Ten Commandments, Ed.] though the word תיראו (pl) had included women when it comes to displaying fear, i.e. respect for both mother and father. We may now extrapolate that as far as honouring the mother is concerned the Torah imposed this duty primarily on the man. Seeing the Torah had already done this explicitly in the Ten Commandments, this directive may now be used to teach us something different though related. It teaches that as far as honouring either father or mother is concerned the mother is to take precedence when it is impossible to honour both father and mother simultaneously. All of this is an argument to explain why the Baraitha in Torat Kohanim wrote as it did. According to the view expressed by Rabbi in Kidushin 31 which explained why the Torah mentioned the father as being the subject of honour prior to mentioning the mother we are still left with a problem. Perhaps the fact that the explanation of Rabbi is homiletical in nature makes it unnecessary to resolve the problem, seeing no הלכה is involved. After all, both mother and father are to be feared. We do not need much of an ambiguity in the Torah to permit us to draw conclusions of a homiletical nature.

{To] honor Me. You might ask: In this parshah “honor” is not written, only “fear.” Also, Rashi previously explained the reason why “man” is mentioned is because it is in a man’s [power to do]. Rashi apparently means to say that this parshah is discussing “honor” for the expression “in one’s power” and “not in one’s power” does not pertain to “fear.” The answer is that before, a woman is included to “fear” for תיראו, is written [in the plural form]. Nonetheless, a man’s obligation is greater than a woman’s because Scripture uses the term “man” [איש], as Rashi previously explained. And if it cannot be applied to “fear” because the expression “in one’s power” and “not in one’s power” does not pertain to “fear,” then apply it to “honor.” The expression “not in one’s power” definitely does not pertain to “honor” for a woman is under the control of others.

It is also possible that the sages of the Baraitha did not feel that the position of the word "father" in relation to the directive was of consequence when we have to decide which of the two (father or mother) are entitled to precedence in a situation when both claim the honour due to them at the same time. The reason is that the Torah was forced to mention the two parties consecutively and could not mention them simultaneously. As a result, they assumed that whoever was mentioned first in the verse is the one vis-a-vis whom the particular duty described devolves first. It follows that if it is a matter of honour the father has to be shown honour first; if it is a matter of fear the mother has to be shown respect first, whenever it is impossible to do so simultaneously. The reason the word תיראו is written at the end of the verse is to show that the law also applies to women.

He may not sit in his place. Some explain that this includes any place that is especially [reserved] for him in the house. And some explain that this is the special place he has [when he sits] with the elders.

There is another reason why the Torah commences with addressing an individual whereas at the end of the verse it addresses several people, at least. The Torah hints that if a son demonstrates that he respects his own father, the chances are that his son in turn will also show respect for him. You may attribute this to the principle we wrote about in connection with Genesis 49,3 that the roots of sanctity and impurity respectively are found in the mind of the father when he engages in marital intercourse in order to fulfil the commandment to be fruitful and to multiply. His spiritual input at that critical time will be reflected in the spiritual level of the child that is born from a union based on lofty ideals. Alternatively, the matter is psychological. When a son observes that his father belittles his grandfather or grandmother, he in turn will not feel the inclination to show respect or honour to his own father or mother. On the other hand, when a son observes that his father treats his grandfather with great respect, he in turn will be in awe of his father. As a result of such considerations the fulfilment of one act of reverence will lead to the fulfilment of two (or more) acts of reverence spanning at least two generations. This is reflected in the Torah's use of the word תיראו in the plural at the end of our verse. The Torah wrote the word at the end of the verse [not like כבד את אביך at the beginning of the verse in the Ten Commandments, Ed.] to show that one act of respect will eventually produce more acts of respect. This is a perfect illustration of what our sages in Avot 4,2 described as מצוה גוררת מצוה, that the fulfilment of one מצוה brings another in its wake.

Nor speak in his place. Such as when the elders are speaking one after the other. When his time comes to speak, his son should not speak in his place.

Yet another way of explaining our verse is based on a ruling in Tur item 240 where the author rules as follows: "I believe that inasmuch as the father demonstrated that he is wicked by not honouring or respecting his father, the son (grandson) is not obligated to show honour to a wicked father. We base this ruling on Baba Kama 94 where the Talmud rules that if a father bequeathed a stolen cow to his children the latter have to return it to the party from whom it was stolen as part of the commandment to honour their father. The Talmud challenges this ruling saying that seeing the father had placed himself outside the circle of Torah observing Jews by stealing, the son is not bound by the commandment "honour your father?" The Talmud answers that the case under consideration was one where the father had done תשובה, had repented. We see from here that the author of the Tur holds that unless one had seen the father repent we do not merely assume that he had done so and we would not accord him the honour our verse calls for. [The whole exemption of someone from the law of honouring father and mother is based on the word בעמך in Exodus 22,27 that one must not curse a prince. The word בעמך IS considered a restrictive clause, i.e. the law applies only if the prince acts in accordance with Torah tradition. Ed.] According to the above we have to read our verse as follows: "a man must display respect for his mother and father provided the man (his own father) conducts himself with his own father and mother in accordance with what the Torah demands." This is the reason תיראו, that you must accord them respect. If, however, a father slighted his father or mother, the son is free from the obligation our verse imposes upon him. The words אמו ואביו, "his mother and his father" refer back to the word איש who is perceived as the man who begot the son in question.

And what is honor? He provides food... You might ask: Why does Rashi say this here [at the end of the verse]? He should have explained it above [where the verse said, “A man — you shall fear his mother and father”]? Also, he should have explained this in parshas Vayishma Yisro [where honoring parents is mentioned in the Ten Commandments]? The answer is: Without this explanation [that honoring parents does not push aside mitzvos], I would think fear includes that even if he told you to desecrate Shabbos, you should listen to him and desecrate it. And so with all the mitzvos, if he tells you to transgress them you are obligated to listen to him and transgress them. And honor, which is written elsewhere, means to not sit in his place etc. But now that Rashi explains that fear of one’s father and mother does not push aside the mitzvos, we are forced to say that fear means to not sit in his place. If so, what is honor? He answers, “He provides food...”

In my book פרי תואר I upheld the words of Maimonides on this subject who holds that one may assume that one's father had repented even if one did not have direct evidence of this. Maimonides bases this on Kidushin 49 where the Talmud discusses someone betrothing a woman on the assumption that he is a righteous person. If the individual in question had been known to have violated Torah commandments in the past we nonetheless assume that he would not have made such a statement unless he had repented previous mistakes. We have therefore repudiated the argument advanced by the Tur. How could we assume that the father mentioned in Baba Kama had become a penitent seeing he himself had not returned the stolen cow? Where there is no circumstantial evidence that the father who was a sinner had not repented, I assume that he had and his son is therefore duty-bound to observe the legislation presented in our verse. Our words that the son is free from the obligation to honour his father when his own father is still actively engaged in belittling his (own) father are absolutely correct as we then have no reason to assume that the father in question had repented. Such a father is no better than the father who bequeathed a stolen cow to his children in the example in Baba Batra.

Another way of looking at this plural form of the word תיראו is that it addresses the father himself. If the father behaved in a manner which is sinful, he would become guilty of violating the commandment not to put an obstacle before a blind man, i.e. not to cause his son to become guilty of neglect of the commandment legislated in our verse by making himself unworthy of being respected by his own son.

ואת שבתותי תשמדו, "and observe My Sabbath days." Our sages in Baba Metzia 32 ask: "Whence do we know that if a father orders his son to desecrate the Sabbath, etc., that the son is not obligated to do his father's bidding?" Answer: "It says איש אמו ואביו תיראו ואת שבתותי תשמרו, that the commandment to respect one's father is premised on one's observing G'd's Sabbath days." G'd reminds us that He is the One whom both the father and the son have to honour." Thus far the Talmud. From the comparison of "you and your father are obligated to honour Me," it is clear that the example of the Sabbath in our verse is only just that i.e. that a son must not violate any of the Torah laws even when it results in his declining to respect his father's halachically illegal request. Why did the Torah choose to describe Sabbath observance, a law whose violation is punishable by death, as the example for G'd's laws taking precedence over a father's demands when it could have made the same point by writing the commandment to respect one's father next to the law to restore someone's lost property, for instance? Moreover, there was no need to add the words "I am the Lord your G'd?" How does this add to our case? Everybody knows that G'd's laws take precedence over man's law, i.e. the father's authority over his son.

I believe we can explain all this in light of what Maimonides wrote in Hilchot Mamrim chapter 5. Here is what he wrote: "If someone's father or mother are absolute sinners it is still a punishable offence for their son to physically abuse them." All the codifiers conclude from this that all that is forbidden is physical abuse of one's parents in such a case; however, the son or daughter does not have to accord such parents any honour or respect. I have raised this problem in my commentary on Yore Deyah when dealing with Maimonides' view in connection with what he wrote in chapter 7 of Hilchot Mamrim that according to my understanding Maimonides' ruling applies only if the father was guilty of transgressions לתאבון, because he had trouble controlling his evil urge and he sinned only occasionally. In our case we talk about a habitual sinner; this is why Maimonides in chapter 5 made sure to use the wording רשע גמור, "a confirmed sinner," instead of simply writing: "a sinner." I believe that the term "confirmed sinner, רשע גמור, is applicable to people who habitually violate any commandment that presents itself for them to observe. A son is totally absolved of the commandment to honour or respect father and mother when he has the misfortune to have such a רשע גמור as his father. Our verse addresses such a situation when it writes: איש אמו ואביו תיראו ואת שבתותי תשמרו. The last three words refer to the duty of both generations to observe G'd's commandments. The reason the Torah chose the example of the Sabbath to illustratte its point is because Sabbath-observance is equivalent to total Torah-observance as we know from Shemot Rabbah 25,12.

One may also approach the moral-ethical allusions contained in this verse as evident from the plural שבתותי as opposed to the Torah's custom to speak about the Sabbath in the singular. Our sages in Shabbat 69 explain the plural to mean that in certain cases the non-observance of many work-prohibitions over a period of numerous Sabbaths may be viewed as a sin which requires only a single sin-offering to atone for it. This is so when the person in question was unaware of a Sabbath legislation at all. The Zohar part 2 page 5 understands the plural to refer to the two parts of each Sabbath, i.e. night and day. This had to be stated as the Torah requires us to separately sanctify (קדוש) both Friday night and Sabbath morning. We know that the sanctity of the night is not of the same level as the sanctity of the day; had the Torah not spoken of "My Sabbath-days" in the plural we would not have known that we had to sanctify also the evening. Our mystical literature views the sanctity of the Sabbath evening as in the nature of the light to which a bride relates, the שמר aspect of the Sabbath. The sanctity of the Sabbath morning is viewed as a supernatural light one which surpasses the intensity of the light at night, something to which the bridegroom relates, i.e. the זכור aspect of the Sabbath. Kabbalists are familiar with these concepts. This is why the Zohar volume 2 page 88 compares the Sabbath evening meal to the apples from a holy piece of earth, whereas when one partakes of the meal of the Sabbath day it is considered comparable to dining at G'd's own table. This is the reason that the sages called the קדוש sanctification of the Sabbath we recite by day, by the name קדושא רבא, "the major sanctification" (compare Pessachim 106). [Interestingly, the Talmud relates this to prove that on Sabbath morning the קדוש consists of reciting only the benediction over wine without the addition of any paragraph from the Torah. Ed.] I have also found at the end of the Shulchan Aruch of the Ari Zal that he relates that during the period of Rabbi Eleazar ben Azaryah someone erred by writing that the Sabbath is different from all other days in that the day precedes the night. Rabbi Eleazar ben Azaryah became aware of this writer's error by some miracle (not having seen the text or heard about it) and he succeeded in preventing publication of this work. In his book אגרת שבת, the Ari Zal explains the words of our verse as follows in order to prove that the writer who believed the day precedes the night in the case of the Sabbath erred. The Torah mentioned the mother before the father and equated the commandment to respect mother and father to the commandment to observe the Sabbath days. The reason that the Torah wrote איש אמו ואביו תיראו mentioning the mother before the father is to establish a linkage with the words ואת שבתותי תשמרו, the word ואת referring to the preceding evening whereas the word שבתותי refers to the daytime. The Torah hints that we need to recite קדוש also at night, a period compared to the feminine attribute (אמו) as well as by day the period compared to the masculine attribute (אביו). The reason that both commandments appear in the same verse side by side then is to compare the order of precedence of the parts of the Sabbath to the order of precedence of the two parents; the night i.e. the feminine attribute precedes the day, the masculine attribute.

אל תפנו אל האלילים TURN YE NOT UNTO THE IDOLS — to worship them (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 1 10). The word אלילים, idols, is connected with “not“ (אל) — it is regarded of “none" import.

He states, ‘Al tiphnu’ (Turn ye not) unto the idols,³⁰Verse 4. the term tiphnu (turn ye) being of the expressions: and if thy heart ‘yiphneh’ (turn away);³¹Deuteronomy 30:17. whose heart ‘poneh’ (turneth away) this day.³²Ibid., 29:17. The verse [here] is thus stating that one’s heart should not turn away to the idols, to believe that there is some benefit in [worshipping] them, or that the events that they foretell will really transpire; rather, they and all their activities should appear to him as things of nought, and vanity,³³Isaiah 40:17. and future events occur only by decree of the Most High. And so also have our Rabbis said:³⁴Shabbath 149 a. “It is forbidden to look at the statues [of the idols] themselves, because it says, ‘Turn ye not’ unto the idols.” Thus the Rabbis included within this prohibition even looking at the statues, so that one should not allow one’s thoughts to dwell on their matters at all.
He states, nor make to yourselves molten gods,³⁰Verse 4. thus prohibiting them from the very moment that they are made. Admonitions against idolatry are stated in the Torah in many places.
In the Midrash of Vayikra Rabbah the Rabbis mentioned concerning this section [of the Torah the following text]:³⁵Vayikra Rabbah 24:5. “Rabbi Levi says: Because the Ten Commandments are included in this section [therefore it was proclaimed to the full assembly]. I am the Eternal thy G-d,²⁶Exodus 20:2. and here it is written, I am the Eternal your G-d. Thou shalt have no other gods,³⁶Exodus 20:3. and here it is written, nor make to yourselves molten gods.³⁰Verse 4. Thou shalt not take the Name of the Eternal thy G-d in vain,³⁷Ibid., Verse 7. and here it is written, And ye shall not swear by My Name falsely.³⁸Further, Verse 12. Remember the Sabbath day,²⁹Ibid., Verse 8 (Vol. II, pp. 306-311). and here it is written, and ye shall keep My Sabbaths.²⁷Verse 3. Honor thy father and thy mother,²⁸Exodus 20:12. and here it is written, Ye shall fear every man his mother and his father.²⁷Verse 3. Thou shalt not murder,³⁹Exodus 20:13. and here it is written, Neither shalt thou stand idly by the blood of thy neighbor.⁴⁰Further, Verse 16. Thou shalt not commit adultery,³⁹Exodus 20:13. and here it is written, Profane not thy daughter, to make her a harlot.⁴¹Ibid., Verse 29. Thou shalt not steal,³⁹Exodus 20:13. and here it is written, Ye shall not steal.⁴²Ibid., Verse 11. Thou shalt not bear false witness,³⁹Exodus 20:13. and here it is written, Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people.⁴⁰Further, Verse 16. Thou shalt not covet,⁴³Exodus 20:14. and here it is written, and thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.”⁴⁴Further, Verse 18. For if you love him as yourself you will not covet that which is his, since that which is hateful to yourself, you should not do to others (Etz Yoseiph in the name of Rabbi David Luria). Thus far is the text of the Midrash.

When the Torah now continues with the second of the Ten Commandments by warning us אל תפנו אל אלילים, the Torah elaborates that it is not only forbidden to make oneself such deities in order to worship them, etc., but that it is equally prohibited to display respect for such deities worshipped by other peoples as their gods. Nothing is to be done which would indicate that one invokes the supposed “power” of such deities to further one’s personal interest and concerns.

אל חפנו אל האלילם "Do not turn to the idols, etc. This verse prohibits idolatrous thoughts. One should not turn one's thoughts in that direction. In order to understand this better remember that when a Jew thinks of idolatry it is as if he regresses, i.e. read אחורים, "backwards," instead of אחרים, "others." On the other hand, when a Jew dwells on the subject of the true G'd, it is as if G'd turns His face towards him.

אל תפנו אל האלילים, “Do not turn to the idols!” The injunction here is addressed to the mind rather than to the hands and feet that carry out the desires of the heart and mind. We are commanded to totally discount any supposed influence so-called deities have on anyone’s fate, future, etc. We must remain firmly convinced that our future depends exclusively on decrees made by the Creator in heaven.

To worship them. Meaning, do not turn your thoughts to worshipping them. “To worship them” should not be understood literally, because this is already mentioned, once in the Ten Commandments (Shemos 20:5), and once in parshas Mishpatim (22:19) where it taught that it is forbidden to worship them even in an unusual way [see Rashi ibid]. Furthermore, Rashi writes afterwards, “When you turn to follow them, in the end you will make them gods.” But [according to the literal meaning of Rashi] he already made them gods when he served them? Thus one must say that Rashi means “do not turn your thoughts to worshipping them.” You cannot say [the verse means] do not turn to look at them, because if so it should have written “Do not look.”

ואלוהי מסכה לא תעשו לכם, “do not make for yourselves a molten deity.” What is the meaning of the word: “for yourselves” in this verse, seeing that we have been forbidden to make such images for gentiles? What G–d means here is: “do not make it for others, neither accept what others have made for you as deities.”

אל תפנו אל האלילים, “do not turn unto idols;” the Torah does not refer to worshipping such idols, but it refers to feasting one’s eyes on the architectural extravagance lavished on their temples, and their esthetic appeal, by admiring them. [This author is reminded of what he has seen, unavoidably, in Thailand, for instance. Ed.]

ואלהי מסכה [NOR MAKE TO YOURSELVES] MOLTEN GODS - In the beginning they may appear as “nought" (אלילים) but if you turn unto them you will in the end make them gods (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 1 11). The translation therefore is: do not turn unto these “non-entities", so that you may not in the end make them into molten gods for yourselves.

ואלוהי מסכה לא תעשו לכם, “and molten gods you must not make for yourselves.!” The warning here is that culpability for idolatry does not start at the moment one worships idols, but already when one sets out to construct such an idol with the intent to worship it. In Vayikra Rabbah these verses are all explained as being patterned on the Ten Commandments. The Torah continues:

In the end [you will make them gods]. Because if not, why does it initially refer to them as אלילים [which connotes nothingness] and afterwards Scripture calls them gods.

האלילם, the idols. The reason the Torah uses the plural form when speaking of even a single idol is that idolatry represents a belief in a multiplicity of domains in this world, separation of powers. Judaism, however, represents the belief in a single Creator, in a single Supreme Power in this universe. When idols are described as deities, אלוהים, they are automatically described as אלוהים אחרים, other deities, i.e. in the plural.

ואלהי מסכה, “and idols of cast metal (do not construct);” although this commandment has already been written in Exodus 22,27, there it was expressed as addressed to an individual, here it is addressed to the people in the plural mode.

לא תעשו לכם implies: do not you make molten gods for others nor let others make such for you. Should you, however, say that לא תעשו לכם implies only “you shall not make them for yourselves" but others may make them for you, then I reply: But Scripture has already stated (Exodus 20:3) “Thou shalt have [no other gods]” — neither your own idol nor one which is the idol of (made by) others (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 1 12).

Nor may others [make them] for you. I.e., we divide the verse. “Do not make” means “for others,” and “for yourselves” means “nor may others [make them] for you.” It is two commandments, one, “do not make” and one, “for yourselves.”

ואלהי מסכה לא תעשו לכם, "neither construct for yourselves molten gods;" seeing that the Torah has already prohibited all kinds of idols why did it single out the molten gods as something we must not construct? Besides, why did the Torah have to stress the word לכם, "for yourselves?" Perhaps we can understand this in connection with chapter 18 in Tikkuney Ha-Zohar where we read that if someone performs a good deed G'd's presence will dwell upon him; if, however, he transgresses one of G'd's commandments the שכינה will depart from the respective organ that should have performed a commandment and that organ will become the home of a spirit of defilement, of טומאה. This spirit of טומאה is the "iron curtain" which is a barrier between such a person and his G'd. Isaiah 59,2 spelled it out when he said: "your iniquities have created a barrier between yourselves and your G'd." When the Torah writes ואלהי מסכה, this means "and a god which forms an iron curtain (from the word מסך, curtain) you must not construct for yourselves." If you do, you would separate yourselves from your source of life. G'd adds the words: "I am the Lord your G'd," to remind you Who it is that you sever your connections with if you violate this commandment.

And if you say [the verse means]: Do not make [them] for yourselves, etc. You might ask: Why does Rashi not ask also, “[And if you say the verse means: Do not make them for yourselves], but you may make them for others.” The answer is: This question would not be answered [by his answer] because “you must not have” only implies that when he or others make [an idol] for him he may not keep it. But “you must not have” does not imply that he may not make for others. You might ask: If so, perhaps one is permitted to make [idols] for other because it only writes “Do not make for yourselves?” The answer is: Because we include from “you must not have” that you may not have what you make or what others make. This indicates that “for yourselves” written in our verse is not connected with “Do not make,” because what others make is also forbidden for you. Thus we have to divide the verse and if so, “Do not make” implies for others [as well]. Maharitz.

The words: "I am the Lord your G'd" may also mean that if we refrain from violating this commandment we qualify for the promise that the Lord is indeed our G'd. Our sages in Chulin 5 phrased this as follows: "Anyone who denies the validity of idolatry is considered as if he had expressed his belief in everything written in the Torah."

A moral-ethical dimension of this verse may teach us the lesson spelled out in Megillah 28 in connection with Kings II 3,14 לולי פני יהושפט אני נשא אם אביט עליך, "if I did not (at the same time) behold the face of Jehoshaphat king of Yehudah I would not even look at your face." Elisha explained to Achav that it is forbidden to even look at a confirmed sinner such as he. G'd warns that we must not make ourselves into a molten image so that it will be prohibited to even look at ourselves.

'וכי תזבחו וגו‎‎ AND IF YE SACRIFICE [A SACRIFICE OF PEACE OFFERINGS UNTO THE LORD, YE SHALL SACRIFICE IT TO BE ACCEPTABLE TO YOU] — This section is said only for the purpose of teaching us that their (the peace offerings’) slaughtering must not take place except with the intention that they should be eaten within this time (the time prescribed v. 6); for if its purpose were to fix the time for eating them it would be redundant, since it is already said (Leviticus 7:16) “But if the sacrifice of his offering be a vow, or a free-will offering [it shall be eaten the same day… and on the morrow” (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 1 1).

He states, And when ye offer an offering of peace-offerings unto the Eternal etc.,⁴⁵Verse 5. for after He prohibited the slaughtering of sacrifices, and all manner of worship to idols and to molten gods, and ordered that all Services be devoted to the Proper Name [i.e., the Tetragrammaton] exclusively, He stated here that when you shall bring an offering to the Eternal, it shall be lirtzonchem [“of your desire”], in order that your worship should be acceptable to Him and that He should be pleased with you,⁴⁶See Malachi 1:8. even as a servant reconciles himself to his master⁴⁷See I Samuel 29:4. by doing all that he commands him to do, the expression [lirtzonchem] being similar to: ‘v’nirtzah’ (and it shall be accepted) for him to make atonement for him;⁴⁸Above, 1:4. but by the light of Thy countenance, because ‘retzitham’ (Thou wast favorable unto them).⁴⁹Psalms 44:4. For not by their own sword did they get the Land in possession … but by Thy right hand, and Thine arm, and the light of Thy countenance … And the meaning of the verse is to state that you are not to think that there is any benefit in idol worship, neither are you to do the service of the Glorious Name⁵⁰Deuteronomy 28:58. in order to receive a reward, but only to do His Will, for it is His simple Will⁵¹For just as the Creator is a perfect Unity and in no way a composite of many elements, so when the Creator wills something, the Will is also simple as is His essence. Hence Ramban’s expression “His simple Will.” that is proper and incumbent upon us [to do]. He states this with reference to the peace-offerings because they are of the lesser degree of holy offerings, which are eaten by the owners themselves [unlike the most holy offerings, such as the sin-offering, which may be eaten only by the priests, the verse thus saying] that the owners are to guard their thoughts, so that the offerings be brought with the proper intention, and this applies all the more so to the most holy offerings. Or it may be that [the verse here mentions peace-offerings] because peace-offerings are the [unique] attribute of Israel, just as our Rabbis have said:⁵²Zebachim 116 a. See in Vol. I, pp. 542-543. “Noachides did not offer peace-offerings.” The student learned [in the mysteries of the Cabala] will understand. And our Rabbis have said:⁵³Chullin 13 a. “Lirtzonchem [literally: ‘to your intent’] slaughter the offering, meaning that you are to have the intention to slaughter it,” for if he merely “handles” an offering [i.e., if he does the act of slaughtering without the intention of so doing], he invalidates [the offering].

וכי תזבחו, at this point the Torah explains that when G’d issued the very first of the Ten Commandments with the words: “I am the Lord your G’d, etc.,” (20,2) this meant that the Israelites must accept Him as the exclusive divine power in the universe. They are to do so without reservation, just as they did during the song of thanksgiving for their miraculous salvation after crossing the sea with dry feet, when they sang (Exodus 15,2) זה א-לי ואנוהו, אלוקי אבי וארוממנהו, “this is My G’d and I will enshrine Him, the G’d of my forefather and I will exalt Him.” Not only must the Jewish people accept G’d’s dictates and carry them out, but they must be concerned with preserving His great name and not even in their thoughts do anything which would desecrate this great name of His.

לרצונכם, by ensuring the animal is unblemished and the procedure of semichah, placing one’s weight on it with one’s hands has been performed, as well as all the other details which have been spelled out in Leviticus 3,6.

וכי תזבחו זבח שלמים, “when you set out to slaughter a peace-offering, etc.” After the Torah had forbidden slaughtering and any other aspect of idol worship, it now addresses our desire to offer gifts to the Deity by telling us that the proper address for such offerings if we want it to be welcome, is only the attribute of Hashem. More to the point, contrary to what the naïve human being thinks that such an offering is something the Deity needs or desires, the Torah reminds us that the sole purpose of such a peace-offering is to secure a condition of grace for ourselves; no offering impacts on the Deity in the least, seeing that Hashem is totally self-sufficient. What could man possibly give to the Creator who is the One who has given everything we have to us? The reason why the Torah makes this point in conjunction with the offerings known as שלמים, peace-offerings, is that most of the meat of these animals may be consumed by the owners of the offering rather than by the priests, and it need not be consumed on consecrated grounds but the entire city of Jerusalem is considered holy enough for eating what are known as קדשים קלים, sacrificial meats of a relatively low level of sanctity. Another reason may be that only Israelites are allowed to offer this type of sacrificial offering altogether. Gentiles who are allowed to offer burnt offerings are not allowed to offer peace offerings at all. [On the altar of the Tabernacle or Temple, Ed.] Ibn Ezra writes that the reason why in our chapter the demand to accord reverence for the mother precedes the demand to do the same for one’s father, is that a young child in his early years gets to know the mother intimately whereas it does not establish such a close relationship with its father as yet. The next major focus of a young child is the Sabbath, seeing that it is a duty to train even youngsters in the observance of the Sabbath. The same is not true of the other festivals. Having become familiar with the concept of the Sabbath, the youngster next becomes familiar with the concept of G’d, the Creator, the lawgiver, who rested on the seventh day. Having become familiar with these concepts the youngster is introduced to the need to be in awe of the Creator. The Torah does not repeat the word איש in front of each piece of legislation. It uses the plural mode תיראו when legislating the need to be in awe of parents as well as of the invisible G’d, to remind us that it is every Israelite’s duty to implant such feelings in a fellow Jew; it is not merely the parents’ business to do so. Deviants have to be forced to toe the line when in public. Public desecration of the Sabbath, for instance, is not to be tolerated in a Jewish state or even in exile that is self-governing. The reason why the Torah concludes verse four with the words אני ה' אלוקיכם, is to remind us that the reason why G’d wants us to rest on the Sabbath is because He Himself rested on the first Sabbath and interrupted His creative activities on account of the sanctity of that day. Still quoting Ibn Ezra, the reason for the words אל תפנו אל אלילים, “[something that sounds like a repetition of previous legislation on the subject, Ed.] is that we must not even briefly look at such displays of pagan deities. The reason the Torah repeats the injunction of אלוהי מסכה לא תעשה לך, not to make yourself a molten image, is simply to reassure you that you have no need for any additional celestial assist. By saying אני ה' אלוקיכם, Hashem tells us that He, and only He, will look after our needs. The reason that the Torah writes (verse 9) that we must not completely harvest every last stalk of our fields, immediately after speaking about the peace-offerings, is to draw a comparison between gifts we offer to Hashem such as the fat parts of the peace-offerings, and the gifts we leave for the poor. Giving to the poor is another way of honouring Hashem, who has also made the poor. After having dealt with the need to voluntarily leave gifts for the poor and the stranger (proselyte) who has not yet established an economic base for himself, the Torah enjoins us not to steal, as a corollary of voluntarily giving to the poor. If we even share with the poor what we are in the habit as considering as ours, how much less may we deprive anyone of what is rightfully his by stealing from him? The Torah phrases this legislation also in the plural mode to teach that anyone observing someone stealing and not protesting is as if he had aided and abetted the thief. The Torah continues by warning us not to lie actively or passively, nor to keep silent when we know that someone else lies or cheats. (Verse 12) The injunction not to swear a false oath, i.e. involving G’d Himself in one’s sin by using His name in vain when denying one’s transgression, is added as a warning that sinning leads to denying the sin, which in turn results in desecrating the name of the Lord publicly, one of the most serious sins possible. Here too, the plural mode is used to involve the party demanding that the second one confirm his claims by swearing in the name of Hashem.

This parashoh was said only to teach, etc. (Nachalas Yaakov) Explanation: Because all this is [already] written in parshas Tzav [including that one must have intention to eat it during the proper time]. Rashi answers: It is written here “to teach etc.” Because from [what is written] there, one might have thought that even if he had no intention at all the offering would also be accepted. Therefore, this parashoh is stated [to teach] that if he had no intention at all, even though it is not an abomination, nonetheless, the offering is not accepted.

לרצונכם תזבחוהו, “when you slaughter it demonstrate that you are bent of pleasing the Lord.” How does one do this? You do so by not being stingy when choosing the animal to be slaughtered. [Most of which will serve as meat for the person and family offering it. Ed.] Furthermore, there are people who when offering such sacrifices do not do so from the depth of their heart, but do so as to be seen to have done so by their fellow Jews. This too will not result in G-d welcoming such sacrifices as coming from the heart of the donor. An alternate explanation: How must such an offering be presented in order to qualify as man’s generosity vis a vis his Creator?Answer: “do something that is bound to please G-d.” What, for instance? “Consume the parts of the meat of that animal as soon as possible, i.e. within the first 36 hours.” This demonstrates that you love to eat sacrificial meat while it is still fresh.

לרצנכם תזבחהו YE SHALL SACRIFICE IT TO BE ACCEPTABLE FOR YOU — This means, from the very beginning the slaughtering shall be done with the intention to give Me satisfaction (i. e. to sacrifice it in a manner that is satisfactory to Me) so that it shall effect favour for you (לרצנכם). For if you have in connection with it (with the slaughtering) any intention which will invalidate it (the sacrifice) it shall effect no favour for you before Me.

If one handles holy offerings, etc. I.e., if one is involved with something (else) and he happened to slaughter. For example, he threw [a knife] at a wall to affix it [in the wall], and while throwing, the animal was slaughtered without intent.

תזבחוהו, “slaughter it.” You must not slaughter two heads of an animal in a single procedure, [with a long knife. Ed.]

לרצנכם thus means as much as apaisement in O. F., — “favourable acceptance”. This is the literal meaning of the verse. Our Rabbis, however, (taking the word in its primary sense of will, “intention”) learned from here as regards one who is handling (מתעסק) a sacrifice (קדשים) (when he does the act of Shechitah without the intention of doing this) that it becomes invalid, because it is required that he should intend to slaughter it (Zevachim 47a; Chullin 13a).

ביום זבחכם יאכל ON THE DAY YE SACRIFICE IT [SHALL IT BE EATEN] — This means, when ye slaughter it (וכי תזבחו) slaughter it (תשחטהו =תזבחהו) having in mind the period which I have already fixed for you as that within which it must be eaten (that which is mentioned already Leviticus 7:16).

ביום זבחכם יאכל, “on the day (and the morrow of the day) you slaughter it must be eaten.” The preferred method is to eat the meat of the offering on the actual day the animal has been slaughtered. On the second day it is permitted to eat it still, but it is not the Torah’s choice that the eating be spread over two days or not be commenced until the day after the slaughter.
When the Talmud in Zevachim 55 speaks of peace-offerings being permitted to be eaten on two days and one night, this means the day of the slaughter, the night following, and the following day. On the night following the second day the offering is already in the category of נותר, “left over,” and must not be eaten anymore, the remains to be burned. This is the meaning of the words: “and what remains of it on the third day must be burned by fire.” These words simply mean that the burning has to take place on the third day, not the eating.

ואם האכל ‎'יאכל וגו‎‎‎ AND IF IT SHOULD BE EATEN AT ALL [ON THE THIRD DAY] etc. — If it (this verse) has no bearing on a sacrifice at the slaughtering of which there was the intention to eat its flesh beyond its (the prescribed) time, since it has already been stated, (Leviticus 7:18) “And if any of the flesh of the sacrifice is to be eaten (i. e. is intended to be eaten) at all [on the third day, it shall not be accepted]" — then give it an application to a sacrifice at the slaughtering of which there was the intention of eating its flesh outside the prescribed place (e. g. in the case of a festival offering — outside the walls of Jerusalem) (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 1 4). One might think that people are liable to excision for the eating of it (of such a sacrifice), Scripture therefore states in the case of the former (the חוץ לזמנו sacrifice) (Leviticus 7:18) “And the soul that eateth of it (ממנו) shall bear its iniquity"; i. e. the soul that eateth of it, but not of the one similar to it (the חוץ למקומו sacrifice) shall bear its iniquity. This excludes therefore from the penalty of excision the case of a sacrifice which has been slaughtered with the intention that it should be eaten outside the prescribed place (Zevachim 28a).

ואם האכל יאכל, according to our sages (Torat Kohanim 1,4) this refers to someone planning to eat the remains outside the sacred precincts allocated for this.

Perhaps they should be liable to koreis. I.e., if he thought, while he was slaughtering, on condition to eat it outside its [proper] place. The verse says: “And anyone who eats from it, etc. This is written regarding outside its [proper] time.

פגול means abominable; similar is (Isaiah 65:4) "and broth of abominable things (פגולים) is in their vessels".

With the intention [of eating it] outside its [proper] place. I.e., while slaughtering he thought of eating it outside its place, i.e., outside the [courtyard] curtains.

ואכליו עונו ישא THEREFORE EVERYONE THAT EATETH IT SHALL BEAR HIS INIQUITY — Scripture is speaking here of flesh actually left unburnt on the third day (so that this verse must be connected with v. 6, and not with v. 7) since one is not liable to excision for eating that which was slaughtered with the intention to eat its flesh outside the prescribed place (of which v. 7 is speaking), because Scripture has already excluded such a case from the penalty of excision (cf. Rashi v. 7). This verse must therefore be speaking of actual נותר. In Treatise Keritot 5a they (our Rabbis) derived it (the fact that v. 8 refers back to נותר in 5:6) from a verbal analogy.

ונכרתה הנפש ההיא מעמיה and this person (soul) will be cut off from its people. We must explore the reason why the penalty for a priest who eats sacrificial meat after the time the Torah allocated for it is so severe. Why is this sin worse than eating all kinds of animals which were not allowed to be consumed at any time, such as creeping things, certain kinds of grasshoppers, or even mammals which died of natural causes or were found to be diseased? You should know that the reason is connected to what we learned in Baba Metzia 114 that the corpse of an Israelite confers ritual impurity on people under the same roof, whereas the corpse of a pagan does not. In other words, the bodies of Israelites are of a higher level of sanctity (while alive) than are the bodies of pagans. Once the sanctity departs from the body of the Jew when he dies, this is replaced by all kinds of spiritually negative phenomena. This accounts for the fact that the difference between a live Jew and a dead Jew is far greater than the difference between a live pagan and a dead pagan. No sanctity departed from the pagan when he died, hence no additional קליפות, spiritually negative forces, will invade that body. The same principle operates in connection with the legislation in our verse. The parts of the animal offered on the altar have enjoyed a higher status than any other animal dead or alive, seeing the remains of this animal have been considered fit to be offered up in holy precincts, an area that most Israelites are not allowed to enter either dead or alive. As soon as the time allocated for these parts to be eaten has elapsed the animal forfeits all the holiness it possessed and this is replaced in turn by spiritually negative forces, just as in the case of the body of a Jew who has died. These forces of טומאה which have now invaded the remains of that animal cause the premature death, etc. of the priest who will eat these parts belatedly. None of the other animals which the Torah has outlawed for consumption by Jews had ever been imbued with any sanctity so that this could have been replaced upon its death by spiritually negative forces which would represent mortal danger to a Jew eating such an animal. Any negative influences a Jew absorbs when he eats these forbidden animals can be expunged by the sinner receiving corporal punishment, מלקות.

[The verse speaks] of absolute נותר. Rashi is answering the question: Since verse 7 which states, “And if it should be eaten at all,” is speaking of someone having the thought of outside its place and he does not incur the punishment of koreis, how can Scripture write “Whoever eats from it shall bear his iniquity,” which implies that he does have the punishment of koreis? He answers: “This verse speaks of absolute נותר.”

'כי את קודש ה, “for he defiled something that had been sacred to the Lord.” Once the parts that were destined for the altar have been presented the remainder of the meat is of a holy character. (Ibn Ezra)

[Our Rabbis] derived it from a גזירה שוה. It says here, “Whoever eats from it shall bear his iniquity,” and elsewhere in parshas Tzav (7:18) it says “Anyone who eats of it shall bear [the burden of] its iniquity.” Just as there it speaks of absolute נותר, so here it speaks of absolute נותר.

The reason the Torah gives for the harsh penalty "that he (the priest) has defiled something that is sacred," appears to mean that the Torah is concerned with the status of the remains of the animal; according to our approach, however, it seems to indicate that G'd is very concerned with the sacred status of the priest. The Torah does not want the priest to jeopardise his status. Possibly, the fact that peace-offerings are not complete until the priests had consumed their portions, is the reason why the Torah had to be very blunt in outlawing eating any of that sacrificial meat after the deadline, even if, as a result of the priest not having eaten all of it on time some of it became נותר.

לא תכלה פאת שדך THOU SHALT NOT WHOLLY REAP THE CORNER OF THY FIELD — This means that one must leave פאה (an uncut portion) at the extremity of one's field (cf. Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 1 9; Mishna Peah 1:2; Shabbat 23a).

ובקצרכם...לעני ולגר תעזוב אותם, The Torah now turns to how we can emulate G’d’s attributes in [practice after having accepted that it is our purpose on earth to emulate G’d’s characteristics to the extent that He has revealed them to us. We are to perform acts of charity and righteousness. Part of such acts of charity are the providing for the underprivileged out of the bounty G’d has seen fit to grant us. The specific items known as leket, shikchah, and peyah are examples of such demonstrations of our generosity towards the poor. אני ה' אלוקיכם, this recognition of G’d as our G’d is demonstrated by our meticulously fulfilling these commandments relating to the time when we gather in our harvest. Before we even give tithes of the completed harvest which has been brought into the barn we already allow for the poor to help themselves to what other, gentile farmers, might consider the product of their own hard earned labour.

ובקצרכם את קציר ארצכם, "And when you reap the harvest of your land, etc." The Torah commenced this verse by speaking in the plural, whereas it concluded by addressing an individual i.e. לא תכלה פאת שדך, "you (sing.) must not reap the corner of your field." The Torah may have wanted to dispel the faulty notion that when the amount of gleanings, etc. does not amount to anywhere near enough to provide something meaningful for the poor that the law does not apply. We find an example of such thinking in Kings II 4,43 where Gechazi, Elisha's servant, questioned the use of sharing out twenty loaves amongst over one hundred of Elisha's followers. The Torah therefore addresses each farmer individually to tell him that even though his individual contribution is minimal he must abide by this legislation. The Torah uses the singular for each one of the types of gifts for the poor listed in our verse.

ובקצרכם, “When you reap the harvest, etc.” The reason the word ובקצרכם is in the plural is because the portion commenced with Israel being addressed in the plural, i.e. as the community. Moreover, it was the custom in those days that many people began the harvesting process simultaneously.
By contrast the words לא תכלה, “do not completely harvest the corner, etc.” are in the singular seeing the warning is addressed to the individual owner of the field in question. We find that the Torah uses the singular in other parallel legislation where the onus is on the individual owner (compare verse 10). Our sages in Chulin 135 comment that seeing the Torah spoke about שדך, “the field belonging to you the individual,” I might have thought that fields owned jointly by two or more partners could escape the application of this legislation. To ensure that we do not draw such conclusions the Torah employs the plural in our verse here, speaking about a number of people harvesting.

A corner at the end of his field. Rashi means, when he ends reaping his field, not when he starts.

ובקוצרכם, ”and when you reap the harvest;” just as you tender the appropriate parts of the animal peace offerings to the Lord on the altar, so you must set aside the appropriate parts of your agricultural products for the needy of your people as an expression of your honour of the Lord. (Sifra)

ולקט קצירך [NEITHER SHALT THOU COLLECT] THE GLEANINGS OF THY HARVEST — Gleanings are ears that drop from the hand of the harvester during the reaping — one or two at a time, but three do not come under the category of לקט (Mishna Peah 6:5; Sanhedrin 99a).

[Which fall down] during harvesting. Explanation: But not during the picking off of grains [by hand]; if these fall from his hand they are not considered “gleanings” because harvesting is generally done with a scythe as this is the usual way.

The Torah may have felt forced to write this positive commandment immediately following mention of the severe כרת penalty for the priest who violates the perimeters of eating sacrificial meat. It wanted to disabuse a person who has become guilty of such a penalty from saying to himself that there is no point in observing any of G'd's commandments because he had already forfeited his share of the hereafter by violating a different commandment. The Torah says: "when you reap the harvest of your fields;" this is a reference to the people (i.e. the nation at large) who had "harvested" i.e. cut themselves off by commission of a sin which made them subject to extinction. G'd directs: "do not destroy the corner of your field to harvest it;" this is a warning to the people or individuals not to become guilty of additional misdemeanours. He advises us that not the whole soul will be destroyed. The only part of the personality (soul) which will be destroyed is the branch to which this particular commandment had been addressed in the first place. Other parts of that soul continue to maintain their affinity with their holy origin. Every Jewish soul has roots in the celestial regions, one root corresponding to each of the commandments in the Torah. The Torah continues: ולקט קצירך לא תלקט, "do not gather the gleanings of your harvest." This is a reminder not even to repeat the specific sin for which one has already once become guilty of the כרת penalty. The rationale for this can best be understood in light of a comment by the Ari Zal. He said that it is in the nature of sanctity to leave behind some mark even if its bulk has been erased. If this is so, it follows that although the sinner has "harvested," i.e. put an end to his spiritual career by his sin, there is still a residue of the former sanctity he has forfeited by his deed. The Torah commanded such a sinner to be careful not to commit an act which would wipe out even that residue by repeating his sin, i.e. לקט. It is G'd's hope and desire that this לקט, residue of former sanctity, should prompt the sinner to become a penitent so that G'd will have cause to extend His mercy to him. After all, we are told in Yuma 86 that although a person may be guilty of a variety of sins which are punishable either by execution in this life or כרת at the hands of G'd, his repentance will atone for such sins. We are all aware of the call of Hoseah to the sinner (Hoseah 14,2) to become a penitent and to express his guilt first of all with his lips. Our sages explain in this connection that "repentance is great indeed as it penetrates up until the throne of G'd's glory." The meaning of these words is that although the חוט, the lifeline which connects every Jewish soul directly to that throne, had already been severed so that only the thinnest of threads remains within the sinner, repentance enables the sinner to re-establish contact with the throne of G'd.

ובקוצרכם, “this law is applicable only to Israelites, i.e. those who have been Jewish when they reaped the harvest, not if they converted after they have harvested the crop. (Sifra)

Three are not [considered] “gleanings.” Because in parshas Emor (later 23:22) it is also written, “You shall not gather the gleaning of your harvest. You shall leave them for the poor and the proselyte,” and the smallest of many (them) is two. I also found that it says (Shemos 12:22), “Take a bunch (אגודת) of hyssop,” and Rashi explains, “Three stalks are called an אגודה.” Therefore, Rashi explains here that three are not “gleanings” but an אגודה.

את קציר ארצכם, “the harvest of the field of your land.” This teaches that the legislation following also applies to kitniyot, to corn, lentils, rice, beans peas, etc.; not only to the crops that could become chametz on Passover.

לא תכלה פאת שדך, “do not completely reap the corner of your field;” Rabbi Shimon holds that as long as the farmer set aside some grain during the various stages of reaping he had fulfilled his obligation, as long as the total is not less than 1/60th of the field’s total yield.

לקצור, “to reap,” this 60th is to include all manner of plucking, cutting by hand, or with the tools designated for harvesting. (Sifra)

לא תעולל AND THOU SHALT NOT GLEAN [THY VINE YARD] — (עלל is a verb connected with the noun עולל "young, tender, not developed"; cf. Samuel 15:3: עולל ויונק) thus לא תעולל means, thou shalt not take the tender grapes of it. They can be recognized as such from the description given in Mishna Peah 7:4 (cf. also Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 3 3) where it is stated: What are עוללות? Clusters which have neither כתף, “arms" nor נטף, "drippings".

לא תעולל, meaning something akin to the concept of peyah in cornfields, i.e. the farmer must not harvest the entire vineyard for his own use. The parallel verse appears in Jeremiah 6,9 עולל יעוללו כגפן, “let them glean over and over, as a vine.”

You must not take [the] gleanings. An expression [similar to] עולל ויונק, “infant and suckling” (Yirmeyahu 44:7). I.e., the small clusters.

You shall not gather. The commandment, “you shall not steal,” is juxtaposed to this to warn a property owner not to steal from what is fitting for the poor, and also to warn the poor not to steal from the property owner more than what they are entitled.

ופרט כרמך [NEITHER SHALT THOU COLLECT] THE FALLEN GRAPES OF THY VINE YARD — i. e. the single berries of the grapes which fall to the ground during the grape gathering.

No “shoulders.” Explanation: They are not next to each other and lying one on the other as when people rest on each other’s shoulder. “Drippings” means like drops that drip one after the other, and are not near and next to each other. This is called “drippings.” Explanation: some clusters have stalks going in all directions off the main stem, one above the other, and grapes hang on these stalks in one bunch. The combination of all those stalks with their grapes creates the cluster. Some clusters do not have stalks coming off at all, but only single grapes coming off their main stem and going down from the top of the cluster to the bottom. Each of these two kinds is not called “gleanings” but a cluster. However, whatever is not of these two kinds just mentioned, but has grapes all gathered together in one place with no main stem at all, and most of this type are called בוסר (unripe grapes) and are found at the top of vines, this is called “gleanings” and the verse commands us to not take them. Re’m. See maseches Pei’ah chapter 10 where Rabbeinu Shimshon explains at length “shoulders” and “drippings.”

אני ה'‏‎‎‎‎‎ אלהיכם I AM THE LORD YOUR GOD — the Judge Who am certain to punish if necessary and Who for the neglect of these duties will exact from you nothing less than your souls, as it is said (Proverbs 22:22, 23) "Rob not the poor… for the Lord will plead their cause, [and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them]" (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 3 7).

[The single] berries of the grapes. I.e., פרט connotes a single item like פרט וכלל (an individual case and a general rule); meaning [the single] berries of grapes.

A Judge Who punishes. Rashi is answering the question: It is written “You shall not glean,” “You shall not gather,” all in the singular form, and [then] it is written, “I am Adonoy, your God ((אלקיכם in the plural form. [The answer is]: He punishes [many] “souls,” since [by taking away] the thief’s soul he also takes away the souls of the thief’s sons when they are orphaned, [because a poor person is considered dead].

Nothing less than [your] souls. (Gur Aryeh) Because if not, why [does Scripture] mention here, more than elsewhere, [that Hashem is] faithful to pay back.

לא תגנבו YE SHALL NOT STEAL — This is a warning addressed to him who steals money (the property of his fellow-man), but the law “Thou shalt not steal" which is contained in the Ten Commandments is a warning addressed to him who steals a human being. For this it what is learnt from the context, because it must be a matter for which one becomes liable to death by sentence of the court, (since the preceding laws in the Ten Commandments are of this character, which is the case with kidnapping and not with theft of money; cf. Rashi on Exodus 19:14) (Mekhilta 20:13:3; Sanhedrin 86a).

After this the Torah explains various aspects of civil law some of which are addressed to the people at large, whereas others are addressed to the judiciary and the manner in which they deal with the people. Others again are addressed to the heads of the nation. Still others emphasise that individuals must not infringe on others’ property, hence לא תגנובו לא תכחשו ולא תשקרו, all damages involving financial property. Also,

לא תגנבו, "Do not steal, etc." What is the reason the Torah chose to write this commandment next to that of leaving your gleanings for the poor? Perhaps Torat Kohanim provides the clue. They quote Ben Bag Bag who said: "do not steal your own property back from the thief lest you will be perceived as a thief" (i.e. by those who do not know that what you took was yours in the first place). Thus far Torat Kohanim. Here the Torah warns the farmer that if he collects the gleanings of his own harvest he should not rationalise this by saying that he is only taking what belongs to him anyway.

לא תגנובו, money.

לא תגנובו , “you shall not steal!” At this point the Torah reverts to using the plural seeing that a similar commandment in the Ten Commandments had been addressed to the individual, i.e. לא תגנוב. The Torah did not want us to think that the commandment here was merely a repetition of what has already been written in the Decalogue. In the Decalogue the Torah speaks of someone stealing somebody for which the penalty is execution, whereas here the Torah speaks about objects or even animals for which financial compensation with or without a penalty is in place. The reason we know that in the Decalogue we speak about a different category of theft, i.e. kidnapping, is that the other commandments there i.e. “do not commit adultery, and do not murder,” are also sins punishable by execution of the person violating them deliberately. Here the Torah speaks of stealing money, or the equivalent of money, something that can be expiated by means of payments to the party concerned. We were told in Baba Metzia 61 that the wording לא תגנובו implies that stealing is prohibited even if one committed the theft only in order to annoy the person from whom one stole without the intention of keeping the stolen money. The reason the sages in Baba Metzia had to come up with this explanation is that seeing the Torah already wrote לא תגזול, “do not commit robbery,” and everyone who steals is automatically guilty of violating the commandment not to commit robbery, the words לא תגנובו had to contain an additional dimension.

[This is] a prohibition against one who steals money. Rashi means that over there, since it is written, “You shall not murder,” “You shall not commit adultery,” which are liable for a court-exacted death penalty, therefore, “You shall not steal” too is speaking of [a case liable for] a court-exacted death penalty. Therefore, “you shall not steal” [here] must refer to money because if not so, why two [verses]? [Re’m] Re’m writes: You might ask, why does Rashi need to prove from there that the Torah here is speaking of stealing money? He should have proved it from here, because from here too it is obvious [that it is speaking of stealing money] because of [the rule that] “a matter is interpreted according to its context,” since the verse here only speaks of monetary cases. [I say], the answer is that here too the verses are speaking of [cases punishable by] death because it is written (in the previous verse), “I am Adonoy, your God,” and Rashi explains, “A Judge Who punishes [wrongdoers], and [for this sin] I exact from you, nothing less than [your] souls.” And this [indeed], is why Rashi mentioned this exegesis above [in verse 10]. It also seems to me that Rashi is answering the question that you could have said the opposite; that here the verse is talking about kidnapping and above it is talking about stealing money? Rashi answers, “This matter is deduced from its context, etc.” This is not like Re’em’s explanation above that Rashi is answering the question “Why [do we need] two [verses]?” This is easy to understand. (Gur Aryeh). Rashi here is not trying to deduce that the verse here is talking about stealing money. Rather, he is answering why the verse [here] has to write “You shall not steal” since it already wrote “You shall not steal” in the Ten Commandments that includes everything, both money and people since the verse writes in general terms, “Do not steal.” He answers that the verse “Do not steal” of the Ten Commandments is certainly [only] speaking of kidnapping because “this matter is deduced from its context.” But he was certainly never bothered by the question why Scripture had to write “Do not steal” in the Ten Commandments once it writes “do not steal” here, because it is obvious that the verse here is talking [only] about money, because it says “You shall not deny,” and [stealing] is certainly the same as “you shall not deny” because [in the latter] too one is taking the money of his fellow. But “You shall not steal” of the Ten Commandments is not completely the same as “Do not murder” and “Do not commit adultery,” and therefore one may have thought that there it is talking about every [kind of] theft, whether of money or people. Therefore, he has to say that there it is talking only about kidnapping because “something is deduced from its context.” Regarding “you shall not steal” [of the Ten Commandments] no punishment is stated. Therefore you cannot explain that one verse is for the punishment and one is for the negative commandment. Therefore, he has to say that one [verse] is talking about kidnapping, and the other, about stealing money. (Nachalas Yaakov)

לא תגנובו, “do not steal;” here too the Torah repeated by using the plural mode what had already been part of the commandment not to steal in the Ten Commandments, when it was phrased as if only addressed to an individual. The Torah implies that if someone observes theft and is silent, he is no better than the thief himself. (Ibn Ezra) Now that we have read the warning not to steal, whence do we know the penalty for violating this commandment? It says שנים ישלם: “he has to repay twice the value.” (Exodus 22,3.) The commandment not to steal, in the Ten Commandments, dealt with stealing human beings, kidnapping.

ולא תכחשו NEITHER SHALL YE DEAL FALSELY [WITH ONE ANOTHER] — Since Scripture has stated (Leviticus 5:21, 22) "[If a man sin… and deny unto his neighbour a charge, or a deposit… or has found that which was lost] and denieth it (וכחש בה)", that he shall pay the principal and add a fifth part more thereto, we have there mention only of the punishment he incurs; whence do we derive the prohibition (i.e. where is it forbidden)? From Scripture's statement here “neither shall ye deal falsely" (The Hebrew here is תכחשו, the same term as is used in the verse quoted — וכחש בה) (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 2 3; Bava Kamma 105b).

לא תכחשו, denial that one had received a deposit for safekeeping from another Jew. Compare Leviticus 5,22.

If you steal, in the end you will deny. It seems that Rashi deduces this as the verse should have written “You shall not deny” without [writing beforehand] “and.” Because “you shall not steal” [applies to stealing] both from a Jew or from a non-Jew as Rambam writes at the beginning of the first chapter of Laws of Theft, and as Smag writes in Lavin 195, [whereas the next two commands of the verse only apply to acting against Jews]. Because grammatically, “You shall not steal” is not connected with בעמיתו (lit. “against one’s fellow [Jew]”) [at the end of the verse], because if it was [connected], it should have said מעמיתו (“from one’s fellow) and not בעמיתו. Furthermore, the cantillation interrupts it [from מעמיתו], i.e., the esnach [that signifies the end of a clause] under לא תגנובו. Therefore, the verse says “(You shall not steal), and you shall not deny, and each one of you...,” in order to hint that they are connected to each other as one causes the other, because “in the end, etc.” (Yaakov Tayrosh)

Our verse actually contains three prohibitions. 1) "Do not steal!" i.e. to not take someone else's money without that person being aware of it. 2) "Do not deal falsely!" i.e. do not deny that you have in your possession money belonging to your fellow man though you obtained this money legally. 3) "Do not lie!" i.e. do not deny that you have money of your fellow man in your possession and there are witnesses who testify to this. The Torah tells us that even in a case such as this where the claim of the thief is easily disproved and the money will be restored to its rightful owner, the thief is guilty of having lied.

לא תכחשו ולא תשקרו, “do not deal falsely nor lie to one another.” The prohibition is spelled out here; where do we have the penalty for violating this commandment? According to the (Sifra) we find it in Leviticus 5,22 in the words: וכחש בה וחמשיתו יוסף עליו, “if he denies it he will have to add a fifth of its value when making good.”After G-d had commanded us to give some of what we own to Him, he also warns us not to deprive our fellowman of what is rightfully his. (Ibn Ezra, worded slightly differently)

ולא תשקרו NEITHER SHALL YE LIE [ONE TO ANOTHER] — Since Scripture has stated (V. 22) “[If a soul sin… and deny unto his neighbour a charge or a deposit…] and sweareth falsely (לשקר)" that he shall pay the principal and shall add the fifth part more thereto, we have there mention only of the punishment he incurs; whence do we derive the prohibition to lie? From Scripture's statement here “ye shall not lie one to another”.

לא תשקרו, denying that one had received a loan.

The Torah also hints here that in the event a person violates the first of these three commandments and steals, G'd will see to it that the theft becomes known. Our sages in Chagigah 16 have stated that if someone commits a sin in secret G'd will make the sin public so that the sinner's wickedness will be exposed. This is why the Torah writes the prohibition to deny one's guilt immediately after writing the prohibition to steal. When the Torah wrote לא תכחשו, "do not falsely deny your guilt," it speaks of a situation where the culprit would be able to get away with his denial legally such as when he is confronted by only one witness; if the thief confesses, all well and good; if he denies the accusation, the Seer, i.e. G'd Himself, will act as the second witness against the guilty person; needless to say that in that event the culprit will not be able to get away with his lie; the Torah adds: "do not lie!" to teach that in addition to the culprit's denial having proven useless to him he will also have become guilty of the sin of lying.

לא תגנבו ולא תכחשו ולא תשקרו ולא תשבעו YE SHALL NOT STEAL, NEITHER DEAL FALSELY, NEITHER LIE, NEITHER SWEAR [ONE TO ANOTHER] - If you steal you will in the end come to deny it, then you will lie (in order to back up your first denial), and ultimately you will swear falsely (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 2 5).

The reason the Torah employs the plural here and in subsequent verses as opposed to the first ten verses in this chapter and the commandments starting with verse 16 may be to warn the victim of the thief not to take the law into his own hands and retrieve what has been stolen from him in that fashion. The words לא תגנובו therefore are addressed to both the original thief as well as the victim who resorts to stealing to retrieve his own property. The result of taking the law into your own hands would likely result in both of you becoming guilty of violating the related commandments לא תכחשו ולא תשקרו. As to the reason why also verse 12 is in the plural, I believe the reason is identical. If someone observes that the thief denies on oath that he has stolen someone's property, that someone may feel justified in recovering his property by swearing a false oath himself. This is why the Torah warns לא תשבעו בשמי לשקר, not to swear a false oath by citing G'd as one's witness. Inasmuch as this would involve a desecration of the name of G'd, the Torah reverts to addressing such a person in the singular (in the middle of verse 12); this makes it plain that the Torah addresses only the person who profanes G'd's name in order to salvage his own property by swearing an oath. There was no need to include the thief seeing he was already included in the general prohibition לא תשעבו בשמי לשקר. It is also possible that the words לא תשעבו are a warning to the party who tries to make a second party swear an oath when he has reason to believe that that party will perjure himself. Better not to let him swear than to contribute to his desecrating G'd's name. In the worst case scenario then there will only be one person involved in desecrating G'd's name.

ולא תשבעו בשמי AND YE SHALL NOT SWEAR BY MY NAME [TO A LIE] - Why is this stated at all (how does the particular form of words used here tell us more than is contained in the Third Commandment)? Since it is said (Exodus 20:7) “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord (‎'ה) thy God in vain”, I might have inferred that one is not liable except he swore by the "Proper Name” of the Lord (שם המיוחד). Whence do I know that all names that are descriptive of God's attributes (Adonay, Rachum, Chanun etc.) are included in this prohibition? Because Scripture states “ye shall not swear by My Name to a lie", thus implying by any Name I have (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 2 6).

AND YE SHALL NOT SWEAR BY MY NAME FALSELY. “Why is this stated [when it has already been mentioned in the Ten Commandments]? Since it is said, Thou shalt not take the Name of the Eternal thy G-d in vain,³⁷Ibid., Verse 7. I might think that one is liable only if he swore by the Proper Name of G-d. Whence do I know to include all ‘substitute’ Names of G-d [such as Merciful, etc.]? Scripture therefore says, And ye shall not swear ‘bishmi’ (by My Name) falsely — by any Name I have.” This is Rashi’s language from the Torath Kohanim.⁵⁴Sifra, Kedoshim 2:6. The Sifra is another name for Torath Kohanim. By way of the Truth, [the mystic teachings of the Cabala], And ye shall not swear by My Name refers to the Proper Name [i.e., the Tetragrammaton]. And thereby thou wilt profane the Name of thy G-d refers to the Name Elokim (G-d), from which Name all other “substitute” Names of G-d are derived. And there [in the Ten Commandments] it says at first the Name of the Eternal thy G-d,³⁷Ibid., Verse 7. and similarly, the Eternal will not hold him guiltless,³⁷Ibid., Verse 7. meaning, by His Great Proper Name. And this is the meaning of the expression [here in the verse before us], and thou wilt profane, meaning that he who swears falsely by the Proper Name, will thereby be profaning the Name of Elokim [as all Divine Names are united in perfect Unity].⁵⁵See my Hebrew commentary p. 117.

לא תשבעו בשמי לשקר, revolves around felonious attempts to deny financial obligations one has entered into. וחללת את שם אלוקיך, by causing financial damage to your fellow man you would desecrate the holy name of the Lord your G’d.

ולא תשבעו, even when this does not entail denying financial obligations one wants to escape.

ולא תשבעו בשמי לשקר, “and do not abuse My name to swear a false oath;” the reason why this prohibition appears at the end of this string is that when someone is suspected and accused of having lied, stolen, etc., it is likely that in defending himself against the accusation he will add the additional sin of swearing his innocence when knowing that this is not so. All three of these prohibitions, though already written once in singular mode, have been repeated so as not to give a group of people an excuse to commit same by claiming that each one of them had only had a miniscule share in participating in that sin.

וחללת את שם אלוקיך, “and by so doing you have desecrated the name of your G-d.” Swearing a false oath is proof that one does not consider G-d’s name as being sacred, or even worse, that he does not know what is in your heart. (Ibn Ezra)

לא תעשק THOU SHALT NOT WRONG [THY FELLOW-MAN] — This refers to one who withholds the wages of a hired servant (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 2 9; Bava Metzia 61a).

לא תעשוק את דעך, "Do not oppress your fellow Jew." After the Torah had forbidden the acquisition of someone else's money through theft a person might conclude that the Torah's objection is only to thievery and not to other ways of appropriating something which is rightfully someone else's. This is why the Torah had to outlaw the obtaining of money by someone exploiting his position of strength vis-a-vis a person whose social or financial position places him at a disadvantage. The prohibition includes withholding wages of a labourer even only for one night.

לא תעשוק, withholding wages and suppressing just claims by converts.

This [refers to one] who withholds the wages of a hired hand. Because every expression of עשק (oppression) refers to the withholding of a hired hand’s wages. So explains Rashi in Bava Metzia 61b.

לא תלין פעולת שכיר, “do not withhold the wages of a day labourer overnight.” Torat Kohanim on this line asks the rhetorical question: “how do I know that the same rule applies to beasts which have laboured for you? The word שכיר followed by פעולת, “labour of,” shows that it applies not only to human beings who have laboured for you, but as well to animals and the soil that has worked for you.? When this verse is discussed in the Talmud, there is no reference to the soil.

You shall not withhold the wages. If a person permissibly gained possession of someone else’s property, such as by a loan or the like, but he does not intend to return it is called עושק (oppression) and not גזל (stealing). Stealing is only is the case of, “And he grabbed (ויגזול) the spear from the hand of the Egyptian” (Shmuel II 23:21), which is that he forcibly grabbed it in the first place.

פעולת שכיר, “the wages of a day labourer;” this expression in the same sense occurs also in Job 34,11, כי פועל אדם ישלם לו, “for He pays a man according to his actions.”

לא תלין The word תלין is feminine gender and refers to the wages.

לא תגזול, similar to Samuel II 23,21 ויגזול את החנית מידו, “he wrenched the spear out of his hand.”

[This verb] is feminine], referring to [the word] פעולה [“wages”]. Re’m explains that if the letterתי"ו [made תלין] a second person [male] verb, it would then make it a transitive verb, [i.e., a verb referring to an object]. But we never find this word used except as an intransitive verb, such as וילן שם , “And he spent the night there” (Bereishis 28:11), וילינו שם, “And they spent the night there” (Shoftim 19:4), כי ברחוב נלין , “We will spend the night in the street” (Bereishis 19:2), except for the verseערום ילין בלי לבוש , “They spend all the night naked without clothing” (Iyuv 24:7). [Therefore], it is better to explain it as referring to [the word] פעולה, so that it is intransitive like the others. [Alternatively], I think that if it referred to the householder, the word “in your possession” would be unnecessary as the verse should simply have said, לא תלין פעולת שכיר עד בוקר, “Do not leave the wages of a day-laborer overnight until morning.”

The reason the Torah describes the injured party as רע, a colleague or friend, is to warn us not to presume on the other party's friendship towards us to shortchange them in what is due to them. One must not play loose with a friend's money because he is one's friend and presumably will not voice his objection for the sake of preserving the friendship. The word את רעך is justified seeing the subject is one which involves only people, not G'd directly. Moreover, if the friend forgives the harm done to him such behaviour is not considered a sin vis-a-vis G'd.

You shall not rob. Scripture only needs to speak about a case where he intends to return it the next day, nevertheless, it is called robbery for a day. It shall not remain overnight, the wages of a day-laborer. Although it is only the payment of a loan, and he intends to pay later, nevertheless, the wages of a day-laborer are different, as the Torah explains in another place (Devarim 24:15), “You shall give him his wage on his day … for he is poor, and he risks his life for it”.

פעולת שכר, “this includes any type of compensation, for human beings, vessels borrowed, animals borrowed and land borrowed or rented. (Sifra)

עד בקר UNTIL THE MORNING — Scripture speaks here of a person hired for day-work (שכיר יום) whose departure from work is at sunset. The time for drawing his wages is therefore the whole night (and the law is not infringed provided he pays it before the moment of day break). In another passage (Deuteronomy 24:14) it states, "the sun shall not go down upon it (the man's wages)”. There, however, it is speaking of one hired for night-work (שכיר לילה) the end of whose period of work is at day break, therefore the time for drawing his wages is the whole day (but it must be done before sunset). The reason why he has the whole night or whole day to pay the wages is because the Torah gives the employer the time of one "Ona" (one half of the astronomical day; cf. for the meaning of the word Niddah 65b) to endeavour to obtain the money he requires for paying the wages (Bava Metzia 110b).

לא תלין, withholding wages from night workers.

The verse speaks of a day-laborer. Rashi is answering the question: This verse implies that the wage may remain the whole night and there is only a prohibition until the morning, but in parshas Ki Seitzei (Devarim 24:15) it is written “And let the sun not set upon it.” He therefore answers that the verse speaks of a day-laborer.

A moral-ethical dimension of these verses is found in Berachot 35 where the Talmud discusses Proverbs 28,24: "he who robs father or mother saying it is no sin is a companion of a destroyer." The Talmud views the verse as referring to someone enjoying the products of this world without first reciting a benediction acknowledging that it all belongs to G'd. Father and mother in that verse are supposed to be G'd and the concept of the people of Israel, commonly referred to as כנסת ישראל. The word רעך in our verse would refer to G'd Himself. We are entitled to this homiletical approach based on Proverbs 27,10 where Solomon warns not to abandon "your friend and the friend of your father." This means one should not "rob" G'd of what He provides without first acknowledging it, taking permission, so to speak. The reason the Torah adds the words "do not rob," is to tell you that even the paucity of מצוה-performance contains an element of robbery. When one fails to carry out a commandment which one is obligated to observe and has the opportunity to observe one causes harm to the entire Jewish people, i.e. one is guilty of transgressing the commandment לא תלין, not performing one's duty on time. When the Torah writes: "do not keep overnight with you the wages due to a labourer," this is a demand to perform daily and punctually in one's מצוה-performance. Vayikra Rabbah 26,4 describes the practice of day borrowing from night during the summer months, whereas night borrows from day during the winter months. [ideally, both day and night should be 12 hours long all year long were it not for the fact that the earth's axis is (nowadays, since the deluge) at an angle. Ed.] The Midrash presents this as an ideal way of two parties helping each other out without recourse to written contracts, demands for repayment, etc. When the Torah writes לא תלין פעולת שכיר אתך, "do not hold back the wages of your labourer with you all night long," the word אתך, refers back to the word שכיר, "someone hired by G'd," a reference to the spirit G'd has granted His labourers, i.e. man. G'd looks upon man as His hired hand. He has granted this spirit both to the hired hand as well as to the resident. Man's wages are that he is granted the privilege to carry out the commandments of G'd. Anyone of us failing to do so or doing so belatedly harms the whole people.

A half-day period (עונה). A twelve hour period of either day of night, is called “עונה.”

This verse also contains an allusion to the well known statement by our sages (Berachot 28) that Torah scholars do not find much sustenance in this life. We also have a Yalkut Shimoni (item 934 on Proverbs) on Proverbs 3,3 which appears to promise much temporal reward for Torah study. The Torah is supposed to have wanted to know why people studying it are usually so poor. I have heard a good answer to this question in the name of the Ari Zal. He explained that the physical universe we live in would be unable to absorb all the goodness G'd would have to bestow on the Torah scholars. G'd therefore decided to bestow such goodness only on the average individuals who in turn are charged with looking after the material needs of the Torah scholars. This teaches that the only reason there are apparently undeserving wealthy people in this world is that they serve as a מרזב, a channel to furnish sustenace to the Torah scholars. G'd has commanded here that that a (wealthy) person must not oppress a Torah scholar by withholding the material benefits from him which it is his function to provide for his רע, his friend, the Torah scholar.

The word את in the verse לא תעשוק, next to the word רעך, -a reference to G'd as we explained,- is to be understood as similar to what Rabbi Akiva explained in Pessachim 22. In that instance Rabbi Akiva explains the word את in את ה׳ אלוקיך תירא as referring to Torah scholars. The Torah intended to warn us to revere Torah scholars, the judges, in much the same manner as we revere G'd Himself. Judges are also known as אלהים, so that we can say the Torah warns not to steal or rob as G'd has representatives on earth who will deprive the thief or robber of whatever he has taken unlawfully.

לא תקלל חרש THOU SHALT NOT CURSE THE DEAF — I have here only the law that one must not curse the deaf: whence do I know that any person is included in this prohibition and that the meaning is, Thou shalt not curse even the deaf? Because Scripture states (Exodus 22:27) "Thou shalt not curse בעמך, anyone among thy people". But if this be so why does Scripture say חרש and does not use some more general expression? It does so in order to offer an analogy: What is the case with the חרש? He is one who cannot hear your curse and therefore cannot feel aggrieved, but he has the characteristic of being a living person! The same applies to all living, thus excluding a dead person, who though he cannot hear and feel aggrieved, is not living (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 2 13; cf. also Sanhedrin 66a).

THOU SHALT NOT CURSE THE DEAF. “From this verse I know only [that one may not curse] the deaf. Whence do I know that one may not curse anybody? From the words of Scripture: Of thy people thou shalt not curse.⁵⁶Exodus 22:27. If so, why does it state [here] ‘the deaf’? It is to teach us that ‘the deaf’ has been singled out by Scripture [here] because [although he is unable to hear and feel hurt], he has the characteristic of being alive, thus exluding [from the scope of this prohibition] the dead [who, though they are like the deaf in their inability to hear and feel hurt], are unlike them in being no longer alive.” This is Rashi’s language, and so it is taught in the Torath Kohanim.⁵⁷Torath Kohanim, Kedoshim 2:13. But the interpretation of the Gemara⁵⁸Sanhedrin 66 a. is not so. Rather, Scripture first warned against [cursing] the dignitaries of the people, the judge or ruler, saying, Thou shalt not curse ‘elohim’ (the judges) nor curse a ruler of thy people.⁵⁶Exodus 22:27. Then it gave another admonition [here] against cursing the unfortunate ones of the people, like the deaf, and from them [i.e., from both classes of people, the distinguished and the unfortunate] we learn by a general proposition that we must not curse anyone of the rest of the people, since from beginning to end [from “the ruler” to “the deaf”] they are all included in this prohibition.⁵⁹Thus the prohibition against cursing anybody is not, as Rashi stated, derived from the phrase of thy people thou shalt not curse, but is rather based on the two prohibitions against cursing a ruler and the deaf, which include the highest stratum of the people as well as the unfortunate ones, and everyone else is naturally included in between these two categories. And the word b’amcha (of thy people — a ruler ‘of thy people’) is interpreted [by the Gemara] to mean⁶⁰Sanhedrin 85 a. only those who conduct themselves in the manner of thy people, thus excluding the wicked.
According to the plain meaning of Scripture, the verse mentions cursing the deaf [in order that we may deduce] that if in the case of one who cannot hear and will not become incensed by the curse, the Torah nonetheless admonished against cursing him, how much more so [is it prohibited to curse] one who hears and feels the insult, and will become hot-tempered because of it! Moreover, Scripture always admonishes against doing that which is frequent, for a person is inclined to curse the deaf and put a stumbling-block before the blind since he does not fear them, because they know not, neither do they understand.⁶¹Psalms 82:5. Therefore [it states here], and thou shalt fear thy G-d, Who sees the secret things. And He added another prohibition against cursing rulers, the prince and the judge,⁵⁶Exodus 22:27. because it is usual for people to curse them in their bed-chamber⁶²See Ecclesiastes 10:20. when in judging him he lets him go forth condemned,⁶³Psalms 109:7. and there are many harms that are caused by cursing a prince or a judge, for the masses of people in their foolishness will hate them and will thus be stirred to rise up against them, while in truth the prince and judge establish the land by their justice.⁶⁴See Proverbs 29:4: The king by justice establisheth the land.

At this point the Torah warns that one must not cause distress to one’s fellow man by undermining his dignity, his self image and the image he enjoys among his peers. Example are: לא תקלל חרש, this is a damage that the deaf person does not even become aware of. Next, the Torah discusses tangible damages, such as

לא תקלל חרש, the Torah uses an example of everyday occurrences. The emphasis is on the penultimate syllable on account of the dagesh in the first ל. Similar constructions affecting the emphasis occur in ivver, or gibben, both of which also are emphasised on the first syllable as they have a dagesh in the vav or beyt respectively.

לא תקלל חרש, “do not curse a deaf person.” The Talmud in Sanhedrin 66 points out that the Torah has forbidden cursing notables such as judges and kings, when it wrote אלהים לא תקלל ונשיא בעמך already in Exodus 22,27, and here it equally forbids cursing less prominent people, even those who cannot hear that they are being cursed. Once even a deaf person is included in this legislation it is clear that one must not curse anyone. Nachmanides writes that according to the plain meaning of the text the Torah warned against cursing the deaf, as seeing that the fact that he cannot hear the curse he cannot feel insulted or enraged by it, it follows that one must not curse people who can hear the curse and who will feel shamed by it. Furthermore, as is the Torah’s custom, the example for legislation selected is always something near at hand, i.e. people feel free to curse the deaf and to trip up the blind as they are not afraid of being identified and being called to account for this. This is why the Torah had to add:ויראת מאלוקיך, “you shall fear your G’d,” i.e. He will see and punish what people do not see or do not hear. Cursing rulers, something which usually takes place in the privacy of one’s home where one is not overheard is in addition something pernicious, as it is usually motivated by one’s personal pique against such a ruler, while one forgets that the exercise by this ruler of his appointed functions is what prevents our society from degenerating into anarchy. This is why the Torah felt the need to spell out an additional prohibition against cursing dignitaries, although the law could have been derived logically from our verse alone.

לא תקלל חרש, “do not curse the deaf.” The reason the Torah used the example of the deaf person in this verse was to teach you to apply logic. If the Torah forbids you to curse the deaf person who does not hear it and therefore does not feel angry or saddened by such treatment of him on your part, how much more so must we not curse someone whose faculties of hearing are not impaired. All of these directives are designed to improve a person’s basic character traits and to ensure that he will not become the victim of bad and addictive habits. The prohibition to curse the deaf is not based on the Torah’s consideration of the victim, rather it is for the protection of the person doing the cursing. The Torah does not want such a person even to mouth curses where these have no visible effect; otherwise, the same person, being already in the habit of uttering curses will do so where they do immediate harm. When one has trained oneself not to curse even the deaf, one will be doubly careful not to curse those who can hear. The example of not cursing the deaf is a precedent applying to any situations of a similar nature. The Torah chooses examples from real life; similarly the Torah exhorts not to put obstacles in the path of the blind because they are not able to identify of who tried to cause them harm. Unfortunately, people who do have the habit of taking advantage of the helpless tend to be guilty of such examples as mentioned by the Torah. The words: “you shall fear the Lord,” after the warning not to place obstacles in the path of those who cannot see is a reminder that G’d can see what you do. The use of the expression ויראת מאלו-היך occurs usually when the matter is left to your heart, i.e. there is no police restraining your behaviour. Similar comments were made by Solomon in Proverbs 24,12: “if you say: ‘we did not know anything about this,’ surely He who looks into the hearts will understand (the truth), the One who preserves your life will know; will He not repay everyone according to his deeds?” This is also the reminder of our sages in Avot 2,1: “know what is above you, a seeing eye, an ear that listens, and all your deeds are being recorded in a book.”

The verse says: “[Do not curse] among your people.” [We deduce that it includes everyone] because the verse should simply have said, “Do not curse a leader.” Why say “among your people”? Therefore it comes to include anyone among your people. And that which the Rabbis expound [that the prohibition of not cursing anyone only applies if] the person who acts in accordance with the behavior of your people [i.e. observing the commandments], is only based on the juxtaposition [of the two terms], for the verse juxtaposes the commandment regarding “a leader” to the commandment regarding “your people.”

ולפני עור לא תתן מכשל THOU SHALT NOT PUT A STUMBLING BLOCK BEFORE THE BLIND — This implies: "Give not a person who is "blind" in a matter an advice which is improper for him. Do not say to him: "Sell your field and buy from the proceeds of the sale an ass", the fact being that you are endeavouring to circumvent him and to take it (the field) from him (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 2 14).

לפני עור לא תתן מכשול, indirect damages, for who knows if the blind will trip over the obstacle? The one causing even indirect damage is held responsible by the Torah. [this is presumably in the realm of heavenly judgment, seeing that the Talmud feels that people, as opposed to animals, who have eyes in their head, should watch out for obstacles in their path. Ed.]

Excluding the dead. Because if not for this exclusion, I would think that the dead are also included since later (20:9) it is written “Any man that curses his father or his mother” [which is expounded] to include after death. Therefore this exclusion is needed.

ויראת מאלהיך BUT THOU SHALT BE AFRAID OF THY GOD — Because in this case it is not given to human beings to know whether the intention of this man (the offender) was for the advantage or the disadvantage of the person whom he advised, and he thus might be able to evade the responsibility by saying: "I meant it for the best", Scripture therefore states with reference to him: "But thou shall be afraid of thy God" Who is cognizant of thy secret thoughts. Similarly in all actions where it is given only to the heart of him who does it to know the motive that prompts him and where other people have no insight into it, Scripture states, "But be afraid of thy God!" (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 2 14; Bava Metzia 58b).

Advice which is unsuitable for him. You might ask, how does Rashi know this? Perhaps the explanation of the verse is according to it its plain meaning? The answer is that Rashi himself answers [this by saying], “’You shall fear your God,’ since this matter is not given over to people, etc.” If you said that “before a blind person” is explained according to its simple meaning, this then is a matter that can be detected by others that this person’s intent is evil, because he put an obstacle by the blind person’s feet. The phrase “you shall fear your God” is inapplicable in a matter that can be detected by others. Therefore, the explanation is certainly not according to its plain meaning. [However], you might ask [on this answer] that when the verse says “you shall fear your God,” it is speaking of a case where no one sees [the person putting the stumbling block before the blind person]. Therefore, it seems that we learn this from “whoever misleads the blind about the way” (Devarim 27:18) in parshas Ki Savo, and there itself from where do we know [that it speaking about bad advice?] See there, where I explained it. (R. Yaakov Taryosh)

[While] you maneuver against him. [עוקף is] similar toאל תבא עליו בעקיפין , “you must not approach him deviously” in parshas Behar (Rashi later, 25:50), and it is an expression of deviousness as Rashi explains in Bava Kama (113a), “With devious schemes.” It is similar to עוקב, as in the expression ויעקבני זה פעמים, “He has deceived me twice” (Bereishis 27:36), because פ"א interchanges with ב'as Rashi himself explains this below (verse 16).

לא תעשו עול במשפט YE SHALL NOT DO INJUSTICE IN JUDGMENT — This teaches us that the judge who perverts judgment is called an "unjust person" (עַוָּל), hateful and detested, doomed to destruction, and an abomination. He is rightly called thus for the unjust person (עַוָּל) is called by Scripture "abomination", as it is said (Deuteronomy 25:16) "For all that do [such things] all that do injustice (עַוָּל=עֹשֵׂה עָוֶל) are an abomination (תועבה) unto the Lord thy God”. The abomination (תועבה), on its part, is called by Scripture חרם and שקץ, as it is said (Deuteronomy 7:26) "Neither shalt thou bring an abomination (תועבה) into thine house, lest thou be a doomed thing (חרם) like it; but thou shall regard it as שקץ.

Now the Torah addresses the judges who are charged with dispensing fair judgment. לא תעשו עול במשפט, a warning not to relate sternly to one litigant while being lenient towards his opponent. Do not allow one litigant to sit down while his opponent is required to remain standing upright. This is followed by admonitions applicable to different levels of leadership in the people and the spirit of jealousy which often prevails between competing layers of the bureaucracy. Examples are: Doeg badmouthing David so as to gain favour with the king. (Samuel I 22,9) From such admonitions it is only a small step to warn against badmouthing people generally, especially when it even involves slander. The sin of slandering is considered so serious by the prophet Ezekiel that he describes it as being equal to bloodshed (Ezekiel 22,9)

לא תעשו עול במשפט. "Do not render an unfair decision in judgment." This warning is addressed to litigants who are not to try and secure favourable judgment by ruses. If this were to happen it would be considered an עול, an injustice, a perversion of justice. This is the reason the Torah addressed the prohibition in the plural form, i.e. litigants (pl).You may understand this as follows: עול במשפט, the injustice would occur during judgment the judges hand down seeing that the judge is obligated to arrive at his decision on the basis of the arguments presented by the litigants. This is also the reason that this commandment followed the directive not to place obstacles before the "blind." Usually the reason a judge arrives at a faulty decision is that one of the litigants has deceived him.

בצדק תשפוט עמיתך, “with righteousness you shall judge your fellow.” The verse speaks about the fairness to be applied in the judicial process. Justice must not be perverted. He who applies fair rules thereby strengthens the throne of the Almighty. It is said of G’d’s throne that “righteousness and justice are the foundation of Your throne,” (Psalms 89,16); if someone perverts the judicial system he thereby undermines G’d’s throne. This is a demeaning of G’d’s glory. The Midrash Tehillim 82 phrases the thought in these words: “if the judge judges righteously the Shechinah will be with him;” we know this as David said in Psalms 82,1: “the Lord is present in a community of true judges.” If the judges fails to apply these standards the Shechinah withdraws. We have another verse in Psalms 12,6 confirming this where it is written: “due to the groans of the plundered poor and needy, I will now act, says the Lord,” and the Holy Spirit is reported as exclaiming (Psalms 108,6) ”exalt Yourself over the heaven let Your glory be all over the earth!”.

And an abomination is called accursed and detestable. And an abomination is also called hateful as it says in parshas Re’eh (Devarim 12:31), “Because whatever is abominated by G-d, what He hates, [they have done].”

לא תשא פני דל THOU SHALT NOT RESPECT THE PERSON OF THE INDIGENT — i. e. thou shalt not say, "This is a poor man, and the rich man has in any case the duty of supporting him; I will find in favor of him (the poor man) and he will consequently obtain some support in a respectable fashion (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 4 2).

A poor man. Because if not so, why [command] “You shall not favor a poor man?” Are all these [cases] not included in “You shall not commit injustice in judgment”?

Another meaning of this verse is that if a litigant finds that the judge found in his favour although he himself is aware that such a ruling was unfair, he must not accept the judgment but must strive to have such a judgment set aside. This is another reason the Torah used the plural here, seeing that we deal with injustice to at least two parties.

ולא תהדר פני גדול NOR HONOR THE PERSON OF THE MIGHTY — thou shalt not say, “This is a rich man, or, this man is of noble descent (lit., the son of great people) how can I possibly put him to shame and be witness to his shame? There is punishment for such a thing!” It is for this reason that Scripture states, "thou shalt not honor the person of the mighty” (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 4 3).

Another interpretation: Judge your fellow [favorably]. [You need the second interpretation] because you might ask that once it is written “You shall not commit injustice in judgment,” one would certainly judge with righteousness. And according to the other interpretation you might ask that it should have said צדק (favorably). Why is it written בצדק (with favor)? Therefore you need the first interpretation of “According to its plain meaning.” (R. Yaakov Taryosh)

The verse also addresses the judge himself. If the judge himself feels that the judgment he is bound to hand down on the basis of the evidence presented is unjust, he would become guilty of perverted judgment. He is to hand down only the kind of verdict he himself will be comfortable with.

בצדק תשפט עמיתך IN RIGHTEOUSNESS SHALT THOU JUDGE THY COMPANION — Take this as the words imply (i.e. take the word צדק as what it usually implies: strict right). Another explanation is: Judge thy fellow man with an inclination in his favour (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 4 4; Shevuot 30a).

Favorably. I.e., you only need to judge him favorably if he is “your fellow.” But if he is wicked, judge him unfavorably. See the commentary of the Rambam in maseches Avos, chapter 1.

We also need to consider the vowel patach under the letter ב in the word במשפט. This definitive article reminds us of something we learned in Beytzah 16 that on New Year's Day G'd allocates to man his material needs for the new year, based on what he deserves. If a judge were to declare the guilty as innocent and vice versa he would pervert G'd's judgment. As a result, the victim would question G'd's fairness as it were.

לא תלך רכיל THOU SHALT NOT GO ABOUT AS A TALE BEARER — I say that because all those who sow discord between people and all who speak slander go into their friends' houses in order to spy out what evil they can see there, or what evil they can hear there so that they may tell it in the streets —they are called הולכי רכיל which it the same as הולכי רגילה, "people who go about spying"; espiement in O. F. A proof of my statement is the fact that we do not find anywhere the term רגיל used in Scripture except in connection with the expression הלך "to go". Examples are: the phrase here, לא תלך רכיל; (Jeremiah 6:28) "[They are all] walking as spies: they are brass and iron". But as for any other expressions for “slander”, the verb הלך is not used with them. Examples are (Psalms 101:5) "whoso privily slandereth his neighbour”; (Psalms 120:2) "false tongue"; (Psalms 12:4) "the tongue that speaketh proud things (slander)". For this reason I say that this expression (הולך רכיל) means "going about ומרגל, and spying out” (רגל = רכל), because the כ may interchange with ,ג since all letters the pronounciation of which are of the same place in the organs of speech may interchange with each other e. g., בי"ת with גימ"ל ,פ"א with כ"ף or with נו"ן ;קו"ף with זי"ן ;למ"ד with צד"י. And in a similar sense we have, (II Samuel 19:28) "He spied against thy servant [to my lord]” which implies, "he spied me out with subtly in order to speak evil about me to my lord״ (and thus וירגל comes to mean "to slander”). Similar is (Psalms 15:8): לא רגל על לשונו which means, "he has not spied out in order to have evil on his tongue”. Similarly the רוכל, the trader, is one who goes round and searches for (spies out) all kinds of merchandise, and so also the seller of perfumes which women use to make themselves nice, because he constantly goes about in the villages, he is called רוכל, which has the same meaning as רוגל. And its translation in the Targum לא תיכול קורצין, has the same meaning as (Daniel 3:8) "and they slandered (אכלו קורציהון) the Jews”; and as (Berakhot 58a) "he slandered him (אכל ביה קורצא בי מלכא) to the king”. It seems to me that people had the custom to eat a little snack in the house of him who listened to their slanderous words, and this served as the final confirmation that his (the slanderer's) statements were well founded and that he would maintain the truth of them. This "snack” was called אכילת קורצין, the word קורצא being connected in meaning with the root קרץ in (Proverbs 6:13) "He winketh (קורץ) with his eyes”, for it is the manner of all who go about slandering to wink with their eyes and to suggest their slanderous statements by innuendos in order that others who happen to hear them should not understand them.

THOU SHALT NOT ‘THEILEICH RACHIL’ (GO UP AND DOWN AS A TALEBEARER) AMONG THY PEOPLE. “I say that because all those who sow discord [among brethren]⁶⁵See Proverbs 6:19. and speak slander go into their friends’ houses in order to spy out what evil they can see or hear, so that they may tell it in the street — therefore they are called holchei rachil or holchei regilah (‘those who go about spying’) etc. And so did Onkelos translate [the verse before us]: lo theichul kurtzin [literally: ‘thou shalt not eat kurtzin’, which has the same meaning as], ‘va’achalu kartzeihon’ (and they brought accusation against) the Jews;⁶⁶Daniel 3:8. ‘achlu kurtza (they slandered him) to the king.’⁶⁷Berachoth 58 a. It appears to me that it was their custom to eat something in the house of him who accepted their slanderous words, this being a sort of final confirmation that the slanderer’s words are well-founded, and that he would stand by them. It was this snack that was called ‘the eating of kurtzin,’ [the word being associated with] the [Hebrew] expression, ‘koreitz’ (he that winketh) with his eyes,⁶⁸Proverbs 6:13. for such is the manner of all who go about slandering, to wink with their eyes, and to insinuate slanderous matters in order that [others who happen to] hear them should not understand them.” All this is the language of the Rabbi [Rashi].
But his explanation of this rendition of Onkelos has neither rhyme nor reason.⁶⁹See in Volume I, p. 100, for a similar remark. For one who listens to a slanderer does not swear to him that he will believe his words, and [therefore the slanderer] need not give him a sign or token [to believe him]! Even when one slanders a servant to his master,⁷⁰See Proverbs 30:10: Slander not a servant unto his master, lest he curse thee, and thou be found guilty. Ramban’s intention is therefore as follows: Even in slandering a slave, where the slanderer runs the risk of incurring his curse, the master nonetheless gives the slanderer no assurance that he will listen to him, and so what sense is there to this “eating” on the part of the slanderer which Rashi mentioned? the master does not assure him that he will listen to him, and so what sense is there to this “eating” [by the slanderer, as Rashi mentioned]? And Nebuchadnezzar did what he decided to do on the basis of his own decision about the righteous ones,⁷¹This refers back to the proof Rashi mentioned above from the Book of Daniel 3:8, where it is said ‘va’achalu kartzeihon’ of the Jews, and it is told that certain slanderers came and informed Nebuchadnezzar that Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, were not bowing to his image of gold. As a result he called them and asked them if it was true. When they told him that they had no intention ever of bowing to his image of gold, he had them thrown into a burning furnace. But when they were saved by an act of G-d from the fiery furnace, the king had it proclaimed that no one must henceforth speak against the G-d of these righteous ones. — Ramban now points out that when accepting the words of the slanderers, we find no reference to the king’s offering them any food, a custom which Rashi mentioned as having been the basis for this expression va’achalu kartzeihon. Furthermore, as is evidenced from the story, he did not even believe them at first, for he called Hananiah etc. and asked about it. And yet Scripture says ‘va’achalu kartzeihon’ of the Jews, which shows that this whole interpretation of Rashi in Onkelos’ translation of the verse is not borne out by Scripture. and He did not offer food to the slanderers [to establish the veracity of their report], neither did he swear to them [that he would believe them], nor did he in fact believe them. Instead, he asked [of the righteous ones], Is it true, O Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego etc.,⁷²Daniel 3:14. Shadrach, Meshach, etc. were the Babylonian names that the chief of officers gave to Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah (ibid., 1:7). and he commanded that if henceforth they were to bow to the image of gold that he had made, he would forgive them for their transgressions in the past! [All this shows that va’achalu kartzeihon does not refer to a meal eaten by the slanderers, to serve as the final confirmation that their slander was well-grounded, since in the case of Nebuchadnezzar, where this expression occurs, the king did not accept their report!] Nor did King Darius offer food to the slanderers of Daniel,⁷³Ibid., 6:12-14. except for the wormwood and the gall,⁷⁴Lamentations 3:19. In other words, he had the slanderers thrown into the lions’ den (Daniel 6:25.). and yet it is written of them, those men that ‘achalu kartzohi’ of Daniel!⁷⁵In other words, in the same verse where their punishment is mentioned (ibid.,) it refers to them as those men that ‘achalu kartzohi’ of Daniel, which shows that it was not a meal that the king offered them, but quite the contrary. And even if it is true that it was so done in those [later] times, but since Scripture states thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people, why should Onkelos have mentioned this foolish custom [of the slanderer eating a little snack in the house of him who listened to his slanderous words], when it does not affect the admonition itself? Instead, the essential meaning of the Aramaic expression here [i.e., lo theichul kurtzin, is not a prohibition against “eating kurtzin,” but] is only a term for the act of making a sound, this usage being common in the language of the Sages:⁷⁶Baba Bathra 5 a. The story there is told that Ravina had land on all four sides of a field belonging to a man called Runya. When Ravina put up a fence on all four sides separating his fields from that of Runya, the latter refused to pay his share of the expense. Thereupon Ravina at the time of the harvest said to his field laborer, “Bring me a cluster of grapes from Runya’s field when he is present there.” When he was about to do it Runya rebuked him, shouting, “Put it back.” Ravina then said to Runya: “Now you have shown that you are satisfied with the fence I have made. Even if only goats came into your field, would you not need to shout at them? Would you not need to hire a person to shout at them? [Hence you must share in the expense of the fence].” “And even if it were but goats, would they not achluyei michlulei (have to be shouted at)? And would you not have [to hire] a person l’achluyei (to shout) at them?” Jonathan [ben Uziel] translated: Cry aloud⁷⁷Isaiah 58:1. — ‘achlei;’ and ‘He will hiss’ unto them from the end of the earth⁷⁸Ibid., 5:26. — ‘v’yachlilei;’ ‘and they shall roar’ against them like the roaring of the sea⁷⁹Ibid., 5:30. — ‘v’yachlei’ against them. Similarly [Jonathan has translated] in many places. Thus the term achal [in Aramaic] denotes every form of making sound, whereby one makes his wish known without uttering words. Therefore this term was used [by the Sages, as mentioned above] to describe one who shouts at goats that enter a field, and [Jonathan used the same term in translating the Hebrew for] hissing,⁷⁸Ibid., 5:26. roaring⁷⁹Ibid., 5:30. and crying aloud.⁷⁷Isaiah 58:1. Now the way of talebearers is to come amongst a multitude of people, or before a ruler, and utter sounds in a guttural manner, and wink with their eyes, in order to hint that they have heard certain important matters until they press upon them that they tell them. This is why [talebearers in Aramaic] are called ochlei kurtzin, meaning “those who roar with hints.” And Onkelos who translated [the Hebrew] rechiluth (talebearing) [as theichul kurtzin — muttering hints], rendered into Aramaic the idea of the Hebrew, and was not particular to explain the precise meaning of the Scriptural expression. Such is always his style, since his intention is to make the subject understandable [and not necessarily to translate literally]. But in the Sacred Language talebearers are called holchei rachil, from the expressions, all powders of the ‘rachil’ (merchant);⁸⁰Song of Songs 3:6. ‘rechulatheich’ (thy merchandise).⁸¹Ezekiel 26:12. For the rocheil (peddler) goes about the whole day, buying merchandise in various other places, just as the Sages mention,⁸²Maasroth 2:3. “peddlers that go around from town to town,” [and similarly the holchei rachil carry tales as if they were merchandise, from place to place]. And this is the sense of the word b’amecha (among thy people) — Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer ‘among thy people’ — since the talebearer walks among many people. To differentiate between the two [the talebearer and the peddler], the talebearer was called rocheil, in a verbal form, [as the term rocheil can also signify the act of talebearing], while the peddler was called rachil, which is an adjectival noun denoting the person himself, just like saris (chief), nazir (a Nazirite), the name rachil thus hinting that peddling is of his essence, and is an act which reflects upon his person.

לא תלך רכיל בעמיך, "Do not go about your people bearing tales." Our sages in the Zohar have already preceded me in drawing attention to the apparent duplication when the Torah speaks both about לא תלך, "do not go," and רכיל, "bearing tales." The latter word implies that one goes from one person to another. So why do we need the words: "do not go?" The Zohar's answer in Nasso subsection Idra Rabbah 128 is of a mystical dimension. I believe the plain meaning of the Torah is a warning to each individual not to become a vehicle for potential defamatory information about a second party. How does one prevent this? By not revealing any information even innocent information in the hearing of anyone who might use this information or part of it and turn it into something defamatory. If that were to happen then the person who merely related the original harmless sounding story shares part of the guilt. The Torah purposely writes בעמיך, "amongst your own people," referring to people close to you who are indiscreet and blabber about any confidence they have heard or overheard. G'd adds: "I am the Lord" i.e. I am going to track down whence the defamatory remarks originated.

לא תלך רכיל, do not go around bearing tales (untrue ones). We find a similar verse in Daniel 3,8 “Chaldeans slandered the Jews.” Samuel II 22,14 ירעם משמים, G’d thundered forth from heaven, is also translated as אכלי, by Yonathan ben Uzziel, being the equivalent of the Hebrew רכיל in our verse, i.e. raising one’s voice.

לא תלך רכיל, “do not be a gossipmonger.” According to Nachmanides Onkelos’ translation of these words as לא תיכול קורצין, describes someone raising his voice. Yonathan similarly renders קרא בגרון, in Isaiah 58,1 as אכלי בגרונך, “call out loudly with your throat.” He quotes more examples of translating רכיל as something involving making something public by means of sound. An alternate rendering describes רכילות as publication of the information through unmistakable gestures with one’s eyes.

Since the kof interchanges with the gimmel. I.e., some letters are enunciated by the lips, some by the tongue, and some by the throat.

לא תלך רכיל, “do not walk around as a talebearer;” do not tell people who have been found guilty at court that if you had been the only judge in that litigation you would have declared the party found guilty as innocent. Seeing that you were in the minority, you regret that your voice was not heard. (Sifra) An alternate interpretation: [according to the interpretation that follows the absence of the letter ו before the word לא is of decisive significance. Ed.] Talebearing and standing by idly while your fellow Jew’s blood is being shed are part of the same sin. The Torah warns against talebearing as the next step would result in standing by idly while another Jew’s innocent blood is being shed. What started out as being “only” words, is liable to wind up as complicity in murder. The prophet Ezekiel 22,9 writing: אנשי רכיל היו בך, “there were talebearers amongst you, continues that verse by writing: “for the sake of bloodshed.” In other words: talebearing is no better that bloodshed. Still another interpretation of our verse: ordinarily the rule of not to go around and bear tales applies. However, if you became privy to a plot being hatched against an innocent person you must not plead this law as an excuse not to have warned the endangered party, or have reported it to the police.

לא תעמד על דם רעך NEITHER SHALT THOU STAND AGAINST THE BLOOD OF THY FELLOW — witnessing his death, you being able to rescue him: if, for instance, he is drowning in the river or if a wild beast or a robber is attacking him (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 4 8; Sanhedrin 73a).

לא תעמוד על דם רעך, do not stand by idly but go to his assistance.

לא תעמוד על דם רעך, “do not stand idly by when the blood of your fellow is being shed.” Seeing that the Torah does not link these two injunctions by the letter ו, i.e. ולא תעמוד וגו', some commentators believe that the entire verse contains one single prohibition, the latter half of the verse being the interpretation of the first half. The meaning would then be: do not carry tales in order that in the end you will not stand by idly when your fellow’s blood will be spilled. It is assumed that he who accepts slander against his fellow, i.e. believes the accusation, will out of anger take physical action against the person whom he perceives to have been guilty of what the slanderer accused him of. This is why our sages said that לשון הרע, “slander eventually kills three people.” (Tanchuma, Metzora, 2)

Faithful to reward. To those who fulfill the commandments.

Another aspect of our verse is that the Torah warns that we must not associate with nor tolerate the presence of people who spread evil gossip. Providing such people with a home or otherwise assisting them makes the host an accessory to their sin, part of the cause.

לא תלך רכיל, “do not spread evil tales that have come to your attention, but be the one where this practice stops from gaining further ground.”Onkelos renders this commandment as: לא תיכול קורצין, do not make evil gossip public;” the root of the word קורצין, is קרץ, blinking with one’s eyes i.e. instead of mouthing bad comments about people doing the same covertly. The term is found in that sense in the Book of Daniel, (3,8) [which is written in Aramaic, i.e. Targum, Ed.] ואכלו קרציהם דיהודאי, “they defamed the Jews by blinking with their eyes.”The meaning of the word: הכריזו, is to defame from heaven. In the Targum Yonatan on Samuel II 22,14 אכלי מן שמים, “G-d thundered from Heaven.”

‎'אני ה‎‎ I AM THE LORD — Who am faithful in paying reward to those who obey My commandments and Who am certain to punish those who transgress them.

To exact payment. Explanation, to those who transgress them. (Gur Aryeh) [Even though “I am Adonoy” generally means “faithful to reward,” this verse cannot be saying that] since this negative commandment involves no urge of the evil inclination as in immoral relationships, where a person’s inclination lusts for forbidden women there is no reward here, since there is no reward unless one’s inclination urges one [to sin], as we see in the first chapter of Kiddushin. Therefore, Rashi is forced to say that this is what the verse means: “I am Adonoy” regarding everything, whether reward or punishment. Since He is faithful to pay reward, He is also faithful to exact punishment. [See Gur Aryeh] (Kitzur Mizrachi) Because you might ask, why does it say here “I am Adonoy?” These cases are visible [to everyone], “Do not be a tale-bearer among your people. You shall not stand idly by, etc.,” [and the Torah generally only writes “I am Adonoy” regarding cases where people cannot detect whether one did right or wrong and one has to fear Hashem who sees one’s hidden deeds]. Therefore [Rashi explains], “Faithful to reward.” [The Torah emphasizes this here to tell you that] even if there is a an aspect of transgression in saving someone, such as when a woman is drowning in a river and you have to save her, or if you have to save someone by killing the person pursuing him, nevertheless, I will pay reward for your good intent. Similarly the opposite, if you do not save him [because of this aspect of transgression], I am faithful to exact payment.

לא תעמוד על דם רעך, "Do not stand idly by when your colleague's blood is being spilled." This part of the verse is a natural corollary of the prohibition to bear tales. When one becomes aware of an assassination attempt for instance, one has to warn the potential victim in order to enable him to save himself. The Torah writes the words: "Do not stand by idly, etc," to warn us that relaying a warning to a person of an attempt to assassinate him which one has overheard does not fall under the prohibition not to bear tales. Failure to warn the potential victim which results in the murder being carried out makes the party who did not issue the warning guilty of violating this commandment. Jeremiah 40,14 reports that Gedalyah ben Achikom was warned of an assassination attempt against him by a fellow Jew Ishmael ben Netanyah. Gedalyah's refusal to believe that he was in danger resulted in his death at the hand of assassins.

ולא תשא עליו חטא [THOU SHALT IN ANY WISE REBUKE THY COMPANION] AND NOT BEAR A SIN ON ACCOUNT OF HIM — i. e. though rebuking him thou shalt not expose him to shame (lit., make his face grow pale) in public, in which case you will bear sin on account of him (cf. Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 4 8; Arakhin 16b).

THOU SHALT NOT HATE THY BROTHER IN THY HEART. Because it is the way of those who hate a person to cover up their hatred in their hearts, just as it is said, He that hateth dissembleth with his lips, but he layeth up deceit within him,⁸³Proverbs 26:24. therefore Scripture speaks of the usual events, [mentioning, thou shalt not hate thy brother ‘in thy heart,’ but the law forbids all hating, even if done openly]. THOU SHALT SURELY REBUKE THY NEIGHBOR, This constitutes another commandment, that we must teach him reproof of instruction.⁸⁴Proverbs 6:23. For the commandment is a lamp, and the teaching is light, and reproofs of instruction are a way of life. See “The Commandments,” Vol. I, pp. 219-220. THOU SHALT NOT BEAR SIN BECAUSE OF HIM, for you will bear sin because of his transgression if you do not rebuke him. Onkelos’ rendition tends towards this explanation, for he translated, “and do not receive guilt because of him,” meaning that you should not be punished by his sin. Following these commandments He then said [in the following verse] that you are to love your neighbor. Thus he who hates his neighbor violates a negative commandment, and he who loves him, fulfills a positive commandment.
The correct interpretation appears to me to be that the expression ‘hochei’ach tochiach’ (thou shalt surely rebuke), is similar to ‘V’hochiach Avraham’ (And Abraham reproved) Abimelech.⁸⁵Genesis 21:25. The verse here is thus stating: “do not hate your brother in your heart when he does something to you against your will, but instead you are to reprove him, saying, ‘Why did you do thus to me?’ and you will not bear sin because of him by covering up your hatred of him in your heart and not telling him, for when you will reprove him, he will justify himself before you [so that you will have no cause to hate him], or he will regret his action and admit his sin, and you will forgive him.” After that He admonishes [in the following verse] that you are not to take vengeance of him, nor bear a grudge in your heart against him because of what he has done to you, for it is possible that he will not hate him, but yet he will remember in his heart his neighbor’s sin against him; therefore He admonished him that he is to erase his brother’s sin and transgression against him from his heart. Following that admonition, He commanded that he love him as himself.

לא תשנא את אחיך בלבבך, "do not hate your brother in your heart, etc." The Torah urges us that if we harbour some resentment against a fellow Jew not to bottle it up in one's heart saying nothing but hating the Jew in question. One has to come out with one's feelings into the open, בפיך, and rebuke the person who one thinks as guilty of having bad-mouthed him or otherwise hurt him to cause such hatred. הוכח תוכיח, "rebuke him, even repeatedly," ולא תשא עליו חטא, "so that you will not bear a sin on account of him." Do not assume in your heart that whatever it is the other Jew has done to cause you to hate him he has done purposely and that he continues to feel hostile towards you. Give him the benefit of the doubt and discuss the matter with him. The discussion could lead to one of two possible results. 1) He may explain to you that he had a good reason for what he did so that there is no reason to hate him. 2) He may change his attitude towards you, undertaking not to continue his hostile conduct. As a result he becomes "your friend, your brother."

לא תשנא את אחיך בלבבך, if he has done something evil to you, do not behave as if you continue to love him, all the time setting an ambush for him in your heart. (compare Jeremiah 9:7) Such an attitude is unhealthy, but

לא תשנא את אחיך בלבבך, “do not hate your brother in your heart.” Some commentators interpret this line as “if you see your fellow man commit some sin do not say to yourself: ‘I wish he would continue in this way,’ but remonstrate with him and try to get him to desist and to improve his ways. Nachmanides writes that seeing the Torah uses real life examples, i.e. people keeping their disapproval of others or even hatred of others to themselves, the Torah urges that If one has a legitimate reason to disapprove of one’s neighbour’s lifestyle, one should not bottle this up within oneself, but should discuss it openly with the party concerned so as to give him a chance to mend his ways.

לא תשנא את אחיך בלבבך, “do not hate your brother (fellow Jew) in your heart.” If it has come to your attention that that Jew made negative comments about you, accused you falsely behind your back of wrongdoing, do not bottle your resentment up in your heart by hating him.” You should rather הוכח תוכיח את עמיתך, “remonstrate with your colleague about having wrongly accused you,” asking him what prompted him to badmouth you. Perhaps, once matters are in the open you can demonstrate to your colleague that he completely misinterpreted one of your actions. Alternately, you will become aware that what had been reported to you as having said by him about you was misrepresented, and not meant detrimentally at all. (B’chor Shor) You are to act in this manner even if you are convinced that your remonstrations will not help at all. In fact, your failure to make an attempt at reconciliation will be held against you by the heavenly tribunal. This is why the verse concludes with the words: ולא תשא עליו חטא, “so that you will not burden him with a sin.”

הוכח תוכיח, rebuke him for what he has done and as a result you will restore harmonious relations.

ולא תשא עליו חטא, “so that you will not bear a sin on account of him.” If your fellow sins because you did not call his error to his attention, you will share in his sin. Not only this, but the Torah adds that you are obligated to love your fellow man.” (Verse 18) Personally, I believe that the correct interpretation of our verse, i.e. the words הוכח תוכיח את עמיתך, is similar to when Avraham remonstrated with Avimelech. (Genesis 21,25) He remonstrated with Avimelech who had allowed his, Avraham’s wells to be either shut down or to be claimed by his own people as theirs, instead of bearing a grudge in his heart against Avimelech. The result was an agreement between the two. When such rebuke is administered with discretion it may often result in resolving a dispute. Having advised us not to bear grudges without first having voiced our grievances, the Torah also instructs us not to harbour feelings of revenge for injustices real or unproven. Having taught us not to entertain negative feelings against our fellows, the Torah proceeds to demand that we relate positively to them, i.e ואהבת לרעך כמוך. You will note that the Torah does not write רעך, but לרעך. Had the Torah written the word רעך, it would have meant that we are instructed to love our fellow man’s body, his person as much as our own, an impossible task. As it is, the Torah demands that we relate to our fellowman’s possessions with the same degree of concern as we do to our own possessions. You should be as concerned for the welfare of your fellowman as for your own,

Another approach to our verse is based on the unusual structure of the verse. It should have read: "לא תשנא בלבבך את אחיך, the word "in your heart" which we consider central should not have been written at the end. The source of the hatred, the heart, should have been mentioned before the object of the hatred, a fellow Jew. If the Torah reversed this order there must be a reason for this. I believe that the message is that a person should not think that the Torah only forbids the kind of hatred which is the forerunner of acts of revenge or violence but does not forbid harbouring ill feelings towards someone in one's heart. By mentioning the object of one's hatred immediately next to the prohibition to hate, the Torah made it clear that even the kind of hatred which is not related to acts of retaliation is forbidden. As soon as a person distances himself mentally and emotionally from his fellow Jew he begins to violate the prohibition of hatred as defined by the Torah in this verse.

עליו “on his account;” this would be parallel to Psalms 44,23: כי עליך הורגנו כל היום, “for it is for Your sake that we are being killed every day.” Compare also: Psalms 69,8: כי עליך נשאתי חרפה, “for I have been reviled for Your sake.”

ולא תשא עליו חטא, in your heart.

We need to examine why the Torah chose the term אחיך, "your brother," when describing who it is you hate, whereas the person that you are advised or directed to admonish is described as עמיתך, "your colleague."

Perhaps the best way to understand this distinction is based on what we read in Tannah de bey Eliyahu Rabbah at the end of chapter 3. We are told that if one observes a man known as a Torah scholar commit an obvious violation of a Torah precept, one should not think about this during the night, but rather assume that said scholar had already repented his mistake. We also find in Pessachim 113 where the Talmud discusses the implications of Exodus 23,5 that one must not stand by idly when the ass of someone whom one hates breaks down under its burden but one must assist the owner to unload the beast. The Talmud explains that the שנאך who is described as the owner of the donkey is a person whom one has observed commit sins, in other words someone who one is permitted to hate. Accordingly, there are exceptions to the rule "not to hate your brother." A Torah scholar is exempted from the list of sinners one is allowed to hate as it is to be presumed that he is not a habitual sinner but has momentarily committed a mistake which he will promptly regret. The Torah described such a Torah scholar as "your brother," to teach you that even if this Torah scholar became guilty of a transgression you must not hate him but assume that he has already done penitence and recaptured his status (and therefore stature) as a Torah-observant Jew. We base this on Psalms 122, 8 למען אחי ורעי אדברה נא שלום בך, "for the sake of my brethren and friends I pray for your wellbeing." We can also derive this from the way the Talmud Kidushin 57 interprets the verse את ח׳ אלוקיך תירא, "you shall fear the Lord your G'd," where the word את is taken to refer to the Torah scholars (Deut. 6,13). Similarly, the word אחיך here refers to G'd Himself who is described on occasion as a "brother of Israel" (compare Midrash Shochar Tov 23).

When the Torah wrote הוכח תוכיח, it speaks of a different situation altogether, i.e. it addresses your conduct vis-a-vis the average Israelite. In order to make this clear, that "average" Israelite is not described as "your brother" but as "your colleague." This is more pronounced by the Torah not saying הוכח תוכיחנו, "you shall rebuke him repeatedly, as we would have expected if the Torah had not changed the subject it speaks of in the first half of this verse. By rebuking your "average Israelite" you will help him to avoid becoming guilty of hating you so that the righteous will not be punished for his share in the guilt of the wicked. Failure to rebuke, however, will make the individual who is Torah-observant an accessory in the guilt of the sinners who have not been rebuked.

We have proof of this In Ezekiel 33,9 where the prophet is told that seeing he had warned the people he himself will be saved and does not have to share their fate.

I have found another interesting statement in chapter 18 of Tannah de bey Eliyahu Rabbah who writes as follows: "Does the Torah here refer to brothers of the same father or brothers of the same mother? In answer to this question he says that the word "your brother" refers to G'd who does not have any "brothers" either in this world, the world to come, or after the arrival of the Messiah, except for the righteous who perform His commandments meticulously day after day. Thus far Tannah de bey Eliyahu Rabbah. From this comment It emerges that "brothers" are considered as closer relations than "sons" or "daughters" as we know from Shir Hashirim Rabbah 3 that G'd first called Israel "My daughter," whereas eventually He called her "My sister" (i.e. a higher form of endearment).

לא תקם THOU SHALT NOT AVENGE — If one says to another “Lend me your sickle", and he replies, “No!", and the next day he (the latter) says to him (the former), “Lend me your hatchet”, and he retorts, “I am not going to lend it to you, just as you refused to lend me your sickle״ — this is avenging. And what is “bearing a grudge”? If one says to another, “Lend me your hatchet”, and he replies “No!” and on the next day he says to him “Lend me your sickle”, and he replies: “Here it is; I am not like you, because you would not lend me” — this is called “bearing a grudge (נטירה)” because he retains (נוטר) enmity in his heart although he does not actually avenge himself (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 4 10-11; Yoma 23a).

There follows a general, all inclusive rule to be observed in relations towards one’s fellow, phrased as ואהבת לרעך כמוך, telling us to apply the same yardstick to our concern for our fellow that we would want applied to ourselves if we were in his shoes in similar situations.

לא תקום ולא תטור, "Do not take vengeance and do not bear a grudge." Yuma 23 defines vengeance as someone responding in kind to a hateful act by his neighbour he has experienced, whereas the "grudge" is defined as repaying a hateful act with a kind act pointing out, however, that one is morally superior to the person who committed the hateful act. The proof for this is the verse following that one should "love your neighbour as yourself." The reason the Torah has to say this is to indicate that it is G'd's wish that we relate to our fellow Jews with the same love we have for ourselves. If the person described as bearing a grudge told his neighbour that despite the fact that the latter refused to lend him his spade, he in turn was willing to lend him his own spade, he indicated that he had harboured resentment against his neighbour first. G'd tells us that the reason we must not bear a grudge is because the Lord is our G'd. This means that by means of individual Israelites experiencing a unification of their hearts, G'd's Unity itself is enhanced. This is all based on the kabbalistic concept that all Jewish souls are branches of the Holy name of G'd (י־ה־ו־ה) based on Deut. 32,9 "for His people are part of Him" (compare Zohar volume 3 page 16).

לא תקם , repaying evil with evil.

"Do not bear a grudge ("titur")..." According to the simplest understanding, the grudge is [a form of] revenge after a period of time, similar to [Nahum 1:2] "and he bears a grudge for his enemies." (R. Naftali Hirz Wessely)

לא תקום, “Do not take revenge.” An example of revenge meant here is that if your neighbour refused to lend you any of his tools, and he turns to you some day asking you to lend him yours, you are not to justify your refusal to lend him your tools by saying that seeing he did not lend you his tools when you needed them, you now do not lend him yours either. Some people ask why the Torah criticizes the second party for his refusal to lend, without saying a word about the behaviour of the first party who had started the chain reaction by refusing to lend his tools in the first place? The answer given is that the first party, who obviously is a miser, while not acting as a good neighbour, had not violated a law as it says nowhere that one must lend one’s tools, however, he who basically is willing to lend his tools to neighbours, refuses to this neighbour only as an act of revenge. This is not tolerated. It is a negative virtue. His refusal stems from feelings of hatred. Some people answer the above question by saying that it is clear that the first one will be punished more harshly so that there is no need to spell this out, seeing he had started the chain of reciprocal unfriendliness. We have a tradition that the plague of tzoraat occurs, among other reasons, as retaliation for miserly conduct, withholding help from one’s neighbour being one such example.

Sifrei Agaddah and Musar have long been perplexed as to how a Talmid Chacham can be associated with as ugly a characteristic as this... It seems to me that this characteristic is rightly described as being that of a snake, whose poison is weakened by its strike. That is also the intended message in our context. Even though it is appropriate for a Talmid Chacham to begrudge and take vengeance on those who molest him, for the sake of the honor and standing of the Torah, such acts need to be in the style of the snake, whose effect weakens over time.

Lend me your scythe. You might ask, why is a scythe used first in the example of revenge, and an axe is used first in the example of bearing a grudge? The answer is that regarding revenge he mentions a scythe first in order to add that even if he only refused to lend you a scythe which is worth one zuz, and then he asked you for an axe which is worth five zuz, even so, do not take revenge and lend it. Regarding bearing a grudge he mentions an axe first so that one should take note [of the difference between these two utensils] and explain the added point discussed above.

AND THOU SHALT LOVE THY NEIGHBOR AS THYSELF. This is an expression by way of overstatement, for a human heart is not able to accept a command to love one’s neighbor as oneself. Moreover, Rabbi Akiba has already come and taught,⁸⁶Baba Metzia 62 a. This teaching applies to a case where “two people are together on a journey and one has a pitcher of water; if they both drink from it they will die, because there is not enough for both, but if only one will drink he will survive. Ben Petura taught that it is better that both should drink and die, rather than that one should see the death of the other. [This was held to be the law] until Rabbi Akiba came and taught: that thy brother may live with thee (further, 25:36), thy life takes precedence over the life of thy brother.” “Your life takes precedence over the life of your fellow-being.” Rather, the commandment of the Torah means that one is to love one’s fellow-being in all matters, as one loves all good for oneself.⁸⁷Thus: “he is to speak in praise of his neighbor, and be as careful of his neighbor’s property as he is careful of his own property, and be as solicitous of his neighbor’s honor as he is of his own” (Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilchoth Mada, 6:3). It is possible that since it does not say “and thou shalt love ‘eth rei’acha’⁸⁸In that case the command would have been to love the person of one’s neighbor as much as one loves one’s own self. But instead the verse says l’rei’acha, which means “to [or ‘for’] your neighbor,” thus teaching that that which is good “for” your neighbor you should love as if it were good for youself. as thyself,” but instead it likened them in the word ‘l’rei’acha’ [which literally means “to” thy neighbor], and similarly it states with reference to a proselyte, and thou shalt love ‘lo’ (him) [but literally: “to” him] as thyself,⁸⁹Further, Verse 34. Here too the thought conveyed is: “that which is good for the proselyte you should love, as if it were good for your own self.” that the meaning thereof is to equate the love of both [himself and his neighbor, or himself and the proselyte] in his mind. For sometimes a person will love his neighbor in certain matters, such as doing good to him in material wealth but not with wisdom and similar matters. But if he loves him completely, he will want his beloved friend to gain riches, properties, honor, knowledge and wisdom. However [because of human nature] he will still not want him to be his equal, for there will always be a desire in his heart that he should have more of these good things than his neighbor. Therefore Scripture commanded that this degrading jealousy should not exist in his heart, but instead a person should love to do abundance of good for his fellow-being as he does for himself, and he should place no limitations upon his love for him. It is for this reason that it is said of Jonathan’s [love for David], for he loved him as he loved his own soul,⁹⁰I Samuel 20:17. because Jonathan had removed [altogether] the attribute of jealousy from his heart, and he said [to David], and thou shalt be king over Israel,⁹¹Ibid., 23:17. etc.
Our Rabbis have already explained⁹²Sifra, Kedoshim 4:10-11. the matters of taking vengeance and guarding a grudge [which are here forbidden], that they apply to cases where there is no monetary obligation, such as, “Lend me your sickle, lend me your hatchet.”⁹³If he answers, “I will not lend it to you, just as you refused to lend it to me,” that is vengeance. But if he answers, “yHere it is; I am not like you, who would not lend it to me,” that is bearing a grudge. For in a case where his friend owes him money, such as because of damage that he caused him or for similar reasons, one is not obliged to let his friend go free. On the contrary, he should sue him before the court and receive payment from him, on the basis of the verse which states, as he hath done, so shall it be done to him,⁹⁴Further, 24:19. and he [who caused the damage] is himself obliged to pay just as he must pay back that which he borrowed or robbed; and how much more so in matters of life, [the next of kin] should take vengeance and guard the grudge against the murderer, until the blood of his brother be redeemed by a court that will render judgment according to the laws of the Torah.

לא תקום, “do not take revenge;” your inability to conquer your anger would reflect poorly on your personality. G-d is able to suppress His desire to take vengeance, as we know from: נוקם ה' ובעל חימה, “The Lord passionate and able to take revenge but He controls His anger.”

ואהבת לרעך כמוך THOU SHALT LOVE THY FELLOW MAN AS THYSELF —Rabbi Akiba said: “This is a fundamental principle of the Torah” (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 4 12; Talmud Yerushalmi Nedarim 9:3).

ולא תטר; not even in your heart, but train yourself to resist your natural impulse to get even.

All other transgressions against one's fellow man are objectively immoral, except for revenge, which seems like justice. Therefore, 'love your fellow as yourself.' Just like you don't want others to take revenge on you, so you should not take revenge on your fellow, even though you are in the right to take revenge. And so too in all other ways you should love your fellow as you love yourself. And Moses Mendelssohn interpreted it as "You shall love your fellow in all the ways of love that you love yourself," equal in quality of love and not in its quantity, whenever there is no conflict between two beloved things. However, that's similar to the trait of a Sodomite (what's mine is mine and what's yours is yours [Pirkei Avot 5:10]), for how can I benefit my fellow without causing myself loss or effort, light or heavy? For there will always be a conflict between my benefit and other people's benefit, and there is no way to give a perutah to my friend without losing a perutah from my pocket.

This is a great principle. I.e., this mitzvah includes the whole Torah as Hillel the Elder said, “What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow,” and Rashi explains, “’Your friend and the friend of your father do not leave’ (Mishlei 27), this is the Holy One. ’Do not leave,’ [i.e.,] do not transgress His words, because it is hateful to you when your friend transgresses your words.” It seems to me that according to this, “You shall love your friend as yourself” means as follows. What friend is spoken of? You shall love, “I, Hashem,” Who is called a friend. You shall love Me like [you love] yourself, as is said of you, “[What is hateful to you], do not do [to your fellow].”

The Torah was very shrewd in giving these directives to the Israelite in a staggered form. 1) First of all, one is not to hate a fellow Jew; 2) next, one is not take revenge for something a fellow Jew has done to him; 3) one is not even to bear a grudge; 4) one is to love one's fellow Jew. The Torah uses 2 different descriptions for a fellow Jew, a) "your brother;" b) "your colleague" or "member of your people." This tells us that the legislation applies only to Jews who basically are Torah-observant but with whom you have a disagreement of a personal nature. If your hatred for them is due to such a Jew displaying his disdain for the Jewish religion one must not only not love them but hate them as we have been told by David in Psalms 139,21 "You know I hate those who hate You, etc."

ולא תטור, “and do not nurse a grudge.” The Torah speaks of matters involving money. When it comes to physical harm experienced by the victim, he does not need to become conciliatory until the offending party has made the first move in that direction. Alternate interpretation:

ואהבת לרעך כמוך, if he is truly your colleague, friend; however, if he is wicked you need not love him, as even G’d hates him as we know from Proverbs 8,13 יראת ה' שנאת רע, “to fear the Lord is to hate evil.” (compare Pessachim 113)

לא תקום, “do not act vengefullv: ולא תטור, and do not hold a grudge: i.e. in your mind.

You shall love your fellow. Our Sages said that this is a great general principle in the Torah. Shabbos (31a) relates that there was once a proselyte who asked Hillel to convert him on condition that he would teach him the entire Torah while he stood on one foot. Hillel taught him the verse, “You shall love your fellow as yourself” … It seems that this proselyte was a righteous convert and he was not mocking in jest to propose that Hillel teach him the entire Torah while he literally stood on one foot. Rather, he was requesting Hillel to show him one foundation for all the Torah’s commandments, upon which all the Torah’s commandments stand, so that he will not come to forgetfulness, which is common for a convert who did not learn anything about the Torah’s commandments from his youth …

לא תקום, Rashi explains this by providing us with a parable: if someone had asked a neighbour to lend him his scythe, and had been refused, and on the day after that refusenik asked him to lend him his spade to dig with, the second person not only refusing but adding as a reason that he was refused the loan of the first person’s scythe, this is an example of revenge, i.e. לא תקום. What then is the meaning of לא תטור, “do not bear a grudge?” Answer: if the second person does lend his spade to the one who had refused him his scythe, but he added when giving him his spade: “I am not like you who refused me his scythe just yesterday.” The second person still feels vengeful even though he did not act vengefully. If you were to ask why it is that the Torah did not specifically forbid the first person to refuse to lend the second person his scythe, but referred with obvious displeasure to the second person who did lend his tool as having committed a violation of a commandment? Surely the Torah should have criticized the first person for being so miserly as not to lend his tool to his neighbour?We must give the first person the benefit of the doubt for refusing to lend his tool because he may have been afraid that his neighbour would treat his scythe, which he treasured greatly, carelessly, and that would explain his refusal. The Torah does not command us to lend our tools against our better judgment as to whom we entrust it. On the other hand, the second person made it clear that he bore the first person ill will for his refusal and he wanted to impress him as being a better person than his neighbour. Therefore the Torah commanded us to allow our goodwill towards our neighbor to outweigh our disappointment over his having refused us without giving an adequate explanation which would have been acceptable and which would have avoided any ill feeling between these two people. By practicing this kind of goodwill we would have contributed to making this a more peaceful world.

He taught him the verse, “You shall love your fellow as yourself” because the Sages said (Makos 24a): “Chabakuk came and stood them all upon one: ‘A righteous man will live in his faith.’” This does not contradict Hillel’s words, for all the Torah’s commandments are one of two types: One is the commandments between man and Hashem, and the foundation of them all is faith in Hashem. The second is the commandments between man and his fellow man, and the foundation of them all is, “You shall love your fellow as yourself” … On this foundation he stood up for him the commandments between man and his fellow man. Additionally, he taught him the end of the verse as well, “I am Adonoy,” which is the foundation upon which Chabakuk stood all the Torah’s commandments, that is, faith in Hashem.

.ואהבת לרעך כמוך, “if you (and everyone else) will practice this virtue you will contribute to peaceful relations between man and his fellow.” The prefix letter ל before the word רעך, “your fellowman,” is superfluous. Other examples of the Torah using such a letter ל as an unnecessary prefix can be found in Exodus 14,28: לכל חיל פרעה, “of the whole army of Pharaoh;” compare also Exodus 27,3: לכל כליו תעשה נחושת,” “all of its appurtenances you shall construct out of copper. An alternate interpretation: the Torah was careful not to write ואהבת רעך כמוך “love your fellowman as you love yourself,” as this is something impossible for human beings to do. It is however, possible to love things that belong to your fellow human being as much as you love the things that are your own. You are to put yourself mentally into the position of your fellow human being, and therefore not to do anything to him that you would not have others do to you. By the same token you should love as much to do favours for him as you would have others do favours for you. The same interpretation also applies to verse 34 in our chapter where we are asked to love the convert to Judaism כמוך, “just like yourself.”

חקתי תשמרו ‎את YE SHALL KEEP MY ORDINANCES — These are they: “Thou shalt not cause two kinds of thy cattle to gender etc.”, (and the other ordinances laid down in this verse), for by the term חוקים are meant those enactments of the King for which no reason is given and those that precede are not of this character.

YE SHALL KEEP ‘CHUKOTHAI’ (MY STATUTES). “And these are they: thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind, etc. Chukim (statutes) are the decrees of the King for which there is no reason [given].” This is Rashi’s language. But our Rabbis have not mentioned that the reasons for the commandments [mentioned in this verse] are hidden from us, and that the evil inclination and the idolaters raise objections against them, except in [the case of the prohibition against] wearing a garment made of wool and linen, but not in the case of mating of animals of diverse kinds [for which there is a reason, as will be explained later on].⁹⁵And so why did Rashi mention this prohibition of mating diverse kinds of cattle, as an example of a “statute.” when the Rabbis never mentioned it as such? And the intention of the Rabbis [in defining “statutes” as the laws of the King for which there is no reason] was not that these are decrees of the King of kings for which there are no reasons whatever, for every word of G-d is tried.⁹⁶Proverbs 30:5. [They meant] only that “statutes” are like the enactments which a king promulgates for his kingdom, without revealing their benefits to the people, and the people, not sensing these reasons, entertain questions about them in their hearts but they accept them nonetheless out of fear of the government. Similarly, “the statutes” of the Holy One, blessed be He, are His secrets in the Torah, which the people by means of their thinking do not grasp as they do in the case of mishpatim [“ordinances” — laws which conform to the human conception of justice], but yet they all have a proper reason and perfect benefit.
Now the reason for [the prohibitions against] kilayim [“mixed kinds,” as will be explained further on], is that G-d has created in the world various species among all living things, both plants and moving creatures, and He gave them a power of reproduction enabling them to exist forever as long, as He blessed be He, will desire the existence of the world, and He further endowed them with a power to bring forth [only] after their kind, and that they should never be changed, as it is said with reference to all of them [at the time of Creation], after its kind.⁹⁷Genesis 1:11, 21, 24. This driving force in the normal mating of animals is for the sake of preserving the species, even as human beings engage in sexual activity for the sake of having children. Thus one who combines two different species, thereby changes and defies the work of Creation, as if he is thinking that the Holy One, blessed be He, has not completely perfected the world and he desires to help along in the creation of the world by adding to it new kinds of creatures. Moreover, the mating of diverse species of animals does not produce offspring, and even in the case of those that are by nature close to each other [such as the horse and the ass], from which offspring are born, such as mules, their seed is cut off, for they themselves [the mules] cannot produce offspring. Thus from the point of view of these two matters [i.e., the changing in the order of Creation and the sterility of the product, we see that] the act of combining different species is despicable and futile. Even when diverse species of vegetation are grafted together, their fruits do not reproduce afterwards, and they too are prohibited because of the two above-mentioned reasons [for the prohibition of mixing different species together]. This is the meaning of the prohibition [stated here in the verse], thou shalt not sow thy field with two kinds of seed, which in the opinion of our Rabbis⁹⁸Kiddushin 39 a. constitutes a prohibition against grafting [diverse kinds of trees, or trees and vegetables, and is not a prohibition against merely sowing together diverse kinds of seed].⁹⁹This interpretation is based upon the fact that Scripture states, thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind; thou shalt not sow thy field with two kinds of seed. By placing these two prohibitions together, Scripture is teaching that just as in the case of cattle, the verse refers to well-definable objects [cattle], so in the case of sowing the field, Scripture refers to well-definable objects — trees, vegetables, etc., — and is not a mere prohibition against sowing diverse kinds of seed [although that too is forbidden], since these are not yet distinguishable. But He has prohibited also the mere sowing together of diverse kinds of seed, because their nature and form change when they derive nutrition from each other, and thus each kernel of it is as if it were grafted together from two kinds. Similarly, He has forbidden to plow with an ox and an ass together,¹⁰⁰Deuteronomy 22:10. because it is customary among tillers of the soil to bring their working animals into one cattle-shed, and there they might come to mate with a diverse kind.¹⁰¹This reason is also stated by Maimonides in the Guide of the Perplexed, III, 49 (p. 267 in Friedlander’s translation). And one of our colleagues¹⁰²This thought which appears in the following text is expressly mentioned in the commentary on the Songs of Songs ascribed to Ramban but actually authored by Rabbi Ezra, one of the chief Cabalists of the period (see my introduction to this book in Kithvei Haramban, Vol. II, p. 474). Ramban’s expression here “and one of our colleagues etc.” thus clearly indicates that there was a group of scholars in Gerona who were dedicated to the study of the Cabala; and Ramban was one of that group. — Several points worthy of note are to be made with this expression “one of our colleagues.” It indicates the reticence with which the study of Cabala was regarded at that time. For even when crediting the thought to another scholar Ramban avoids identifying him by name. The role of Rabbi Ezra as one of the leading Cabalists at that period is indeed an undefined one, although it is known for a certainty that his influence was far-reaching. Additionally, the term chaveireinu (our colleague) indicates the closeness with which the group kept together, so that anyone who was part of them was called a chaveir (a colleague). The expression “one of our colleagues” may perhaps also indicate that Rabbi Ezra and Ramban were regarded as equals, for otherwise he would have referred to him as a teacher or master. adds to the reason for the prohibition against mixing seeds, that it is in order not to throw into disorder the primary forces which bring about the growth of the plants, when they derive nutrition from each other,¹⁰³A sense of the importance of ecology, of maintaining a proper well-ordered relationship between the primary forces of nature, is clearly discerned here. as is indicated in the saying of our Rabbis in Bereshith Rabbah:¹⁰⁴Bereshith Rabbah 10:7. See Vol. I, pp. 40, 70-71, where the same text is quoted. “Said Rabbi Simon: There is not a single kind of herb that does not have a constellation in heaven which smites it and says to it, ‘Grow.’ It is with reference to this that Scripture says, Knowest thou ‘chukoth shamayim’ (the statutes of heavens)? Canst thou establish ‘mishtaro’ (the dominion thereof) in the earth?¹⁰⁵Job 38:33. — [mishtaro being derived from the root shoter (executive officer)].” Now he who grafts diverse kinds of plants or sows seeds of diverse kinds with the intention that they derive nutrition from each other, thereby destroys ‘chukoth shamayim’ (the statutes of heavens). This is why He has said, Ye shall keep ‘chukothai’ (My statutes), as they are the statutes of the heavens. And so did Rabbi Chanina in the name of Rabbi Pinchas say,¹⁰⁶Vayikra Rabbah 35:4. that [the statutes mentioned here in the verse] are because of “the statutes with which I formed My world.” I have already written in the section of Bereshith¹⁰⁷Genesis 2:8. Vol. I, p. 70. that all plants have their foundations in higher [forces], and it is from there that the Eternal commanded them the blessing, even life forever.¹⁰⁸Psalms 133:3. Thus he who mixes different kinds of seeds, denies and throws into disorder the work of Creation.

One of the foremost ways in which to demonstrate our fear/reverence of the Lord is not by observing commandments which we find reasonable and useful, but by observing those commandments which we fail to understand, or worse, which run counter too what our intelligence dictates to our mind as being useful. Hence the Torah urges: את חוקותי תשמורו, you must make a special point of meticulously observing G’d’s statutes. The motivation for doing so must not be merely fear of punishment, but blanket recognition that “Father knows best,” that the fact it was G’d Who legislated these statutes proves that they are intelligent and beneficial for us even if we fail to understand this. It is interesting that the Torah enumerates examples of such chukkim in areas which have nothing to do with “religion” as such, but with the most mundane of our activities. Examples are: the efforts to produce better strains of domesticated animals, better strains of agricultural products, etc. In each of these situations, even though scientific research may lead us to conclusions other than the ones indicated by the Torah, we must ignore such results of our own research. [I am updating the wording of the author to make them more relevant to our century. Ed.] Clearly, He Who created this universe would not legislate something that would endanger its existence. What applies in the field of agriculture, our economic base, applies equally in the sexual mores we are to observe [including such matters as “cloning” Ed.] as well as our foods, [maybe outlawing certain kinds of additives, in addition to such matters as mixing milk and meat. Ed.] Even in such apparently unrelated matters as trying to divine the future, the Torah is on record with a variety of statutes limiting our methods of enquiry. All of these laws, of course, come under the heading of chukkim, statutes.

את חקותי תשמרו, בהמתך לא תרביע כלאים, "You shall keep My statutes. Do not let your cattle mate with a different species of animal." Here is the way Torat Kohanim interprets this verse: "From the wording of the text I only know a prohibition concerning a domestic animal owned by one. How do I know that the same prohibition applies also to the domestic animals owned by one's neighbour? We derive this from the extraneous word את in the expression את חקרתי. If this is correct, why did the Torah use the suffix "your" altogether when describing the domestic animal? It could have written בהמה לא תרביע כלאים and saved both the word את as well as the possessive ending ך. I have seen a comment by the author of Korban Aharon explaining that the verse deals with a normal situation, i.e. an owner cross-mating his own animals. I do not believe that this is an adequate reason for the Torah phrasing the commandment in this fashion.

בהמתך לא תרביע כלאים, according to accepted norms and even the view of the heretics, just as the Torah commanded the earth and the creatures to reproduce only their own species (Genesis 1,11 and 1,21 as well as 1,24) so the Torah commands us when pursuing the task of tilling the earth to follow the same principles. This is also required regarding not mixing flax and wool, seeing the former is a product of the earth whereas the latter is a product of the animal kingdom, a higher form of creation. To the heretics who deny this principle, questioning that if true why are only lambs’ wool and flax prohibited to be mixed, whereas other forms of animal based wool are allowed to be mixed with flax, I say that the prohibition is due to mixing natural coloured materials such as white and dyed materials. The Torah considers mixing coloured fabrics with fabrics in their natural state as forbidden, quoting lamb’s wool and flax (linen) as the most popular example of such mixes. The heretics I spoke with accepted my argument.

בהמתך לא תרביע כלאים, “You must not mate your animal with another species.” Ibn Ezra writes that the Torah links the laws of not interbreeding species and the encouragement to become holy in order to make the point that after you have become a holy nation you must not commit violent acts against any person sharing your beliefs, and you must not even forcefully interfere with the animals’ natural way of behaviour which is, after all, the way they have been programmed to behave by the Creator. Animals are more loyal to the rules laid down for His creatures than man is. Rashi writes that the prohibition against cross breeding must be seen as a Divine decree, G’d did not see fit to give us His reasons. Nachmanides writes that the sages did not write anywhere that the underlying reasons for this legislation have been deliberately hidden, giving the evil urge and the gentiles a chance to ridicule and undermine our faith in the Creator. Whereas such an argument is true with respect to the prohibition to mix wool and linen, [but not other fibers, Ed.] the reason for not mixing different seeds in a vineyard, or not crossbreeding species of animals are not at all a challenge to [test of, Ed.] our faith. On the one hand, all G’d’s laws, [especially those regulating our conduct vis a vis Him seeing that they emanate from a higher intelligence, are of a kind whose true intent we are unable to fathom, Ed.] are beyond our ability to fully comprehend, as opposed to the laws governing inter-personal relations which we are expected to try and understand. However, we are encouraged in many instances to examine some aspects of how the חוקים are beneficial to our successful existence on this earth. We must not make observance of these laws conditional on our understanding their usefulness. There appears to be a perfectly rational reason for the legislation of forbidding crossbreeding, both of animals and plants. The Creator enabled each species to perpetuate itself by planting its seed in the appropriate counterpart. Crossbreeding, in the vast majority of cases, would foil the Creator’s plan, and such species would die out, as their seed would not produce any issue or issue that was capable of sustaining itself. G’d provided the seed to these creatures in order to enable His universe to endure as planned. Any activity that puts the Creator’s intent at risk, is therefore forbidden, is an act of insurrection if persisted in. This is the reason why already at the time of reporting creation, the Torah stresses again and again the words למינו and למיניהם, “according to its species,” or “according to their species.” He who interferes with this obviously finds fault with the Creator, implicitly criticizes Him. G’d does not need His creatures’ help in perfecting His universe, He is content if His creatures do not ruin it. We know from experience that even if apparently well matched human beings mate with one another, especially those forbidden under the rules of incest, any children from such unions are liable to intensify genetic defects which no human being is totally without. In other words, not only do totally different species not reproduce when crossbred, but, even members of the same species fail to reproduce satisfactorily if the rules of the Torah are not followed. Who would know best what is good for us if not He Who had created us? When the Torah enlarges this prohibition by writing שדך לא תזרע כלאים, “you must not scatter more than one type of seed in your field,” it includes even relatively simple plants in its regulations. Our sages expressed their conviction that violating this commandment will be found detrimental to the farmer’s interest, even if he thought that he would benefit through such a stratagem. Our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 10,7) have illustrated their approach to the whole subject when they told us that there is not a single species of plant which does not have its own mazzal, i.e protective guardian angel appointed in the heavens. Clearly, such a statement refers only to species created by G’d, not to new species created by man. Such species are without any heavenly protection.

Nuz is an expression of something rubbed. Meaning: stretched.

את חקותי תשמורו, “you are to observe My statutes;” previously when the Torah commenced a paragraph with this introduction, what followed were the laws about family purity, chastity, incest etc. (18,5) Now it introduces laws of a similar nature applying to different categories of vegetation, and their derivatives, i.e. mixing wool and linen. Fruitbearing trees must not have branches of other types of fruit grafted on to their trunks.

ובגד כלאים NEITHER SHALL A GARMENT MINGLED OF LINEN AND WOOLLEN [COME UPON THEE] — Why is this st‎atement made (how does the particular form of words used here tell us some point of law which is not contained in Deuteronomy 22:21 which bears upon the same subject)? Because Scripture states there “Thou shalt not wear שעטנז, wool and linen together” I might think that one must not wear in combination wool (i. e. wool as it comes from the shearing) and combed flax! Scripture therefore states here “a garment (i. e. something made of a cloth) [mingled of woollen and linen shall not come upon thee]”, thus excluding loose pieces of wool and flax in combination, which do not form a בגד. Whence do we know that this prohibition extends to felt-stuff (which though not being really בגד, since the material is not worked up into cloth, is, however, made of wool and linen pressed into one material)? Because Scripture states in Deuteronomy “שעטנז shall not come upon thee” which means a material that is calendered (pressed, שוע), or woven (טוי) or twisted (נוז) together — (שעטנז is taken to be an abbreviation of these words) (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 4 18). I say that נוז is an expression for material which is dried by rubbing between the fingers in order to extend it into threads, these being then twined together so that it forms a coherent web. This is called tistre in O. F. (cf. Rashi on Gittin 59a s. v. דבר הנמלל ונמתח). Similar is the expression to be found in the Talmud (Moed Katan 12b): חזין לגזאי דאית בהון, “The sesame-plant may be plucked on חולו של מועד because it is fit for use on account of the נזאי, the dried-up kernels which it contains” — which word, viz., נזאי, we explain to mean as much as “withering”, flestre in O. F.. Menachem explains שעטנו to denote a combination of wool and linen.

NEITHER SHALL THERE COME UPON THEE A GARMENT ‘KILAYIM SHA’ATNEIZ’¹⁰⁹Literally: “mixed of two kinds of stuff.” (MIXED OF LINEN AND WOOL). “Why is this stated [here, since in Deuteronomy 22:11 quoted further on it is more explicitly stated]? But because it is said [there in Deuteronomy], Thou shalt not wear ‘sha’atneiz’ (a mingled stuff), wool and linen together,¹¹⁰Deuteronomy 22:11. I might think that one is not to wear [loose pieces of] wool-shearings and stalks of flax; Scripture therefore states, a garment, [thus excluding from the terms of the prohibition the wearing of loose pieces of wool and flax which have not been woven together into a garment]. Whence do I know to include felted stuff [of linen and wool, which, though not spun and woven, are pressed into one material and worn as a garment]? Scripture therefore says, sha’atneiz — that which is shu’a (combed), tavui (spun) and nuz (twisted) together. And I say that the word nuz is an expression for materials which are compressed and twined one with the other to be joined [into a coherent web].” This is Rashi’s language.
But it does not appear to me to be correct, for felted stuff [of linen and wool] is not forbidden by law of the Torah, but only by enactment of the Rabbis, since it is only combed [but not spun and twisted, so why then did Rashi include it under the term sha’atneiz,] since that word implies all three actions — combing, spinning and twisting? And so we have been taught in a Mishnah:¹¹¹Kilayim 9:9. “Felted stuff [of wool and linen] is forbidden because it is combed,” [which clearly indicates that it is not spun and twisted]. And in the Gemara the Rabbis have said:¹¹²Niddah 61 b. “Perhaps I might say [that Scripture prohibited wool and linen if they were] only combed, or spun, or twisted!” And the Gemara came to the conclusion: “The final law is as Mar Zutra [who said that this Scriptural prohibition applies only if all three acts were done], since the Merciful One expressed them all in one term” [sha’atneiz, which as mentioned above is a combination of three words: shu’a (combed), tavui (spun) and nuz (twisted)]. But the Beraitha taught in the Torath Kohanim, stating:¹¹³Torath Kohanim, Kedoshim 4:18. “I know only that a garment [must not be worn if made of wool and linen together]. But whence do I know to include felted stuff? From that which the verse states, sha’atneiz” — that Beraitha intends to include things which are not “a garment,” on the basis of the verse Thou shalt not wear a mingled stuff,¹¹⁰Deuteronomy 22:11. since the word “garment” is not mentioned there, [but it does not intend to teach, as Rashi interpreted it, that wool and linen even if only combed but not spun and twisted, are already forbidden as sha’atneiz]. This interpretation [of the Torath Kohanim] is a basic principle, since even an article which is not “a garment” [if worn as a vestment] is also forbidden by law of the Torah to be made of wool and linen, such as where one plaits threads [of wool and linen] and makes of them a belt, or anything similar, providing only that the threads were combed, spun and twisted. The Torath Kohanim mentioned “felted stuffs” merely as a Biblical support for a Rabbinical enactment, since these are forbidden only by the law of the Rabbis, as they are not “a garment” [because the two diverse materials are only combed, but not spun and twisted].
Similarly, in respect of that which the Rabbi [Rashi] wrote with reference to combing, that [the wool and linen] must also be compressed and twisted together, and in a similar manner he also wrote in his commentaries to the Gemara,¹¹⁴Yebamoth 5 b; Niddah 61 b. See my Hebrew commentary p. 122. other scholars,¹¹⁵Tosafoth, Yebamoth 5 b. have already commented that Rashi’s interpretation is not in accord with what the Rabbis have said [in the following text of the Talmud]:¹¹⁶Menachoth 39 a. To understand the following text it is necessary to clarify these two points: (a) The commandment of Tzitzith (Fringes) consists of making for each of the four corners of the garment four threads specially woven for that purpose. They are then passed through a hole situated a few thumbs’ breadth away from each of the four corners, the threads are doubled, and two knots are then formed at the lower edge of the garment, followed by a series of windings and other double knots (see “The Commandments,” Vol. I, p. 22, for precise details). (b) A cardinal principle in Torah law is that, subject to certain general exceptions, any duty of fulfilling a positive commandment overrides a negative commandment (see Ramban on Exodus 20:8 — Vol. II, pp. 309-310). This is derived from the juxtaposition of these two verses: Thou shalt not wear a mingled stuff, wool and linen together. Thou shalt make twisted cords upon the four corners of thy covering, wherewith thou coverest thyself (Deuteronomy 22:11-12). The closeness of the two verses intimates that the commandment of Fringes overrides the prohibition of sha’atneiz, so that the Fringes may be made with threads of wool even if the garment itself is of linen. — The Gemara now argues on the basis of the second principle mentioned, that we must say that the upper knots [formed at the lower edge of the garment] after the four threads are passed through the opening and doubled, are obligatory by law of the Torah, “for should you think etc.” “You must deduce from this¹¹⁷I.e., from the fact that the Torah intimated a special permission showing that the commandment of the Fringes overrides the prohibition of wearing sha’atneiz (see Note 116 (b)). that the upper knots¹¹⁸“Knots.” The Hebrew is kesher — “knot” in the singular. But Ramban himself further on refers to “two knots” which are made at the lower edge of the garment. Basically, however, it is the first knot with which we are concerned, since if the threads are of wool and the garment of linen, and they are joined together with only one knot, which holds them together, nonetheless the prohibition of sha’atneiz would be incurred by wearing them afterwards, were it not for the fact that in that case the Torah especially permitted it. in the Fringes are required by Scriptural law. For if you should think that they are not required by Scriptural law, why then did the Merciful One have to state a [special] permission for using mingled stuff of wool and linen in Fringes! Do we not hold the law to be established that if one fastens two pieces together with only one stitch, it is not considered joined!”¹¹⁹Hence if the commandment of the Fringes required merely the passing of the four threads through the hole, and then doubling them, without tying them with a knot, there would have been no need for the Torah to intimate a special permission for sha’atneiz in Fringes, since the woolen threads and linen garment would not be considered “joined together.” But if, on the other hand, after the threads are passed through the opening and are doubled they must then be tied with a knot, that constitutes already an act of joining the woolen Fringes and the linen garment together, which ordinarily would render it forbidden to be worn, and then we would understand that in the case of the Fringes, the Torah had to intimate a special permission. — Thus far is the reasoning of the Talmud. Ramban now deduces from it, that in order to be included in the prohibition of sha’atneiz it is not necessary that the wool and linen themselves be combed, spun and twisted together, as Rashi had written. Thus the Rabbis [of the Talmud] have revealed to us that a garment made of linen, in which woolen fringes have been tied with two knots, constitutes diverse kinds by law of the Torah, even though they have not been compressed and twined together!
Rather, the matter is as follows: Scripture here stated, Neither shall there come upon thee a garment ‘kilayim sha’atneiz,’ meaning to say that every garment that is made of a thread which has been combed, spun and twisted, we should not wear if it is kilayim, that is, of mingled stuff. And in the Book of Deuteronomy He explained in addition that we should not wear anything which was combed, spun and twisted of wool and linen if they be together, that is to say, if the wool and linen are joined together with [at least] two stitches. This means to say that [even] if the wool and linen were each combed, spun and twisted separately, they may not be attached together, for when they are joined they constitute kilayim (mingled stuff); just as He said [in the preceding verse there], Thou shalt not plow with an ox and an ass together,¹²⁰Deuteronomy 22:10. Now just as in this case the prohibition applies to joining together in work an ox and an ass, which are two separate creatures, even so in the verse on sha’atneiz which follows, the prohibition applies only where the thread of wool was treated to all three actions separately, and so also the thread of linen, and then they were both joined together. that is to say, if they are tied and joined to each other. And in the case of garments, fastening with two stitches already constitutes “joining” them, it being derived by the Rabbis from the word together [wool and linen ‘together’] that two stitches constitute a joining together. From there [i.e., from the verse in Deuteronomy where the word “garment” is not mentioned, as it is here in the verse before us], the Rabbis have learned that mingled stuff is forbidden although they are not in a garment, but even if one plaited threads of thick material, and made of them belts, although they were not woven [for a vestment], similar to what we are taught in a Mishnah:¹²¹Kilayim 9:9. “One may not tie a cord of wool on to one made of linen, in order to bind up the loins.” And the expression nuz [in the word sha’atneiz] is a shortened word¹²²Meaning: “naloz (he preverses) umeiliez (and turns) his Father in heaven against him” (ibid., 9:8). “The word nuz is thus an expression of perverseness and crookedness, similar to the twisting of threads with each other. It is for this reason that the Merciful One had to permit expressly kilayim in Fringes, since in the case of the Fringes the threads must be twisted” (Ramban in his commentary to Tractate Niddah, 61b). See further in the text before us. in this composite term, just like the word tavui (spun), of which there is only the letter teth [in the word sha’atneiz]. And the meaning thereof [i.e., of the word nuz] is in my opinion like the word naloz (perversing), of the expressions: an abomination to the Eternal is ‘naloz’ (the perverse),¹²³Proverbs 3:32. meaning he who turns aside and perverses his paths; ‘unelozim’ (and perverse) in their paths,¹²⁴Ibid., 2:15. meaning those who are crooked and turn aside [unto their crooked ways],¹²⁵See Psalms 125:5. for anything which is spun [like a thread] is turned and crooked. This is similar to what we are taught in a Mishnah:¹²⁶Kilayim 9:8. “Rabbi Shimon¹²⁷In our text of the Mishnah: “Rabbi Shimon the son of Elazar.” Ramban’s version, however, suggests that it is Rabbi Shimon the son of Yochai, who is always referred to as “Rabbi Shimon” without further qualification. says: [The meaning of the word sha’atneiz is that he who disregards this law] is perverse and turns his Father in heaven against him,” meaning to say that the Glorious Name turns away His merciful ways from him, similar to what is said, and with the crooked Thou dost show Thyself subtle.¹²⁸II Samuel 22:27. And in the language of the Sages, this word [naloz] is used in a shortened form, thus:¹²⁹Shemoth Rabbah 37:2. “This can be compared to a king’s son sh’noz¹³⁰In our text of the Shemoth Rabbah the word is sh’zachah da’ato alav — “whose mind was charged with haughtiness upon him.” Ramban will later on explain the text before us as meaning: “who turned [or perverted] his heart into an evil path.” his heart upon him, and he took a digging tool to undermine his father’s house,” [the word sh’noz meaning] that “he turned his heart to an evil path.” It is of the same root [as the word naloz, in its shortened form nuz], that the Sages have said in the Talmud [in Tractate] Sanhedrin:¹³¹Sanhedrin 41 b. “Minizyathei¹³²In our text of the Gemara: minezihuthei, which Rashi explains as meaning: “if you had wanted ‘to rail at us’ we could not have answered you at all. But as you spoke kindly, we will tell you many things that we have said about it.” Ramban will explain the text before us [which conforms to the reading of the Munich Talmud manuscript] as meaning: “if you had wanted to turn away the matter from the right course etc.” of the master, we could not have answered him at all,” that is to say, if you had wanted to insist and turn away the matter [from the right course], we would not have known how to answer you at all. Nizyathei is thus like nilzyathei, that is to say, “his turning away” from the correct path. This is the true and correct interpretation in this matter [of sha’atneiz]. It was for this reason that it was necessary for the Torah to grant permission for kilayim (mingled stuff) in Fringes,¹³³See above, Note 116 (b). Ramban’s intention is that although the woolen Fringes are not plaited or woven together with the cloth of the four-cornered garment, to which they are later attached, nonetheless since the Fringes are themselves combed, spun and twisted, and then attached to the cloth which was likewise combed, spun and twisted, as explained above, that is a sufficient “mingling of stuffs” to constitute sha’atneiz. Hence it was necessary for the Torah to grant permission etc., although the Fringes are not plaited and do not constitute a garment. This then is the law of the Torah [i.e., if the linen garment was made of threads which were combed, spun and twisted, and the woolen threads were likewise combed, spun and twisted, then these two kinds of threads must not be joined together]. However, the Sages prohibited it even if the threads were only made in one way — either combed, or spun, or twisted. It is for this reason that we have been taught in a Mishnah:¹¹¹Kilayim 9:9. “Felted stuff [of wool and linen] is forbidden because it is combed. An edging of wool on a linen garment¹³⁴Even though the woolen edging is not woven together with the linen garment, but is merely attached to it by some artificial means (Tifereth Yisrael, Kilayim 9:9, Note 46). is forbidden since it interlaces the web of the garment.” All these are prohibited by law of the Rabbis.¹³⁵In summary then, two major differences of opinion have appeared between Rashi and Ramban on the law of sha’atneiz: (a) According to Rashi the Scriptural prohibition applies where the wool and linen were either combed, or spun, or twisted. Hence felted stuff which is only combed, is forbidden by law of the Torah. According to Ramban, the Scriptural prohibition applies only where the wool and linen went through the process of all three acts mentioned, and therefore felted stuff which is only combed, is forbidden only by enactment of the Rabbis. (b) According to Rashi the prohibition of sha’atneiz applies where the wool and linen were combed [or spun or twisted] together. According to Ramban, the prohibition applies where the threads of wool were separately combed, spun and twisted, and likewise the threads of linen were combed, spun and twisted, and then they were both attached to each other with a minimum of two stitches, or tied with a knot. — Rambam’s presentation of this law follows that of Rashi, while the Rashba follows that of Ramban.
Now the reason for the prohibition of mingled stuff in garments is in order to keep far away from the mixing together of different species, and He therefore prohibited [the threads, i.e., of wool and linen] from which garments are usually made. But the Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] had said in the Moreh Nebuchim¹³⁶Guide of the Perplexed III, 37. that the reason for the prohibition of wearing a garment made of wool and linen, is because at that time this kind of garment was used by the priests and magicians to adorn themselves when performing their activities, and he [Maimonides] says that he found it so written in their books. And since this was for them a matter of great importance, and very much desired by them in order that they should do their activities [in honor of] the idols and demons, therefore the Torah removed it from being worn by all people, since the Torah intends to blot out their deeds and efface their memory.

ובגד כלאים שעטנז, “and a garment consisting of a mixture of lamb’s wool fibers and linen fibers, etc.” Nachmanides writes that the reason for this prohibition – which singles out wearing a garment made of such mixture, not the making of the mixture- is that we must learn to keep our distance from species that have been mixed. And Maimonides write in "The Guide of the Perplexed" that the reason for the שעטנז prohibition is because at that time there was a well-known garment of the sorcerers with whom they did all their actions and he said that he found it written in their books and according to it - it was a great matter and very desirable for them to do their evil deeds for their forbidden worship so the Torah kept it away from anyone because the Torah wants to extinguish their deeds and annihilate their memory. What Rashi brought a verse to forbid alone is only a reference, for the Torah did not forbid unless the wool and linen are each alone, material that is calendered (pressed, שוע), or woven (טוי) or twisted (נוז) together i.e. woven and then two times, and therefore it was necessary to allow Kilayim in Tzitzit and unlike Rashi, who interpreted that it is not considered Kilayim until the linen and wool are intertwined with each other, otherwise Kilayim should not be allowed in Tzitzit, however in each material that is calendered (pressed, שוע), or woven (טוי) or twisted (נוז) together it is considered Kilayim even if it is not a garment such as weaving threads and making a belt out of them (Mishnah Kilayim 9:1). And fabrics that are not but calendered (pressed, שוע) [, or woven (טוי) or twisted (נוז)] alone are not forbidden from the Torah but from Rabbinical decree (Nida 61b) although it is each one by itself - or material that is calendered (pressed, שוע), or woven (טוי) or twisted (נוז) together:

And woven. Meaning: entwined.

I believe that the key to the verse is the fact that the Torah wrote this law immediately after the commandment to love fellow Israelites like ourselves. The message of that commandment is that G'd loves for Jews whose souls are all branches of the same pool of sanctity to behave accordingly towards each other. As a result we might think that G'd does not mind if those mammals which are fit for consumption by us, i.e. the בהמות טהורות, would intermate. The Torah tells us that this is against G'd's will. The ending ך in the word refers to the fact that these animals are yours to eat, not that they are owned by you. Torat Kohanim also writes that the verse as it stands forbids only the crossbreeding or mating of pure animals with other pure animals. Whence do I know that one must not crossbreed or mate impure animals with pure animals? Answer: This is why the Torah says את חקותי תשמרו. This shows you quite clearly that the author had understood the word בהמתך to mean pure animals as opposed to animals which are your own. If the Torah had not written the suffix ך, I would not have known that the subject are pure animals at all, but would have assumed that inasmuch as the pure animals are fit to eat, mating between pure animals would be permissible as opposed to mating between impure and pure species.

בהמתך לא תרביע כלאים, “you must not try to crossbreed different categories of mammals.” After the Torah had warned us to be holy, i.e. not to forcibly violate natural norms, as well as not to violate personal freedom of your fellowman by violence, now the Torah expands the subject matter to include the animal kingdom. In other words, we are not to tamper with what the Creator had seen fit to create as a separate species, i.e. למינו, למינה, למיניהם, “according to their respective species.”

An expression of “withering.” I.e., hardened, like something twisted which is hard.

ובגד כלאים, “and a garment made of two kinds of fabrics mixed together;” according to some commentators (B’chor Shor) the reason behind this prohibition is to distinguish the garments worn by the priests from those worn by ordinary Israelites, the priests having been specifically ordered to wear some garments containing a mixture of wool and linen (as mentioned already in the Talmud tractate Yevamot folio 4. It is stated there that the word שש in the Torah refers to a type of linen, whereas the word תכלת refers to wool dyed blue). We find something similar with regard to the prohibition of certain fat parts offered on the altar, and all kinds of blood, as well as the oil used for anointing the kings of the house of David, or incense in certain proportions; all of the aforementioned are for the exclusive use in the service of the Lord by the priests. Anyone making personal use of them is as guilty of severe trespass as someone making personal use of the King’s scepter.

Combination of wool and flax. I.e., שעטנז connotes combination, that one combines wool and flax.

נחרפת לאיש [AND WHOSOEVER LIETH CARNALLY WITH A WOMAN THAT IS A HANDMAID] GIVEN OVER TO A MAN — נחרפת signifies: destined and designated to a man. I do not know of any similar use of it (the root חרף) in Scripture. — And it is of a Canaanitish handmaid who is partly a שפחה and partly a free-woman and who is betrothed to a Hebrew servant who is permitted to marry a שפחה, that Scripture is here speaking (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 5 2; Keritot 11a).

AND WHOSOEVER LIETH CARNALLY WITH A WOMAN THAT IS A BONDMAID, ‘NECHEREPHETH’ FOR A MAN — “‘Destined’ for a man. I know not of a similar usage of this root [choraph] in Scripture.” This is Rashi’s language. It appears to me that it is associated with the expression, as I was in the days of ‘chorpi,’¹³⁷Job 29:4. meaning, in the days of my youth. Similarly, my heart shall not ‘yecheraph’ me so long as I live,¹³⁸Ibid., 27:6. meaning that I will not have the heart of a youth [who has not yet matured in wisdom]. The days of youth are called “the days of choreph” [a term which means “winter”], since the winter is at the beginning of the year, while the days of old age correspond to the summer which are the days of gathering in. Scripture, then, is stating here that she is a bondmaid, a young girl designated for a certain man, for a concubine who ministers to a man and with whom he has sexual relations, is called “his maiden,” just as every ministering person is also called [the master’s] lad. It is very common in the language of the Sages to say of a woman who has sexual relations with a man, that she is “an attendant to him.” And it is this [relationship that is here called] necherepheth, meaning that she has become a maiden [— attendant] to a man, and is known to him, called in the vernacular [i.e., in Spanish] mancipada (designated to a man). In the language of the Sages likewise we find the expression:¹³⁹Sanhedrin 58 b. “that slave’s girl” [assigned to him by his master]. Thus the meaning thereof is that she is not completely as his wife, but he has betrothed her and she is to him a maiden-attendant.

It is a fact that most of the statutes listed appear to forbid only things which appear opposed to what we are familiar with as “laws of nature.” The prominent exception to this is the legislation involving the שפחה הנחרפת לאיש. Surely, the fact that the male partner does not become subject to the penalty of 39 strokes whereas the female partner does, appears hard to understand and to reconcile with what logic dictates. Furthermore, the fact that the male partner in the sin is required to offer a guilt offering, איל אשם, although he committed the sin knowingly, seems completely at variance with what we know about the function of such offerings.
Nonetheless, the Torah herself provides a partial answer to this unusual legislation by writing כי לא חופשה, his sin is viewed as somewhat less serious seeing that she had not been legally capable of entering a binding marriage, the requisite financial token signifying her betrothal to the man being legally meaningless as she could not “own” anything, still being enslaved to one of her former masters. His principal sin consists of desecrating the institution of marriage, a Divine institution, hence a desecration of G’d’s name when ignored. Engaging in sexual intercourse with a woman who is still partially a slave is a form of practicing promiscuity. [my words. Ed.] The scenario described by the Torah denigrates in the first instance the dignity of the active partner, the male, not that of the passive partner the female. It is most likely, that she, the “passive” partner had seduced him and is therefore deserving of the penalty decreed for her by the Torah. The deliberate nature of the sin, as far as the male is concerned, is the fact that he knowingly demeaned himself. This makes it akin to an inadvertent sin, qualifying for the guilt offering decreed.

נחרפת, exclusively assigned to a Hebrew servant, as we know from Exodus 21,4: “if his master will give him a wife.” An expression parallel to the wordנחרפת occurs in Judges 5,18 עם חרף נפשו למות, “a people that mocked at death.” It means there that Dan dedicated its life utterly. [a wife dedicates her life utterly to her husband. Ed.] Onkelos also understands the word as meaning that this woman is exclusive to the man mentioned in our verse.

ואיש כי ישכב את אשה, “If a man lies carnally with a woman, etc.” the reason why this verse follows the subject of forbidden mixtures of species is that lying carnally with a woman not one’s wife is another type of mixing forbidden species with one another.

I know of no similar term in Tanach. But there is a similar term in the Mishnah, such as, “If someone says, ’(You are hereby) my charufah,’ she is married, because in Yehudah etc.” (Kiddushin 6a). This is the plain meaning [of charufah]; the midrashic meaning [is found] in Krisus (11a).

ואיש כי ישכב את אשה, “and any man who lies carnally with a woman who is a bondmaid, etc.” Rabbi Elazar, son of Azaryah, says that seeing that all the various forbidden categories of carnal unions have already been recorded, we must conclude that here we deal with a woman whose legal status is subject to doubt, i.e. a woman owned by two masters jointly, only one of them has already released her into freedom. (Sifra)

והפדה לא נפדתה means, she is redeemed (הפדה) and not redeemed (לא נפדתה) (i. c. she is partly redeemed, but not fully redeemed; cf. Keritot 11a). An expression derived from the verb פדה, unless it be more closely defined, means redemption by money.

BIKORETH’ (AN INVESTIGATION) SHALL BE MADE. “It is for the court to investigate the matter in order not to make him liable to death [that is to say, if she were a free woman betrothed to a man, and she had committed adultery, the punishment would be death, but this is not the case in this instance]. BECAUSE SHE WAS NOT FREE, and her betrothal was not complete.” This is Rashi’s language, and so did all the commentators¹⁴⁰Ibn Ezra, R’dak in his Sefer Hashorashim, root bakeir. interpret the verse. And if so, Scripture then is warning the court to make this investigation because she is like a married woman, and they might [easily] make a mistake [in deciding his punishment]. But their interpretation does not please me, for it is a fact that is self-understood that the matter will be investigated, and that the court will not kill a person in vain. For they do such an investigation in all cases involving the death penalty!
Now it is my opinion that this [word bikoreth] is a unique one in Scripture, but it is a common term in the Aramaic language and in the expressions of our Rabbis, namely, the word hefkeir [“ownerless” — with the letter beth in bikoreth and the letter fei in hefkeir interchanging]. For the word is essentially hevkeir [with the letter veth, which is equivalent to the beth in bikoreth], just as the Rabbis have said [in a Mishnah]:¹⁴¹Peah 6:1. “The School of Shammai say: Hevkeir [produce that is proclaimed ownerless] for the benefit of the poor [only], is deemed hevkeir [and therefore the produce is free from the obligation to give tithes, since ownerless produce is exempt from tithes].¹⁴²Thus we find the Mishnah using the word hevkeir [with the letter veth] instead of hefkeir [with the letter fei]. And the School of Hillel say: [It is not valid] unless the owner makes it equally free for the rich, just as in the Sabbatical year” [when the produce of the field is free for poor and rich alike, and is exempt from tithes]. And again we have been taught [in a Mishnah]:¹⁴³Shevi’ith 9:4. “One may eat [produce of the Sabbatical year] which has been brought into the house al hamuvkar¹⁴⁴Here too, the Mishnah uses the term hamuvkar instead of hamufkar. In our text of the Mishnah the latter usage is found. [only as long as similar produce is still found ‘free’ in the field as food for the animals], but not as long as it is still found watched over in private ownership.” Yonathan ben Uziel also translated, vain and light fellows¹⁴⁵Judges 9:4. See my Hebrew commentary p. 124, Note 55, about a different version in our text of Yonathan. as “idlers uvakrin,” — “and ‘free’ men” [i.e., men defying the law]. By their lies and ‘by their wantonness’¹⁴⁶Jeremiah 23:32. [Yonathan ben Uziel translated] uvakrithon¹⁴⁷Here too Yonathan uses the veth [uvakrithon] instead of the fei [ufakrithon — “and their irreverence”]. (“and by their irresponsibility”). They also say¹⁴⁸It would seem that the Targum Yerushalmi quoted here was not before Ramban. Hence he quotes it by hearsay: “They also say …” that the expression, and the seventh year thou shalt let it rest ‘u’n'tashta’,¹⁴⁹Exodus 23:11. the Jerusalem Targum¹⁵⁰See in Vol. I, p. 371, Note 128. renders as uthevakarno [“and thou shalt renounce ownership thereof,” thus also using the root hefkeir in the form of hevkeir]. Similarly throughout the Mishnah [the term hefkeir] is written with a veth [i.e., hevkeir]. But in the Gemara they became used to saying hefkeir [with a fei], as these letters [the veth and the fei] were used interchangeably by them, just as from the expression the grains ‘ovshu’ (shrivel),¹⁵¹Joel 1:17. they used the word ‘ofshu’ (musty). This is likewise found in many places in the Scriptures, as I have mentioned on the verse Thou didst blow with Thy wind.¹⁵²Exodus 15:10. And the interpretation of this verse [before us] is as follows: He says concerning this bondmaid that “although she is ‘attending’ this man, she is not considered his wife because she is to him bikoreth, that is to say, she is treated by him as a loose person, and therefore they are not to be put to death as is the law of the adulterer and the adulteress when the woman is [properly] married; for freedom has not been given to her [from her status as a bondmaid] to be his real wife [and therefore he who lies carnally with her is not to be put to death], but instead he is to bring a guilt-offering because she is designated for a man.” And Onkelos who translated ‘bikoreth’ shall be made as “bikurto shall be made,” uses a language similar to that of Yonathan ben Uziel, in his rendition [of the Hebrew ufochazim¹⁴⁵Judges 9:4. See my Hebrew commentary p. 124, Note 55, about a different version in our text of Yonathan. (and light follows)] as uvakrin (men defying the Law).¹⁵³Ramban’s intention is to point out that Onkelos’ rendition here of the Hebrew bikoreth as bikurto is thus similar to Yonathan’s rendition of the Hebrew ufochazim as uvakrin, which is of the root hevkeir, or in its later form hefkeir, which denotes something ownerless, loose, etc. It thus corroborates Ramban’s interpretation that the word bikoreth in the verse before us is of the term hefkeir, as explained in the text.

לא נפדתה, on the one hand she has not been released from her vows, on the other hand she is not a true wife whose penalty would be death by strangulation.

והיא שפחה נחרפת לאיש, “she being a servant woman (gentile slave) designated for an Israelite man, etc.” The term נחרפת is subject to different interpretations, as is the status of the woman in question. [I am providing some background here not found in the author’s commentary, seeing the author concentrates more on the linguistic meaning of the word: נחרפת Ed.] According to some opinions, Rashi included, the woman is not originally Jewish, but on the way to being freed, which by itself is possible only if she converts to Judaism. At the time this intercourse occurs, apparently she is half slave, having been owned jointly by two masters, one of whom had not yet released her. She had been promised as a wife to a Hebrew slave (servant). Such a Hebrew servant, at the instruction of his master, would legally be allowed to sleep with her even while she had not begun any process of conversion. Some see in the word a comparison to זבולון, compare Judges 5.18 זבלון עם חרף נפשו למות, “Zevulun, a tribe that defied and risked death.” Zevulun’s chancing death at Devorah’s command is similar to this slave in our verse surrendering to a man’s advances. Nachmanides sees the word as related to חרפי, as in Job 29,4 כאשר הייתי בימי חרפי, “when I was still in my early youth.” The days of נעורים, adolescence, are compared to חורף, winter, seeing they are the beginning of the season, before summer, whereas the time of old age זקנה are considered as again as such as the summer of one’s life is already past and one approaches “winter.” Accordingly, the meaning of our verse is that the שפחה described here is a woman designated as a concubine, someone frequently described as נערה, i.e. “a wife of a junior status.” At any rate, the woman in question is not totally a married woman as yet. Ibn Ezra writes that the word is related to חרפה, inferior status, a woman who is not yet exclusively betrothed to a specific man seeing she is still a slave. She is however, still a virgin at the time the man in our verse sleeps with her.

Half maid-servant and half free woman. I.e., below, the verse writes והפדה לא נפדתה (lit. she is redeemed and she is not redeemed). This is a contradictory expression because if she is redeemed, why does it say, “she is not redeemed,” and if she is not redeemed, why does it say “she is redeemed”? Therefore it means “redeemed and not redeemed,” as Rashi soon explains.

נחרפת, betrothed, i.e. promised, to a man (as soon as she will have been released by her other owner) This status can be compared to Job, 29,4 בימי חרפי, “when I was in my prime, i.e. in a transitory stage. An alternate interpretation: the word נחרפת means something similar to מופקרת, “abandoned;” Compare Judges 5,18: עם חרף נפשו, “a people left at the threshold of death.”

או חפשה NOR FREEDOM [WAS GIVEN HER] through a document of release (שטר שחרור) (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 5 3).

בקורת תהיה, similar to Leviticus 13,36 לא יבקר הכהן, “the priest need not examine it.” In our verse the word there means “an indemnity,” (compensatory penalty payable,). according to Dugash) According to Menachem, the word refers to a legal examination to determine exactly what happened and to assess the guilt. If she had not been released from servitude the court will not condemn her as a wife who committed adultery.

בקורת תהיה, “there shall be an investigation.” According to Rashi it is up to the court to determine the status, as the woman is not guilty of the death penalty. [She would be if she were a married woman and had consented to infidelity. Ed.] Some interpret the need for this investigation as resulting from the fact that to many onlookers this woman does have the status of a married woman, so that some people would be in a hurry to put her to death. In order to prevent such a miscarriage of justice, the Torah orders an investigation. The word בקרת is related to the word יבקר in Leviticus 13,36 where the Torah declares an investigation by the priest as uncalled for, writing לא יבקר הכהן. Still other scholars see in the word בקרת the word בקר when it is used in the sense of administering physical punishments with a strap. Nachmanides views the words as indicating הפקרות, that the woman in question due to her dubious status was considered הפקר in the sense of unprotected by law. According to Nachmanides we encounter the expression הבקר in the Mishnah, when it always means the same as הפקר with the letter פ instead of the letter ב. (compare Peyah 6.1 et al) Still others consider the word as similar to פילגש, concubine, quoting Psalms 45,10 בנות מלכים ביקרותיך, “Royal princesses are your favorites.” Ibn Ezra categorically rejects this saying that on the contrary, the meaning of the word in Psalms is from יקר, the especially highly regarded ones. In other words, princesses who elsewhere are highly esteemed will be become lowly slave women for the Jewish people [remember Hagar who voluntarily became the slave of Sarah. Ed.]

Who is engaged to a Hebrew slave. I.e., she is certainly betrothed to someone since the verse requires the person who had relations with her to bring a guilt-offering. But if she is betrothed to a free Jew, he would be forbidden to have relations with her because of the “maidservant part” of her And if she is betrothed to a Canaanite slave, he would be forbidden to have relations with her because of the “free part” of her. Therefore one must say she is married to a Hebrew slave to whom she is permitted.

חופשה, “freed;” the letter ה at the end is weak, (without adot, )

בקרת תהיה INVESTIGATION SHALL BE MADE CONCERNING HER — she shall be punished with lashes but not he. It is for the court to investigate the matter (to discover that she is really not free) so that they should not make her liable to death (which would be the punishment of a free woman who committed adultery), כי לא חפשה BECAUSE SHE WAS NOT FREE and her marriage with the Hebrew slave was no marriage. Our Rabbis, however, (taking the word בקרת as though it were בקריאת “by reading”) learned from here that whoever is subject to lashes (the מלקות punishment) shall be subject to the recitation (קריאה) of Biblical verses — that the judges who pronounce the sentence of lashes shall recite, whilst standing by him who is lashed the verses (Deuteronomy 28:58, 59): "If thou wilt not observe to do [all the words of the law] etc… Then the Lord will distinguish thy plagues (מכותך which also implies thy "lashes") etc." (cf. Keritot 11a)

כי לא חופשה, “for she had not yet been set free completely.” She was not yet able to become the legal wife of the man designated for her. Nonetheless, the man who had slept with her has to bring a guilt offering as spelled out in verse 22.

By deed [of manumission]. Because it is written “Or her freedom was not given to her (לה), and we learn a gezeirah shavah, לה לה from the case of a wife where the verse writes (Devarim 24:3), “And writes for her (לה) a document of severance and places [it] in her hand.”

בקורת תהיה, an expression describing examination due to suspicion; the examination is designed to find a legal reason not to sentence her to death, as Rashi explained.

כי לא חופשה BECAUSE SHE WAS NOT FREE therefore he, also, is not liable to death because of her, since her marriage was no marriage. It follows therefore that if she were free her marriage would have been a marriage and he would be liable to the death penalty (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 5 5).

She suffers [lashes] and not he. You should not say that the verse reveals lashes by the woman and a guilt-offering by the man and one should learn one from the other, so that the woman is [punished] with lashes and a guilt-offering and so the man. Therefore it is written תהיה [a verb in the female form] to exclude the man from lashes.

[Is subject] to a proclamation. I.e., because it is written בקורת which is [also] an expression of קריאה (proclaiming), [this teaches] that they “call out to the one lashed.”

He is not liable. Because every כי in Scripture is giving a reason for what came before.

Thus, if she was freed. This deduction is required to teach that if she was freed even with money [and not with a document], she becomes free and is permitted to a free Jew, and her marriage is considered a marriage.

That is that He commanded us to fear this Temple very much, to the extent that we place a burden of fear and awe upon ourselves - and that this be from the fear of the Temple. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "and you shall fear My sanctuary" (Leviticus 19:30). And the designation of this fear is like that which they mentioned in the Sifra (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 7:9), "Which is fear? One should not enter the Temple Mount with his staff, with his shoes, with his money-belt and with the dust on his feet; and he must not make a short-cut of it and, a fortiori, [not spit]." And it has already been explained that it is only permitted for kings of the House of David to sit in [its] courtyard. And this is all from His, may He be exalted, saying, "and you shall fear My sanctuary." And this is obligatory forever; and even in our times, when it has been destroyed on account of the increase in our transgressions. And this is the language of the [Sifra] (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 7:8), "This tells me only of the time when the Temple existed. From where [do we know that the same is true] even when the Temple does not exist? [Hence] we learn to say, 'My Sabbaths you shall keep, and My sanctuary you shall fear' (Leviticus 19:30) - just as the keeping of the Shabbat is eternal, so too, is fear of the Temple eternal." And there (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 7:7) it is also said, "It is not the Temple that you fear, but He who makes His Divine Presence dwell in that place." (See Parashat Behar; Mishneh Torah, The Chosen Temple 7.)

איל אשם, “a ram for a guiltoffering.” We have had this expression already in Leviticus 5,18. Our sages use this similarity of expression, g’zeyra shaveh to say that the value of that ram in both instances is to be the same, two shekels.(On verse 19 in that chapter our author speaks of a twoyear old ram, not of its value in shekels. Rabbi Chavell)

ונסלח לו מחטאתו אשר חטא AND THE SIN WHICH HE HATH SINNED SHALL BE FORGIVEN HIM — [The words מחטאתו אשר חטא appear to be redundant after the statement על חטאתו אשר חטא immediately preceding them, but they are intended] to include the willful sinner just as well as him who acts unintentionally amongst those who must bring this offering (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 5 7; Keritot 9a).

[This] includes one who sinned intentionally as one who sinned unwittingly. Rashi explains in chapter Araba Mechusarei Kapara (Kerisus 9a) [where the Gemara says], “[This] includes one who sinned intentionally as one who sinned unwittingly,” that he too has to bring a sacrifice [even] for an intentional [sin in this case]. [The Gemara deduces this] because this is apparently a superfluous verse. Since it is written before “For the sin which he committed and he will be forgiven,” why does it then again write “for the sin which he committed?” This is to tell you that one brings a sacrifice even for an intentional [sin].

וערלתם ערלתו את פריו meant lit., ye shall close its closing (regard it as enclosed): the meaning being that it shall be, as it were, closed up and barred so that no benefit may be derived from it.

VA’ARALTEM ORLATHO’ THE FRUIT THEREOF. “[This means literally]: ‘ye shall close its closing,’ meaning that it shall be closed up and hidden so as not to have any benefit from it.” This is Rashi’s language, and he has explained it well. And if so, ‘erel’ of heart¹⁵⁴Ezekiel 44:9. means “closed of heart,”¹⁵⁵It is generally translated: uncircumcised in heart. just as it is said, and I will rend the enclosure of their heart.¹⁵⁶Hosea 13:8. Similarly, ‘areila’ is their ear¹⁵⁷Jeremiah 6:10. means “their ear is closed and dulled so that no sound enters therein.” And ‘aral’ of the lips¹⁵⁸Exodus 6:12. means “closed of lips,” for defective speech is a result of an impediment and obstruction in the veins of the tongue, or sometimes in those of the lips, which have not been properly opened. Speech is referred to in Scripture by the term “opening,” thus: Open thy mouth for the dumb¹⁵⁹Proverbs 31:8. [which means, “speak up in the cause of the dumb”]; Job opened his mouth;¹⁶⁰Job 3:1. and the opening of my lips shall be right things;¹⁶¹Proverbs 8:6. keep the doors [literally: “openings”] of thy mouth from her that lieth in thy bosom.¹⁶²Micah 7:5. Now Scripture uses the expression “closing up” with reference to the fruit of the first three years, so as to prohibit the deriving of any benefit from it, although it does not express it in this way with reference to other things from which we are also forbidden to derive any benefit [e.g., diverse kinds in a vineyard].¹⁶³Deuteronomy 22:9. This is because the appearance of the fruit in its earliest stage is called “opening,” just as it is said, the vine-blossom has opened.¹⁶⁴Song of Songs 7:13. Therefore He said, three years shall it be ‘areilim’ unto you, as if the fruits are closed up in the trees, and have not put forth buds nor opened blossoms.
The reason for this commandment is to honor the Eternal with the first of all our produce of the fruits of the tree and the increase of the vineyard, and that we are not to eat of them until we bring all the fruit of one year [i.e., the fourth year after the planting] for giving praise unto the Eternal.¹⁶⁵Verse 24. Now the fruit of the first three years is not fit to be brought before the Glorious Name¹⁶⁶Deuteronomy 28:58. because it is small; neither does the tree in its first three years impart good taste or flavor into its fruit. Besides, most trees do not bring forth fruit at all until the fourth year. Therefore we are to wait with all of them [an equal period of time], and are not to taste of their fruit until we have brought of the planting which we have done, all its first good fruit to be holy before G-d, and there [in Jerusalem] we are to eat it and praise the Name of the Eternal. Thus this commandment is like that of the first-fruits.¹⁶⁷Ibid., 26:1-11. It is furthermore true that the fruit which comes forth from the tree when it is first planted, contains an abundance of moisture which attaches to and is harmful to the body and it is not good to eat it, just like a fish which has no scales and all food, forbidden by the Torah, which are harmful also¹⁶⁸See Ramban above, 11:13, and 17:11, that the harm is chiefly to the soul of the person. This is the intention of Ramban’s expression here that the forbidden foods are “also” harmful to the body. to the body.
The Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] also gave in the Moreh Nebuchim the same type of reason for this commandment as he gave for most of these commandments, namely, that the magicians and sorcerers of those days used to practice certain deeds of witchcraft at the time of the planting of the trees, thinking that by so doing they would accelerate the coming out of the fruits before their natural time, and when the fruits appeared, they would offer them to the idol in the name of which that witchcraft was performed. Therefore the Torah commanded that the fruits which come out before three years [after the planting of the tree] should be forbidden [to derive any benefit from], in order that people should not come to practice these evil deeds, for most trees bring forth fruits in the fourth year, and that we are then to eat them before G-d [in Jerusalem], contrary to their eating of them before the idols.

וכי תבאו אל הארץ, "and when you arrive in the country, etc." This verse contains three commandments. 1) The arrival in the land of our ancestors. We understand this in accordance with Ketuvot 110 that הכל מעלין לארץ ישראל, a father may force all the members of his household to migrate to the land of Israel as opposed to leaving the land of Israel. 2) One must plant fruit-bearing trees in order to enhance the stature of the land. 3) One has to observe the years of ערלה before one is entitled to eat or use the fruit of these trees.

וערלתם, you will treat it as totally out of bounds, keeping your distance from it. The word occurs in a similar sense both in Jeremiah 6,10 ערלה אזנם, referring to the people’s ears, and in Ezekiel 44,9 ערל לב, describing the heart as totally unapproachable. We also find it in a similar sense in Chabakuk 2,16 שתה גם אתה והערל, where it also denotes someone utterly disgraced.

ונטעתם כל עץ מאכל, “you will plant every kind of fruit-bearing tree.” After the Torah had discussed halachic aspects of planting seeds in the field, we now hear about halachic aspects of planting orchards. Placing seed inside a woman or placing seed inside the earth are activities that have quite a bit in common with one another.

It should be permitted after three years. And the verse would mean as follows: Three years the fruit shall be closed off and from then onwards it will be permitted. (Nachalas Yaakov) It seems to me that if we counted the three years from the time it produces fruit, we would obviously know that whatever grew during the three years is forbidden forever. But now that we count from its planting even if it produced nothing, and that which grows after three years is permitted immediately, this implies that the matter does not depend on fruit but on years. So one may have thought that even that which grew within the three years is permitted after three years since the matter is dependent on years. Therefore, the verse says, “it shall be.”

וערלתם, the expression ערלה basically describes an infant, which during the first three years of its life is totally illiterate. After that it begins to learn to speak intelligently; in other words, it produces some “fruit,” during that year, and during the next year it learns how to read and write, i.e. to understand parts of the Torah. Subsequently such youngsters begin to make contributions to civilised society. (Compare Talmud, tractate Baba Batra folio 21, where a youngster is described as having to study Torah from the age of six as he is mature enough). Compare also Ethics of our Fathers chapter 5 Mishnah 21 where a youngster of five years is described as ready to study the written text of the Torah.

וכי תבואו אל הארץ, “when you will come into the land;” after the Torah had discussed “seed” in connection with both the woman and the earth, it now discusses seed of a tree that has been planted.

שלש שנים יהיה לכם ערלים THREE YEARS IT SHALL BE AS UNCIRCUMCISED UNTO YOU — From when does one count its three years? From the time of its (the tree's) being planted (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 3 3). One might think that if one has laid it (the fruit) by during these three years it shall become permitted for use after the three years, Scripture therefore states, יהיה which implies it shall remain in its former state of being (forbidden as it was during the entire three years).

וערלתם ערלתו, “you shall treat its fruit as if uncircumcised. (forbidden)” Rashi views the choice of the term ערלה here as parallel to the meaning of the word when applied to the uncircumcised male, i.e closed off, אטום, not yet opened up. It is out of bounds, not yet to be enjoyed. Nachmanides also writes that there is something quite different in the prohibition of the fruit of newly planted trees during the first three years compared to other products the Torah has forbidden. The fact that it becomes permissible without our having to do anything to the fruit itself, once sufficient time has elapsed, lends support to the concept that ערלה is nothing else but a “closed door” which in due course will open. We find that the development of the fruit is referred to as פתיחה, compare Song of Songs 7,13 פתח הסמדר, “the blossoms opened up.” The Torah portrays the fruit of the first three years as if they had not yet “opened up.” The underlying reason for this commandment is parallel to the commandments governing agricultural products, such as the setting aside challah, the first part of dough when making bread, leaving a small section of one’s harvest uncut for the poor, donating terumah to the priest, G’d’s representative on earth, etc. In each of these instances the idea is that before we ourselves partake of G’d’s bounty, we indicate by performance of the respective commandments that we are aware of the origin of our wealth and that we are grateful to the Creator for this. If, in the case of orlah, these early fruit are not presented as a gift, the reason may be that such a gift of relatively underdeveloped fruit might be viewed as inappropriate, seeing that it is inferior. This is the reason why the fruit of the fourth year is treated as suitable for consumption in the holy city of Jerusalem, and only in the year following this is the tree’s bounty freely available to the owner of the orchard. (Verses 24-25) (The fruit of the fourth year is treated like the second tithe, מעשר שני, in that it is sacred to the extent that it either may be consumed only in Jerusalem, or redeemed so that the money of the proceeds is spent in Jerusalem. (Sifra) Nachmanides adds that it is true, (as scientists claim) that there is also a health hazard when the fruit of the first three years are consumed [raw, I presume, Ed.] as there is excessive acidity. Moreover, in the majority of cases the tree does not even produce fruit during the first tree years after having been planted, depending on climate and the quality of the soil, etc. Maimonides advances these considerations as the reason for the prohibition in his Moreh Nevuchim¸ section 3, chapter 37. He mentions that in earlier times the magicians, etc., in order to establish their reputation as quasi-deities, used to add some kind of poison to newly planted trees, which they knew would lose its power after a certain length of time. They would make you believe that it was they who had made these poisons harmless, the ordinary person not having any knowledge of the nature of such poisons, and thinking that whereas without the blessing of the magician they might have died, the magician possessed power over life and death, whereas in fact he only exploited the ignorance of natural science of the common man. [I gave just one example of how the ignorance and gullibility of the man in the street enabled the magicians to prosper from their superior knowledge. Ed.] When the appropriate time had arrived, these magicians would sacrifice some of this fruit to their particular deity, claiming that this sacrifice made the fruit safe for the multitude.

The verse says: “it shall be.” Meaning, in the forbidden state it had during the three years, so it shall be forever.

The introduction of the verse with the letter ו at the beginning of this paragraph indicates that one's migration to the land of Israel should not be motivated purely by self-gratification but it should be accompanied by a love for the land G'd has given us as an inheritance, the land G'd has chosen for His name to dwell in. Mount Zion bears His name. The Torah commands us to plant these trees so that we should not think all we have to do in the Holy Land is to simply it make it our home without civilising the country. You have appreciated that the words אל הארץ, to the land, etc., imply that the Torah speaks about spiritual values connected with this land.

ונטעתם, “when you will plant;” this expression teaches that the laws about orlah do not apply to branches only grafted onto a tree, nor do they apply to trees that grew as a result of someone having discarded a kernel or seed that had been dropped onto the earth unintentionally and had taken root. When this tree had grown in a region that is inhabited by people, it is considered as if it been planed intentionally, and is subject to the rules following. (Jerusalem Talmud, tractate Orlah 1,1)

Perhaps we may look at the verse homiletically and view in the expression עץ מאכל, "a fruit-bearing tree" an allusion to Torah students who are also referred to as נטעים, "saplings" on occasion. The Talmud Shabbat 118 quotes Rabbi Yossi as sayings: "I have had marital relations on five occasions and I have planted five saplings." [in my text of the Talmud the word is not saplings but ארזים mighty cedars. Ed.] He referred, of course, to the five Torah scholars whom he fathered as a result of these unions and who are all enumerated by name in the Talmud. We have a verse in Isaiah 65,22 which describes the lives of "My people are like the life of a tree." The Zohar writes something similar on the commandment in Deut. 20,19 where the Torah prohibits destroying fruit-bearing trees in order to conquer a town one has laid siege to sooner. The words not to "destroy its trees" are understood as referring to Torah students. The air in the Holy Land helps in the acquisition of wisdom and purifies one's soul as we know from Baba Batra 158. The reason Torah students are compared to fruit-bearing trees is that they provide spiritual food for their listeners. You may wish to read about a story about Rabbi Akiva in Massechet Kallah Rabbati chapter 2 which described the venerable Rabbi teaching an orphaned child how to read. The father of this child had encountered great difficulties in the hereafter until the day his son was able to read and recite prayers. This paved the way for his father's progress in the hereafter.

כל עץ מאכל, “every fruitbearing tree.” This excludes trees that bear no fruit, and trees planted as potential firewood or building material. (Sifra) The various shrubs that grow wild and provide us with their berries are also excluded from this legislation.

שלש שנים יהיה לכם ערלים, "for three years shall it be unto you as 'uncircumcised;'" the meaning of ערלים is אטומים, shut, impenetrable; during the first three years a Torah student studies he does not dare open his mouth to give forth of his newly acquired wisdom just as most babies do not speak intelligently during the first three years of their lives. (Tanchuma Kedoshim 14). One normally starts teaching the child Torah in his fourth year so that he can recite the most simple prayers. Prayers such as Keriat Shema, Modeh Ani are called here קדש הלולים. In the fifth year the fruit of the tree is permitted to be eaten, compare the Mishnah in Avot 5,24 that a five year old child is old enough to start learning the written Torah. He begins to qualify for the description "a fruit-bearing tree."

שלש שנים יהיו לכם ערלים, “for a period of three years they will be for you as if “uncircumcised;” (forbidden) anything that matured during these years from these trees after they had been planted may not be stored and eaten even after the three years have expired. It would be bad manners if they would be eaten before the firstling fruit had been offered as an offering to G-d in the Temple first. [It would be equally bad manners to bring such an offering only several years after that fruit had ripened, even if it could have been preserved in prime condition. The laws governing such firstling fruit limit their being offered in the Temple later than by Chanukah following their being harvested. Ed.] Seeing that the fruit grown during that period is not of prime quality, it would be insulting to offer it to G-d. לכם, “for you (plural mode);” this is to include fruit trees grown for the benefit of the community as opposed to fruit grown for the benefit of the individual owner (Sifra).

The Torah immediately follows with the prohibition לא תאכלו על הדם, "do not eat it with blood!" This is a hint that one should not make the consumption of physical food a totally secular experience as if one's life were bound up in the act of eating, much as the life of an animal is bound up in its blood. לא תנחשו, "do not practice divination." If one were to eat blood one identifies with the concept of the נחש, the original serpent, Satan the seducer. Isaiah describes the mystical dimension of this when he wrote (Isaiah 65,25) "and the bread of the serpent is dust." According to this it is the serpent's nature to try and consume man who is made of dust, or to reduce man to a totally materially oriented creature. לא תעוננו, "do not practice soothsaying." We find a reference to this in Job 7,9 כלה ענן וילך, "just as the cloud once it has disappeared is gone forever, so man, once he has died is gone forever." This verse describes people who spent their lives chasing only the physical, the tangible, ignoring life's spiritual aspects. The Torah exhorts us not to exhaust our existence in our physical needs and pleasures.

יהיה כל פריו קדש [BUT IN THE FOURTH YEAR] THE FRUIT THEREOF SHALL BE HOLY, in the same way as the "second tithe" with reference to which, too, it is stated (Leviticus 27:30) "And all the tithe of the land… [belongeth to the Lord]; it is holy (קדש) unto the Lord". Now what is the law regarding the “second tithe"? It must not be eaten outside the walls of Jerusalem except after redemption! The same is the case with this (the fruit in the fourth year). And this very thing הלולים לה׳, is A PRAISE OF THE LORD, for he takes it there (to Jerusalem) to praise and to laud God in Heaven, as he does with the second tithe (cf. Berakhot 35a).

קדש הלולים. Possessing a degree of sanctity similar to that of the second tithe which may only be consumed in Jerusalem. The objective of the legislation is to praise the Creator thanks to whose generosity the farmer enjoys the abundance of these fruit of the soil tilled by him. We are to learn to revere G’d by means of such commandments (Deut. 14,23).

That he carries it there. I think this is connected with his explanation above. You might have asked, why does Rashi explain that we learn a gezeirah shavah “sacred,” “sacred” from [second] tithe to teach that it is permitted when redeemed? Perhaps we should learn a gezeirah shavah “sacred,” “sacred” from the Sabbatical Year teaching that it cannot be redeemed as it says later (25:12), “For it is a jubilee, it shall be sacred to you.” Rashi answers that if we would learn “sacred,” “sacred” from the Sabbatical Year, we would be unable to resolve what is written afterwards, “Holy [upon which to say] praise[s to] Adonoy,” since it would be forbidden to redeem it and eat it. If [the gezeirah shavah] applied to [second] tithes it would be all right for the verse to write “Holy [upon which to say] praise[s to] Adonoy,” and that “this matter is ’praise to Adonoy.’” However, the Gemara (Berachos 35a) explains this differently.

Holy, praises to Adonoy. Although the laws of the fourth year’s fruits are like maaser sheni (the second tithes that are taken to be eaten in Jerusalem), as is known, nevertheless, the Torah explains that the purpose of this mitzvah is not like maaser sheni. Concerning maaser sheni it says, “in order that you will learn to fear Hashem, etc.” The Sages explained (Sifrei, Parshas Re’eh) that maaser sheni was only given for the sake of Torah study and the fear of Hashem. This is not so regarding the mitzvah of the fruits of the fourth year. Its purpose is so that they will say praises to Hashem, which means that they should bless Hashem before His Presence in Jerusalem, the source of blessing. This will be a benefit for them to increase their future produce, and we learn from this that blessings add Divine influence to the field’s crops. The Sages learned from this verse that one should never have any pleasure from the world without making a blessing beforehand, and this is so there will be Divine influence in the crops.

להוסיף לכם תבואתה [AND IN THE FIFTH YEAR SHALL YE EAT THE FRUIT THEREOF] THAT IT MAY YIELD UNTO YOU ITS INCREASE — This command (of ערלה and נטע רבעי, fruit of the fourth year) which you observe will result in its giving you its produce in larger quantities. Because as a reward for it (for the fulfilment of My command) I shall bless for you the fruit of the plantation. R. Akiba used to say: “The Torah says this because it has man’s evil inclination in mind: that one should not say, "Behold, for four years I must take trouble with it for nothing!" Scripture therefore states that the result of your obedience will be that it will give you its produce in larger quantities (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 3 9).

להוסיף לכם תבואתו, this is what you will merit if you do what I have commanded you.

'אני ה‎‎‎ means, it is I, the Lord, Who gives you a promise about this (that your obedience to Me will bring a blessing on your harvest) and Who am faithful to keep My promise.

לא תאכלו על הדם YE SHALL NOT EAT ANYTHING על הדם — This text is interpreted in many different ways in Treatise Sanhedrin 63a: It is taken as a prohibition of eating the flesh of the sacrifices before their blood has been sprinkled; and as a prohibition addressed to him who eats of the flesh of a non-consecrated animal (חולין) before life has entirely left it; and many other interpretations are there given.

YE SHALL NOT EAT WITH THE BLOOD. “This passage has been explained in many different ways in Tractate Sanhedrin.”¹⁶⁹Sanhedrin 63 a. See “The Commandments,” Vol. II pp. 401-2, where all these various interpretations are listed. This is the language of Rashi. Now the conclusion of that discussion in the Talmud is that all those interpretations [of the verse before us] are Torah-ordained, since Scripture included all manner of “eating with the blood” in one negative commandment. And if so, that which Scripture states in the case of Saul, Behold, the people sin against the Eternal, in that they eat with the blood,¹⁷⁰I Samuel 14:33. means that they transgressed one of the prohibitions included in this negative commandment, since they were eating of an animal [slaughtered properly] before its life had entirely left it. It is with reference to this that Scripture states there, And the people flew upon the spoil,¹⁷¹Ibid., Verse 32. like a bird of prey that tears its victim and eats it, and they took sheep, and oxen, and calves, and slew them on the ground; and the people did eat them with the blood.¹⁷¹Ibid., Verse 32. Because of the abundance of spoil of cattle [that they had taken from the Philistines], as soon as [they were slaughtered properly and] their blood was spilled on the ground, they tore off their limbs and ate them before life had entirely left the animals.
In line with the plain meaning of Scripture, this seems to have been a kind of witchcraft or divination, since [the meaning of this passage] may be deduced from its context; [i.e., from the second half of this verse which states, neither shall ye practice divination nor soothsaying, we may deduce that the first half of the verse, Ye shall not eat with the blood also refers to some form of witchcraft, as will be explained]. Thus they used to spill the blood [of the cattle] and gather it in a hollow, which was then attended, according to their opinion, by the satyrs, and they¹⁷²I.e., the satyrs. Having assembled around the blood, the satyrs would then be present at the meal, at which time they would inform the people of future events. All this was part of this particular kind of witchcraft. would eat at their tables to tell them future events. Now when the Israelites were at that time camping with Saul, they were very much afraid of the Philistines, and Saul did nothing except for inquiring of the Urim and Thummim,¹⁷³Exodus 28:30. See Ramban there (Vol. II, pp. 480-484). as it is said, Let us draw near hither unto G-d,¹⁷⁴I Samuel 14:36. while the people were inquiring of the satyrs or of witchcraft to know their way and what to do, and they were eating with the blood in order to perform that craft [mentioned above]. It is for this reason that Scripture there states, Then they told Saul, saying: ‘Behold, the people sin against the Eternal, in that they eat with the blood.’ And he said: ‘Ye have dealt treacherously,’¹⁷⁵Ibid., Verse 33. meaning to say: “Behold, G-d has wrought for you this day this great salvation, and you inquire of no-gods! It is treachery!” I will yet explain the prohibition against soothsaying and enchanting.¹⁷⁶Deuteronomy 18:9.

לא תאכלו על הדם לא תנחשו ולא תעננו, all of these practices were commonplace also among the Israelites who were desperate to gain advance knowledge of what was in store for them individually. Such practices had to be eradicated if the people were to progress from an overall environment of spiritual morass, רוח טומאה, to spiritual bliss, רוח טהרה ונבואה, spiritual purity and prophetic spirit.

לא תאכלו על הדם, "You shall not eat with the blood;" Bereshit Rabbah 21,7 say that the reason that this commandment appears next to the prohibition of ערלה is an allusion to Adam who had eaten from the tree of knowledge before its period of being ערלה had expired. [the other trees had been expressly permitted by G'd so that that prohibiton was overridden. Ed] According to the Midrash, all Adam had to do was to wait until the advent of the Sabbath. He would have been permitted to recite the benediction over wine; [according to the view that the fruit of the tree of knowledge were grapes. Ed.] This is the mystical dimension of the statement in Sanhedrin 38 that אדם מושך בערלתו היה, that "Adam was pulling at his ערלה." The word refers to the as yet not permitted fruit; Adam was too impatient. This is why the Torah writes next to the commandment וערלתם ערלתו, "do not eat with the blood," i.e. "do not eat of the fruit of the tree which is still ערלה because of the blood," i.e. all bloodshed in the world originated when Adam ate from that tree prematurely. We may extrapolate from this that had it not been for Adam's failure at the time there never would have been such a prohibition as the one described in our paragraph. Neither plants nor animals would have become restricted to man at all, either temporarily or permanently.

לא תאכלו על הדם, according to the plain meaning of the text this is something we can derive by merely reading the context in which it has been written, i.e. while the blood of the slaughtered animal has not yet been removed.

לא תאכלו על הדם, “do not eat over the blood.” According to Rashi there are numerous interpretations offered for this verse, one of them being reflected in Samuel I 14,33 הנה העם חוטאים לאכול על הדם, “here the people commit a sin by eating over the blood, etc.” [The people ate from the loot of the battle while the slain had not yet been buried, etc.] Nachmanides writes that according to the plain meaning of the text the Torah warns against adopting the practice of the sorcerers who used to gather around blood they had spilled and preserved in a bowl, and foretell the future, relying on the demons that would gather around to foretell them the path of future events. When the Jewish soldiers were with their King Sha-ul in camp and they were very much afraid of the Philistines their enemies, Sha-ul would not do anything without consulting the urim vetumim, as we know from above chapter in Samuel, verse 36. To his consternation, on this occasion the priest did not receive a reply to his enquiry, something which prompted Sha-ul to enquire which sin the people could have been guilty of that would deny them access to the word of G’d. As a result, it was found out that his own son Yonathan had violated his father’s command not to taste any food on the day of the battle, and he had, while being unaware of the prohibition, tasted some honey. The people, not wanting to accuse Yonathan, had phrased it as if all of them had been guilty of a trespass, i.e. eating prematurely on the day of the battle. [Prior to the battle, the people had not asked via the urim vetumim, but engaged in sorcery regarding the continuation of the war, something which Sha-ul considered a grievous act of treachery against G’d. Also, they had started to enjoy the spoils of war without giving thanks to the Lord by means of the blood of the appropriate animals being presented on an altar. Ed.] The reason why the Torah wrote the legislation of ערלה, the restrictions applying to the fruit of the tree during its first three years, immediately after the above legislation is to show that here too before enjoying the fruits of defeating an enemy, first we must express our gratitude to Hashem Who has made us victorious. Seeing that in periods when private altars were forbidden this might represent quite a hardship, the rule was enforced only when there was a legitimate altar in the vicinity.

לא תאכלו על הדם, “You shall not eat over the blood;” here too the Torah warns about Jews not indulging in pagan practices which were current at the time the Torah was given. People used to dig a hole and pour blood into it and the demons would congregate around such holes. While in the company of these demons they would consume their meal. Seeing that they fraternized with the demons the demons would reciprocate by revealing future events to the people eating there with them. This was a wide-spread practice amongst the Egyptians and the Israelites had learned from them until they too began to believe in the power of these demons and they would seek out their company. In order to wean the Israelites of such idolatrous practices the Torah forbade eating a meal in the presence of blood (which had not been covered up, buried or poured out).
Our sages (Berachot 10) understand this verse as a warning not to eat breakfast before one has recited the morning prayer. They phrased it thus; “do not eat before you have prayed concerning your blood (guilt).” [i.e. have asked forgiveness for your sins. Ed.]
They also used this verse to arrive at the ruling that capital offenses must not be judged except during the morning hours of the day (Sanhedrin 63). The judges were not allowed to try such cases after they had already filled their stomachs so as not to approach the accused’s fate in a smug manner. Seeing that they could not be expected to fast a whole day and not be affected by their hunger pains or a desire to prematurely conclude their deliberations in order to have a meal, the sages ruled that such trials must take place in the mornings. When the Torah decreed that we fast on the Day of Atonement this may also reflect that our lives are at stake on that day. If we had eaten already when commencing to pray we might not relate to the day with the appropriate gravity of mind that it deserves. We are more likely to repent sincerely and throw ourselves on G’d’s mercy when we have deprived ourselves of customary creature comforts such as food. If one is commanded to be careful to be in a fit state of mind when judging others, how much more so must one be in the right frame of mind when one’s own life hangs in the balance, such as on the Day of Atonement! This is what Solomon meant when he wrote (Proverbs 6,32) “he who causes his own life’s destruction will do it” (commit the aforementioned crime of adultery; i.e. sinning is like self-destruction). There was perhaps no need to stress this point when it concerns life and death decisions; but even when matters of monetary values are at stake they should be dealt with during the morning seeing we have a verse in Jeremiah 21,12: “render just verdicts morning by morning; rescue him who is robbed from him who defrauded him.” We have a saying: “he who ate and drank should not pronounce judgments or rulings on religious matters.” [Rabbi Chavell cites a Zohar Mishpatim 122 that “anyone who passed judgment after he ate and drank did not pass a true verdict.” Ed.]

A mole. [To interpret] their cries or meeting them for good or for bad. Eliezer, Avraham’s slave, and Yehonasan did not rely on this thing [omens]. Eliezer relied on Avraham’s merit as I explained above (Bereishis 24:14), and Yehonasan the son of Shaul said this in order to encourage his young man and he would have gone up in any case (Chulin 95b).

לא תאכלו על הדם, “you must not eat the flesh of an animal until it is absolutely dead, or, according to some opinions, in the case of sacrificial meat, before it had been salted to remove any traces of life sustaining blood. A third opinion claims that this is a general prohibition not to eat meat stemming from an animal that has not been ritually slaughtered. This would be supported by Samuel I 14,32: ויעש העם את שלל ויקחו צאן ובקר וישחטו ארצה יאכל העם על הדם, “the people (who had been described in the previous verse as being famished) pounced on the spoils; they took the sheep and the cows and calves and slaughtered them on the ground and they ate with the blood.” [When King Saul heard about this he was terribly upset and chided them for having sinned against G-d. Ed.] An alternate interpretation: the words לא תאכלו על הדם are a variation of the commandment not to practice necromancy. Seeing that the survivors of slain people are charged with avenging their dead, they may feel inclined to sit on the graves of the dead to assuage their dead relatives’ anger at not having been avenged. The dead are apparently credited with some power in this respect. (According to Rash’bam, the Emorites believed this, especially about witches who had been murdered. Seeing that the uncircumcised gentiles do eat blood, the Torah would have addressed this subject at this point also.)

לא תנחשו YE SHALL NOT DIVINE — as do those who draw prognostications from the cry of a weasel or the twittering of birds (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 6 2; Sanhedrin 66a), or from the fact that the bread falls from his mouth or that a stag crosses his path (Sanhedrin 65b).

לא תנחשו ולא תעוננו, unless warned against these practices the Jews would also engage in such practices as eating on the grave of the slain for the sake of protecting themselves against the vengeance by the spirit of the murdered person (particularly murdered witches). The Talmud Sanhedrin 63 lists a number of possible scenarios described by our verse.

לא תנחשו, “do not indulge in sorcery.” The word נחש is similar in meaning to that of נסיון, experimenting and using the outcome of the experiment as one’s guideline for how to act. [It is debatable if Eliezer’s request at the well stipulating certain behaviour patterns of the maidens that came out to draw water at the well falls into the category of forbidden ניחוש, at any rate at that time Torah had not yet been given. Ed.] Lavan admitted to Yaakov that he was in the habit of using such sorcery, i.e. Genesis 30, 27 נחשתי ויברכני ה' בגללך, “I have discovered by such experimentation, that G’d’s blessing for me is on your account.”

He says, “This day is good.” I.e., the person said this not through astrology but because this is the way of the Emorites, i.e., this is people’s common practice even though they know no logical reason for it. But if one saw through astrology that a particular day was not good for a certain matter or for his work, he may refrain from doing it; and we do not rely on miracles. I think that it forbidden to go against the constellations [relying] on a miracle, etc. All this is from the responsa of the Ramban, responsa 283. The Yoreh Dei’ah cites some of this in chapter 179. (R. Yaakov Taryosh)

ולא תעוננו The verb is connected in meaning with “period" (עונה) and “hours"; thus a מעונן is one who says: “This or that day is auspicious for beginning a work, this or that hour is inauspicious for starting on a journey (Sanhedrin 66a).

ולא תעוננו, “and you are not to believe that some periods are lucky compared to others.” Ibn Ezra writes that some people claim that the word עונן is derived from ענה, “answering,” i.e. a person poses a certain question expecting to guide his behaviour according to the answer he receives. This is not a tenable interpretation according to the rules of grammar. He believes, instead, that the correct interpretation is based on the word being derived from ענן, “cloud,” that the Torah forbids us to read meaning into the cloud patterns we observe in the sky, and to use such patterns as guidelines for our behaviour.

לא תקיפו פאת ראשכם YE SHALL NOT ROUND THE CORNERS OF YOUR HEAD — This refers to one who makes his temples exactly like (as hairless as) the back of his ears and his forehead (cf. Rashi on Makkot 20b, ד״ה המשוה צדעיו) by removing the hair on his temples, so that the lower edge of the hair that surrounds his head (i. e. his skull, because we are not concerned with ‎hair at the back of the neck) forms a complete circle, since above the back of his ears the roots of his hair are situated much higher than his temples (and it is thus only the temples which prevent an uninterrupted circular line going round his skull). (Cf. Makkot 20b).

לא תקיפו פאת ראשכם, "Do not round off the corners of your head, etc." In this instance the Torah addresses the Israelites in the plural, whereas when speaking of the beard (in the same verse) it addresses the individual, i.e. in the singular. This teaches that the first admonition in the verse applies even to people who cannot apply the second half of the verse to themselves seeing they do not have a beard. We could easily have made such a mistake as women who do not have beards also are not subject to the prohibition of rounding the corners of their heads compare (Kidushin 38). Should you ask why we have arrived at such an apparently arbitrary distinction, i.e. that the males are included in both prohibitions whereas the women are exempt from both, the answer is that the males become subject to the second prohibiton as soon as they are old enough whereas the women as a rule never become subject to the second prohibition. Nature did not endow them with hair in that area of their faces.

Seeing that it is part of revering the Lord and honouring Him not to desecrate our own bodies which He sanctified to enable us to serve Him, the Torah begins with a list of prohibitions designed to emphasise this point. לא תקיפו, we must not desecrate our heads by removing its hair as is the custom of gentile clergy or fools and drunkards. Neither are we to shave off the beard which represents man’s dignity, הדרת פנים שלו, “Shabbat 152. Neither are we to make incisions on our skin, something that is customary amongst pagans as an expression of their grief for family members who have died. Excessive mourning of this kind could be interpreted as questioning G’d Who allowed the departed to die. The same applies to a well known method of tattooing one’s skin with indelible ink below the skin, a permanent defacing of one’s body, described as כתובת קעקע. The only “improvements” to our G’d given body we are to make is the sign of the covenant, i.e. the removal of the foreskin of our males. Allowing or encouraging one’s unmarried daughter to devote her life to one of harlotry is a major desecration of one’s purpose on earth. Not only does the daughter desecrate the name of G’d by doing so, but she also desecrates the image of her father and all that he stands for. The death penalty by burning is decreed for such conduct under certain conditions in Leviticus 21,9.

לא תקיפו פאת ראשכם, “do not round off the edge of your scalp.” Ibn Ezra understands this as a warning not to trim one’s hair in the manner that the priests of idolatrous cults are in the habit of doing. 1) We should not look like such people but preserve our identities also in the manner in which we appear externally. Furthermore, seeing that hair, especially hair of the head, is considered a mark of beauty, what possible reason would we have to deprive ourselves of this mark of תפארת, ”glory?”

לא תקיפו פאת ראשכם, “do not round off the edge of your scalp, etc.” This is a warning not to shave the temple with a razor whether in conjunction with the hair on the rest of the head or by themselves. If one shaves both temples one is liable for the penalty separately for each temple.

Who makes [the hair of] his temples similar. It is as if it said, “Do not destroy [the hair of] your temples.” The verse calls them “the corners of your heads” because the ends of the head [where hair stops growing] are the end of the hair roots on the forehead, and the end of the hair roots behind the ears, and the end of the hair roots behind the head, as from there downwards it is the hair of the back of the neck which is part of the neck. Thus, all the hair roots are at the ends of the head in a circle except for the temples, which go down on each side and break the circle. And when one destroys the hairs of the temples with a razor and makes them level to behind his ears and his forehead, his whole head is left surrounded in a circle [of hair]. Therefore, when it says “Do not round the corners of your heads,” it is as if it says “Do not destroy your temples.” Re’m.

פאת זקנך [NEITHER SHALT THOU MAR] THE CORNERS OF THY BEARD — i. e. the tip of the beard and its sides, these making together five corners: two on each cheek, above near the head (the temples) — where it (the cheek) is broad and has therefore two corners (thus four on the two sides) and one at the bottom, on the chin, on that spot where is the junction of the two cheeks (Shevuot 3a; cf. also Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 6 3; Makkot 20a and Rashi on Shevuot 3a: ועל הזקן ‎‎‏ (ד"ה

Near the head. I.e., the place where the cheek meets the temple. There are two corners, [one at] the end of the [jaw] bone of the cheek [where it meets the temple], and one at the end of the width of the cheek [above], because the cheek is wide on top, and these are called “the apples of the face.” This “end” is in the middle of the face [looking from the side], and it is at the end of the width of the cheek. And there is one [more corner] at the place where the two cheeks join together at the chin where you have the shiboles [point] of the beard (Re’m). There are other explanations; see Tur Yoreh Dei’ah chapter 181.

‎ ‎‎‎‎ושרט לנפש‏‎ ‎[YE SHALL NOT MAKE] ANY CUTTINGS [IN YOUR FLESH] FOR THE DEAD — This was the practice of the Amorites (a general term for heathens) to make cuttings in their flesh when someone belonging to them died.

ושרם לנפש לא תתנו בבשרכם, "And you shall not make an incision on your flesh in mourning of someone who died." The reason the Torah emphasises the word נפש is to make plain that though the incision is an injury to one's body, the reason for it is the departure of someone's נפש, someone's soul. The Torah is careful to describe this as לא תתנו בבשרכם, "do not give it on your flesh," to explain that the incision will not leave an injury on one's soul but only on one's flesh. The reason that the incision does not leave permanent damage on one's soul is that the body is considered the sheath of the soul, and man is very excited and hasty when he loses a dear relative to death (Shabbat 43). The Torah therefore continues with a different kind of bodily defacement which leaves a deeper and more permanent mark, i.e. וכתובת קעקע לא תתנו בכם, "and do not tatoo yourselves;" you will note that in this instance the Torah did not use the restrictive word בבשרכם, to show you that tatoos are considered as injuring not only the body but also the soul. The reason tatooing leaves an injury also on one's soul is that it is something which requires great care, is not performed hastily like the incision called שרט. It is only natural then that it leaves a far deeper impression on one's personality than the hastily performed incision. We are told in Baba Batra 16 that a person is not "seized" i.e. held totally responsible, for things he does at the time when he experiences deep mental anguish.

וכתבת קעקע, “nor a tatoo.” Rashi understands this to mean something engraved on one’s flesh (skin) in an indelible manner. The word would be related to תקוע, “firmly in place.” The procedure is that one “writes” with a needle beneath the skin. The area remains black forever. Our sages in Sifra Kedoshim 6,9 remark that seeing one might have thought that the mere writing on the skin would have been culpable, the Torah adds the word קעקע, to tell us that unless this writing is of such a permanent nature no penalty is incurred. At the same time, had the Torah written only the word קעקע I would have thought that the fact that an indelible mark had been made this would already have been a culpable offense, therefore the Torah had to write the words כתבת קעקע, “an indelible inscription performed with a needle-like instrument.” According to Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, as long as the writing did not include the tetragrammaton one is not liable to the penalty for violating this commandment. He derives this rule from the ending of our verse, אני ה', meaning that unless the name of G’d was part of the inscription there is no penalty. The whole verse could be translated as: “do not inscribe My name on your flesh in an indelible manner.”

Such is the custom of the Amorites. Because if not so, what is its relevance here to “You shall not act on the basis of omens nor act on the basis of auspicious times,” which are practices of the Amorites.

ושרט, “and an incision in your skin or flesh as a sign of mourning,” the word שרט is written in the singular mode although these incisions are usually multiple incisions, in order to warn us that we would be guilty for a separate sin for each such incision, even if they had all been made at the same time.

וכתבת קעקע [NOR SHALL YE IMPRESS] ANY WRITING BY ETCHING [UPON YOU] — i. e. a writing engraved (more lit., dug into) and sunk into the flesh and which can never be erased because it is pricked in with a needle and remains black forever.

Because he tattoos it with a needle. With this, Rashi is telling us that he is not liable unless he wrote and he is not liable unless he engraved, and so it says in Makkos (21a).

The Torah concludes the verse with the words אני השם. The reason for this is explained by Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai in Zohar volume 3, page 247. The word אני refers to G'd's throne which we are in the habit of referring to as His שכינה, His Presence. The tetragram i.e. the name י־ה־ו־ה on the other hand, is a reference to He who sits on that throne. With the expression אני השם G'd indicates that He is punctilious regarding the honour due to Him as well as the honour due to His throne. The relationship between man's body and his soul is similar to the relationship between G'd's throne and His essence. Seeing man has been created in the image of G'd, He does not want us to injure either our bodies or our souls.

לנפש, “on account of a dead;” if you were to do this on account of some other misfortune suffered, such as a house collapsing in an earthquake, or the loss of your cargo by the boat carrying it having sunk, this would not be punishable. (Sifra)

קעקע (root יקע) is an expression connected in sense with והוקע in (Numbers 25:4) “and hang them (והוקע אותם)" and with (II Samuel 21:6) "and we will hang them (הוקענום)". They drove poles into the ground and hanged them upon these — consequently they themselves, as the poles, were, so to speak, dug in and inserted in the ground; pourpoint in O. F.

And stuck into the ground. I.e., the person hung on it looks as if he is stuck into the ground, and הוקע is an expression of “sticking.”

אל תחלל את בתך להזנותה DO NOT PROSTITUTE THY DAUGHTER TO CAUSE HER TO BE A HARLOT — Scripture speaks of one who gives his unmarried daughter away for illegitimate concubinage (cf. Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 7 2; Sanhedrin 76a).

PROFANE NOT THY DAUGHTER, TO MAKE HER A HARLOT. “This refers to one who gives his unmarried daughter [to a man] without the intention of betrothal. LEST THE LAND FALL INTO HARLOTRY. If you do so, the soil too will be unfaithful to you and it will produce its fruits in another place and not in your Land. And so does Scripture state, Therefore the showers have been withheld, and there hath been no latter rain, and thou hadst a harlot’s forehead etc.”¹⁷⁷Jeremiah 3:3. This is Rashi’s language. But I have not understood his opinion, for the term “harlotry” in the Torah nowhere applies to an unmarried woman, since it is the accepted decision of the law¹⁷⁸Yebamoth 61 b. that if an unmarried man has sexual relations with an unmarried woman, without the intention of thereby making her his wife, he has [nonetheless] not rendered her thereby “a harlot.” And in Tractate Sanhedrin the Sages have clearly stated this principle:¹⁷⁹Sanhedrin 50 b. “And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by becoming a harlot etc.¹⁸⁰Further, 21:9. I might think that this applies even if she be unmarried.” Thereupon the Rabbis asked:¹⁸¹Sanhedrin 51 a. “[But how could one think this to be the case?] Is it not written by becoming a harlot [and the term ‘harlot’ applies only to a married woman who commits adultery]?” To this question the Rabbis answered, that [the above supposition was] “in accordance with the [unaccepted] opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who said that if an unmarried man has sexual relations with an unmarried woman, without the intention of thereby making her his wife, he does render her ‘a harlot.’” [From this text it is obvious that the accepted opinion of the Sages is that if she was unmarried, he does not render her “a harlot.”] Similarly the Rabbis have said that the verse They [i.e., the priests] shall not take a woman that is a harlot, or profaned,¹⁸²Further, 21:7. does not apply to an unmarried woman, but only to a proselytess and a freed bondwoman, or to one who had intercourse with a man in the nature of fornication, such as with a man whose betrothal to her would not be valid, as is explained in Yebamoth¹⁷⁸Yebamoth 61 b. and in the Sifra:¹⁸³Sifra, Emor 1:7. “A woman that is a harlot.¹⁸²Further, 21:7. Rabbi Yehudah says that this refers to a sterile woman. But the Sages say: The word ‘harlot’ refers only to a proselytess, a freed bondwoman, or to one who had intercourse with a man in the nature of fornication. Rabbi Eliezer says: Even if an unmarried man has sexual relations with an unmarried woman, without the intention of thereby making her his wife, this too [is a case of the ‘harlot’].” Similarly the Rabbis have said¹⁸⁴Terumah 29 b. with reference to the prohibition, Thou shalt not bring the hire of a harlot … into the House of the Eternal,¹⁸⁵Deuteronomy 23:19. that this has no application whatever to an unmarried woman. But the Beraitha taught in the Torath Kohanim¹⁸⁶Sifra, Kedoshim 7:1. [which is the source for Rashi’s interpretation] and which is also mentioned in Tractate Sanhedrin¹⁸⁷Sanhedrin 76 a. [namely, that the verse before us refers to one who gives his unmarried daughter for immorality], may either be in accordance with the teaching of Rabbi Eliezer [mentioned above] and is not the final decision of the law, or it may be a case of one who gives his [unmarried] daughter for immorality with a person with whom she can contract no marital status, such as with a Cuthean or a slave, or any of those persons [with whom sexual relations are forbidden] by punishment of excision or death by the hands of the court, which is “harlotry” in the opinion of the Sages. It is this which they intended in saying, “[this verse refers to] one who gives his unmarried daughter to a man without the intention of marriage,” that is to say, to a man with whom it is impossible that there be a marital status.
Similarly, that which the Rabbi taught there in the Sifra¹⁸⁸Sifra, Kedoshim 7:3. This was mentioned here by Rashi. with reference to the expression lest the Land fall into harlotry, that the fruits of the Land will turn faithless [and grow in other places and not in your Land], is a homiletic exposition derived from the word ha’aretz (the Land), since it is not written “lest the people of the Land fall into harlotry.” But the main intention of this expression is [to establish] a second negative commandment, which the author of the “Hilchoth Gedoloth”¹⁸⁹See Vol. II, p. 350, Note 70. has already counted in his enumeration of the [three hundred and sixty-five] negative commandments, it being an admonition directed to the man who commits the immoral act and to the daughter herself, that she should not give herself over to immoral relationships. And it is on the basis of this [interpretation of the verse] that the Rabbis have said there in that Beraitha [in Torath Kohanim]: “And similarly she who gives herself over to immoral relationships [transgresses a negative commandment].” And the meaning of the verse is [as follows]: Since a daughter is in the control of her father, and he is permitted “in her youth” [i.e., when she is not yet twelve and a half years old] to betroth her to a man, and to cause her to enter the bridal-canopy, and one who violates or seduces her must pay the fine to the father [thus accordingly we might think that the father is at liberty to allow a man to have an immoral relationship with his unmarried daughter], therefore Scripture explained that he is not permitted to give her to anyone for immoral purposes, admonishing [first] the father [against doing it] by means of a negative commandment. After having admonished the father, He warned also those engaged in the harlotry, the man and the woman.
Now Rashi wrote in the section of Emor El Hakohanim:¹⁹⁰Further, 21:7. “A harlot. This is a woman who has had sexual intercourse with a man who is forbidden to her [as a husband], such as those [whom she may not marry] under the penalty of excision, or a Nathin [a descendant of the Gibeonites¹⁹¹The word ‘Nathin’ [literally: givers] derived from the verse in Joshua 9:27 stating that Joshua “gave” the Gibeonites as hewers of wood etc.] or a mamzer” [i.e., a person born from a union which is itself prohibited under the penalty of excision]. Now this comment constitutes an admission on the part of Rashi that the term “harlotry” does not apply where marriage between them would be possible, except that he does include under this term [of “harlotry”] also those that are forbidden by means of a negative commandment [the punishment for which being whipping, such as marriage to a mamzer]. This is also Rashi’s opinion in his commentaries on the Gemara¹⁹²Yebamoth 61 a. [i.e., that “harlotry” applies to all cases where he is forbidden to her — even if only under the penalty of whipping]. But this too is not correct, for it is only [by means of intercourse with] those whom she may not marry under the penalty of excision, or a Cuthean or a bondman with whom she can contract no marital status, that she is rendered a “harlot” so that a priest who takes her as his wife is liable to whipping because of [marrying] a harlot; but [as a result of intercourse] with those whom she is prohibited [to marry] by means of a [mere] negative commandment — such as a mamzer, or an Ammonite or Moabite proselyte — she is not rendered a “harlot,” and a priest who takes her as his wife is not liable to whipping. However, [as a result of that forbidden relationship], she becomes disqualified from eating the heave-offering and from marrying a priest.¹⁹³Thus, because of her forbidden relationship with a mamzer etc., if she be a priest’s daughter who ordinarily is permitted to eat of the heave-offering [and the priest’s share the thigh and the breast he receives from an Israelite’s peace-offering] she is now forbidden to eat. Similarly, if she was a priest’s daughter, or a Levites or an Israelite’s, she is henceforth forbidden to marry a priest. For it is written, And if a priest’s daughter be married unto an ‘ish zar’¹⁹⁴Literally: “a stranger,” a common man, a Levite or lay-Israelite. But here in the text before us it is understood as “a disqualified man,” such as a mamzer. she shall not eat of that which is set apart from the holy things,¹⁹⁵Further, 22:12. [which the Sages interpreted¹⁹⁶Yebamoth 68 a.]: as soon as she has intercourse with a man she may not marry, he disqualifies her [from eating the holy food].¹⁹⁷See “The Commandments,” Vol. II, pp. 128-9. And [if she has intercourse with a man who is] guilty of transgressing a prohibition affecting only the priesthood [for which he is liable to whipping, such as a High Priest who had intercourse with a widow], she becomes a chalalah [a woman of impaired priestly status, and therefore she may not marry even a common priest, who is ordinarily allowed to marry a widow].¹⁹⁸See ibid., p. 150, Note 1.

אל תחלל את בתך, "Do not profane your daughter, etc." G'd commands the father of a daughter not to make her into a sex-object even by merely displaying her beauty and enjoying the compliments paid to her beauty. The honour of a daughter is not in the admiring glances she receives by men ogling her but by her presiding in her domain inside the home. Even though a father displays his daughter in order to facilitate finding a suitable husband for her, G'd still commanded that from the girl's point of you it is a profanation for her; such displays may eventually lead to the daughter engaging in harlotry even at the instigation of her father. Once the father uses his daughter's physical charms to attract a husband and thereby a substantial dowry for himself, he may become tempted to use her earnings from illicit sex for himself instead. He may be exploiting the natural sexual desires which are kindled when the girl knows she is on display and admired. The next step in such permissiveness may be the spread of harlotry in the land until the land becomes so permeated by this sin that it will spew out its inhabitants. Eventually, the whole sin will be debited to the father who first ignored the prohibition in our verse. Read what I have written on Leviticus 18,2 in connection with the verse כמעשה ארץ מצרים. I have explained there that the sense of vision and the fantasies it conjures up is stronger than the will-power seated in one's brain and that this is why one must not feed the sense of vision with anything liable to arouse one's libido or someone else's libido either.

להזנותה, to make her into a harlot. The Torah speaks of an unmarried promiscuous woman [minor who is under her father’s legal control. Ed.]

אל תחלל את בתך להזנותה, “do not desecrate your daughter by making her into a harlot;” Rashi, basing himself on Torat Kohanim, understands our verse as handing over one’s daughter to be used sexually in any setting other than that of wedlock. Nachmanides, severely limits this verse by stating that the term used here means only not to allow one’s daughter to become sexually involved with parties who because of legal restrictions could never offer marriage to such a girl. This, according to most authorities would mean that if the relationship would lead to marriage the penalty would be death, either by a court of law or by heavenly decree, karet. [Tthe disagreement, of course, does not touch on the ethics or morality of the situation, but on the legal implications of our verse. Ed.] The only scholar who considers what Rashi says as legally making such a daughter into a harlot when she sleeps with a male while she is unattached, is Rabbi Eliezer, whose opinion is not accepted by halachah.

אל תחלל את בתך להזנותה, “do not profane your daughter by letting her become a harlot.” This is a warning to a father not to put off marrying off his daughter before she reaches the age of 12 and a half.[Seeing that the Torah does not address itself to fathers who use their daughters’ bodies as a source of income, the sages did not interpret the verse literally. Ed.

ולא תזנה הארץ LEST THE EARTH BECOME DISLOYAL TO YOU — If you do this the soil will become faithless to you in regard to the distribution of its fruits, producing them in other places and not in your land. Scripture uses this simile also in (Jeremiah 3:2—3) "and thou hast polluted thy land with thy whoredom… Therefore the showers have been withholden etc.” (so that the land yielded no fruit) (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 7 4; Tosefta Kiddushin 1).

ולא תזנה הארץ, “so that the land not become a whore.” The restrictive clause “the land,” which is interpreted by Sifra as ‘but you may make a whore out of the produce of the land,” is understood by Nachmanides as arrived at by the Torah not having written ולא יזנו את אנשי הארץ, “so that the people of the land will not become pimps and whores.” There is no question that the principal concern of the verse is the second prohibition not to become guilty of the land becoming full of harlotry, etc. The last few words are to be viewed as an independent prohibition. The author of halachot gedolot, (Rabbi Yehudai ben Rabbi Shemuel gaon, head of the Babylonian Torah academy in Sura) lists these words as one of the 365 negative commandments in the Torah, stating that it is a twofold prohibition, i.e. a warning to the father separately and to the daughter in her own right not to allow herself to be used by her father in such a fashion. She must not have sexual relations with anyone except for the purpose of entering into a relationship of wedlock. The Torah divides the verse into two halves, the first one dealing with a girl who as a minor is under the total control of her father, the second part addressing such a girl after she has grown up and is still not married. It then applies to her and her male partner equally.

ולא תזנה את הארץ, “do not let the land become full of harlots!” The warning implied is that the land itself will copy your perversity if the people on this land will tolerate and practice this also. How does this work in practice? You seeded wheat and the earth produces thorns. An alternate interpretation: the word ארץ is not meant literally but refers to the inhabitants of that earth. We have an example of the word ארץ meaning that in Ezekiel 14,12: ארץ כי תחטא לי ,, “when the land sins against Me,” where it is impossible to understand the word ארץ as “a land,” but it must refer to the people on that land.

זמה, this word may be understood as an acronym, i.e. זו מה היא?, “what is this?” Who is the father of that mother’s child? (Talmud, tractate Nedarim, folio 51).

ומקדשי תיראו AND YE SHALL REVERE MY SANCTUARY — This implies that one should not enter it with his staff in hand or in his shoes, or with his money belt or with the dust on his feet (all signs of irreverence) (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 7 9; Berakhot 54a; Yevamot 6b). But — says God — although I warn you with regard to the reverence due to the Sanctuary, yet — את שבתתי תשמרו YOU SHALL KEEP MY SABBATHS — not even the erection of the Sanctuary can set aside the Sabbath law (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 7 7; Yevamot 6a; cf. Rashi on Exodus 35:2).

YE SHALL KEEP MY SABBATHS. There are many warnings in the Torah regarding [the observance of] the Sabbath, just as in the case of idolatry, because the law of the Sabbath too, is equal to all the commandments, for one who does not observe it, denies the [Divine] Creation and has no Torah at all.¹⁹⁹See Genesis, Vol. I, p. 17, Note 4. Our Rabbis have an interpretation on this verse. Thus they said here in the Torath Kohanim:²⁰⁰Torath Kohanim, Kedoshim 7:7. “I might think that the building of the Sanctuary overrides the Sabbath; Scripture therefore states, Ye shall keep My Sabbaths, and reverence My Sanctuary: I am the Eternal” [meaning: “not even the erection of the Sanctuary can override the keeping of the Sabbath”]. And by way of the Truth, [the mystic teachings of the Cabala], He commands here concerning the Great Sabbath²⁰¹A Cabalistic term referring to one of the emanations (Beiur Ha’lvush in his commentary to Ricanti who interprets the words of Ramban here). and the Sabbath which is His Sanctuary [on high], that it be both guarded and reverenced. For this reason the work on the erection of the Sanctuary [on earth] does not override the Sabbath and the Sanctuary [on high]. The student learned in the mysteries of the Cabala will understand.

את שבתותי תשמורו, After the Torah warned concerning a number of practices that constitute a desecration, it now proceeds to legislate days and places and people who are sacred in varying degrees. This begins with את שבתותי תשמורו, to preserve the sanctity of the Sabbath days, a sanctity bestowed on the Sabbath by G’d Himself, and including all holy convocations, מקראי קדש, whose dates have been confirmed by the Sanhedrin, the Jewish Supreme Court.

את שבתתי תשמרו, "You shall observe My Sabbaths, etc." Why did the Torah repeat here a commandment already written at the beginning of our Parshah (19,3)? Here is how Torat Kohanim explains this: "I might have thought that the commandment to build the Holy Temple supersedes that of not working on the Sabbath. The Torah therefore repeats that you must observe "My Sabbaths" to teach us that the Sabbath legislation takes precedence even over the commandment to build the Holy Temple." The words of Torat Kohanim do explain why the subject of building the Temple and the subject of Sabbath observance appear side by side; they do not, however, address the question why the Torah could not then have dispensed with mentioning this commandment in 19,3? Or, the commandment of building the Holy Temple should have been written in verse 3 instead of here.

את שבתותי תשמורו, “you are to observe My Sabbaths;” the reason why this exhortation, not the first of its kind, has been written here immediately following laws about sexual chastity is reminiscent of the Talmud Kidushin 81 where the social separation of men and women is discussed and Avin is on record as saying that if one allows men and women to mingle socially one furthers unchaste conduct and worse. He considered the time when the Israelites went up to the Temple to celebrate the festivals as the most dangerous of such opportunities. The parallel with the Sabbath is clear. On the Sabbath, social gatherings are encouraged, wine flows freely, and therefore the opportunities to become guilty of unchaste behaviour are multiplied on that day. Hence the Torah issued a special warning to be on guard against violating sexual mores on the Sabbath. Immediately after the warning not to allow the Sabbath to entrap you into forbidden contact, the Torah writes:

The building of the Temple does not supersede [the] Shabbos [laws]. You might ask, how would one think that the building of the Temple supersedes Shabbos? The Temple is a positive commandment and [observing] Shabbos is a positive and negative commandment, and a positive commandment cannot supersede a positive and a negative commandment. The answer is that if not for the verse, I would think that since the sacrificial offerings that are offered in the Temple supersede Shabbos, because the Temple service supersedes Shabbos, then how much more so does the building of the Temple supersede [Shabbos]. Therefore one needs the verse. Even though Shabbos is mentioned [in the verse] before the Temple to indicate that building the Temple does not supersede Shabbos, as Rashi explains in parshas Vayakhel (Shemos 35:2), [and thus you might ask], why does it have to say here “[You shall fear My Sanctuary], I am Adonoy”? The answer is that since the Torah writes “fear” concerning the Temple, you may have thought that it supercedes Shabbos where the commandment is to “observe,” [whereas parshas Vayakhel is discussing the Tabernacle and not the Temple], therefore it says “I am Adonoy.” This also answers the above question [that a positive commandment generally cannot supersede a positive and negative commandment].

You shall keep My Shabbosos. According to the plain meaning these warnings are advice for our livelihood, by keeping Shabbos and Festivals. This is because it says regarding Shabbos, “You may do your work six days but on the seventh day you must cease,” and the Rabbis taught in Mechilta: If you cease on the seventh day you will do your work all the six days without any hindrance, and you will also meet all your needs in them. The Festivals are especially [favorable] for the livelihood in Eretz Yisrael since they are all New Years, and the Festival offering and the rest of the Festival commandments are beneficial for blessing.

את שבתותי תשמורו, “you are to observe My Sabbaths;” this is to be understood in accordance with Rashi’s interpretation, i.e. even though in Exodus 31,13 we have been warned concerning this in connection with the construction of the Tabernacle, i.e. that that commandment does not override the prohibitions in place on the Sabbath, it needs to be repeated as that structure is most holy and permanent, you must not enter its precincts on the Sabbath carrying your canes, etc. This would be a profanation. [Carrying on the Sabbath in such a public domain regardless of its sanctity is still forbidden. Ed.] ומקדשי תיראו, “and you must revere My Sanctuary;” as a result of this, אל תפנו אל האובות ואל הידעונים, “you must not turn (for help) to ghosts or unfamiliar spirits; seeing that you have access to G-d through the Temple, what possible use could you have to address yourself to such unreliable sources of information?” [Even after Moses’ death you have access to G-d through the breastplate on the chest of the High Priest and the jewels on it, to receive answers to your (the High Priest’s) enquiries.] An alternate interpretation of ומקדשי תיראו; you are to consider My commandments as sacred. All the commandments are associated with the concept of holiness, sanctity. If we needed proof of this, all we have to do is look at the next paragraph 20,3: למען טמא את מקדשי, where G-d’s commandments are referred to as His “Sanctuary,” followed by ולחלל את שם קדשי, “and to desecrate My Holy Name.” If the word מקדשי were to be translated literally as “My Sanctuary,” we would have a duplication in that verse. Hence it is clear that it refers to “My holy people,” for what desecration of the Temple could be performed if someone had worshipped the malach by making his children walk through fire.

ומקדשי תיראו, a warning to treat all holy sites with awe and reverence. This includes synagogues and all places dedicated to the service of the Lord, especially, the ones used for such activities by the public.

I believe that the commandment to observe the Sabbath is connected to what was written before rather than to the commandment to build the Holy Temple. Whereas the Torah commanded the father not to desecrate his daughter by instructing her to practice harlotry, the fact remains that some girls engage in that profession without being urged by their fathers to do so. When they do that they do not only desecrate their own name but they bring shame on the name of their fathers as well even though the father was quite innocent in the matter. This is why the Torah commanded the father to keep strict control of the movements of his daughter so that she will not prostitute herself. The Torah blames the father, i.e. the person who begot the child for the eventual misdemeanours of the child. The fact is that there are three separate causes which may be to blame for the delinquency of children. 1) If at the time of conception the father was bent on the physical pleasure of the union with his wife instead of being motivated purely by the desire to fulfil G'd's commandment to be fruitful when they had marital relations. As a result, the child born from such a union may inherit a tendency to engage in sex for gratification of a biological urge. 2) The cause may be the mother; if the deeds of the mother are not morally good, "the lamb will tend to become like the sheep which has given birth to it" (compare Ketuvot 63). 3) If both father and mother had forbidden thoughts at the time they conceived the child. The classic example is King Chiskiyah and his wife (the daughter of the prophet Isaiah) who produced two great sinners from that union (compare Sanhedrin 104). The tragedy of that incident is the fact that though both father and mother were pillars of piety they nonetheless produced such issue.

The words את שבתותי תשמרו are addressesd to possibility number one, similar to something the Zohar explains on Isaiah 56,4: לסריסים אשר ישמרו את שבתותי, "as to the eunuchs who have chosen to observe My Sabbaths" (volume 2 page 89). The "eunuchs" referred to are the righteous people who make eunuchs of themselves by refusing to have marital relations with their wives except on Friday nights, and who, as a result, produce only morally elitist children by ensuring that they are all born with holy souls. Thus far the Zohar on that subject. The lesson we derive from that is that if someone wants to make sure that the children he sires are of that holy level, he must first learn how to control his libido and put it exclusively into the service of performing G'd's commandment to be fruitful. In other words, "do not have relations with your wife except on Friday nights." When you have achieved this level of conduct you may be certain that your daughter will not engage in harlotry or anything similar to it. Concerning the second reason we have listed which may be to blame for a child turning out to be delinquent, namely that its mother had sensual thoughts which the daughter inherited, the Torah writes ואת מקדשי תיראו, "and revere My Holy Temple." This is a warning to be afraid to violate the sanctity of the Temple, i.e. to ensure that a daughter will never become a סוטה, a wife suspected of infidelity who can clear her name only by drinking the מים המאררים, the waters described in Numbers chapter 5 which have to be drunk on hallowed ground and which bear within them a deadly disease if the suspected woman drinking them had been guilty of the suspicion her husband cast on her. Finally, (verse 31) concerning the third reason which may be responsible for even the most elitist fathers and mothers producing children they will be ashamed of, the Torah writes אל תפנו אל האבות ואל הידעונים, "do not turn to the ghosts and to familiar spirits;" these phenomena are manifestations of different kinds of spiritual impurity whose natural tendency is to stick to people's souls much like leeches stick to their bodies.

The word אבות is from the root אבה, in the sense of Deut. 23,6 where G'd is depicted as not willing to listen to Bileam. The word ידעני contains an allusion to ידוע, something one knows, is familiar with. A person should not claim that seeing he is familiar with these kinds of phenomena that he is immune to them. As soon as one establishes the kind of intimacy with such phenomena that enable one to claim that one knows all about them, one has already become victimised by these spiritually negative phenomena and their manifestations.

אני ה׳ אלוקיכם, "I am the Lord your G'd." The Torah writes these words as the reason for prohibiting contact with these forms of soothsaying. Seeing that G'd, i.e. something divine, dwells inside every Jew, contact with such manifestations of Satan and what he represents would result in the divine within us leaving us. We would lose whatever sanctity we had possessed and become part of the evil represented by these forces. Anyone who does not take care of these three commandments will only have himself to blame if his daughter profanes herself or the father himself took the first step by displaying her.

אל תפנו DO NOT TURN [TO THE אבת NOR TO THE ידענים] — This is a warning addressed to the necromancers and the charmers themselves (not to the people who consult these tricksters). The בעל אוב, the controller of the spirit אוב, as the necromancer is called (cf. I Samuel 28:7), is identical with the פיתום (in Greek: πύξωυ); he is one who speaks out of his arm-pit; ידעני is one who puts a bone of an animal the name of which is ידוע into his mouth and the bone speaks (Sanhedrin 65b).

Seeing that the seeking out of oracles such as the ov or yidoni for the gentiles is something akin to enquiring about their fate from G’d, and it involves instead of consulting the living G’d consulting the dead or their remains, the Torah prohibits this in the strongest terms saying אל תפנו אל האובות, meaning not only must you not turn toward them, but you must turn your back on them and on any other phenomena similar to them. The Torah does not need to add that no respect or deference must be shown to such phenomena.

אל תפנו אל האובות, “do not turn to the sorceries that follow, etc.” [if I understood the author correctly. Ed.] “Do not have social intercourse with these sorcerers even on the Sabbath, thinking that since they do not practice their art on the Sabbath that this is harmless. Ibn Ezra writes that this is a warning not to do what King Sha-ul did near the end of his reign in desperation, when he asked a sorcerer to conjure up the deceased prophet Samuel’s image (Samuel I 28,7) The word אובות is derived from Job 32,19 וכאובות חדשים יבקע, describing skins filled with wine that are full to bursting. בעלי אובות, those soothsayers are like people who cannot wait to reveal the knowledge they believe that they possess. The word ידעוני, is related to דעת, knowledge, and also describes these supposedly knowledgeable people who foretell future events. The Torah adds that the result of turning to such soothsayers will be

A warning to mediums. Since it says in parshas Shoftim (Devarim 19:10,11), “Let there not exist among you [...or one who asks of a medium], etc.,” and there too, [although] it says a negative commandment prohibiting it, it does not mention kareis, but here it mentions kareis as it says (below, 20:5), “And [I shall] cut him off from among his people.” If so, it is certainly speaking here of the medium itself, while there it is speaking about one “who asks of a medium.”

אל תבקשו means DO NOT SEEK to busy yourselves with them, for if you busy yourselves with them, you will become defiled in My sight and I shall abhor you.

אל תבקשו לטמאה בהם, do not search them out as they would confer spiritual contamination on you. However, the Talmud did permit us to study the manner in which these phenomena are being used when the objective is merely to understand the phenomenon, not to make use of it. [based on Deuteronomy 18,9 as interpreted in Shabbat 75. Ed.]

לטמאה בהם, “to become contaminated by them.” Any person, soul, who turns to such charlatans in order to divine the future will lose whatever degree of cleaving to Hashem it had achieved prior to this. The reason for this is:

An animal whose name is Yadu’a. Rabbeinu Shimshon wrote in the name of R. Meir bar Kalonimus that this is an animal whose name is Yadu’a, which has a sort of big cord coming out of a root in the earth from where it gets its nourishment just like gourds and squashes do. However, the Yadu’a has the appearance of a man regarding both its face and its other limbs. It is joined from its navel to that rope and no creature can approach within the length of that rope as it tears and kills everything; within the length of its rope, it grazes all its surroundings. When people come to hunt it, they shoot arrows from afar at its cord until it is severed, and then it dies immediately. (Sefer Mitzvos Gedolos)

אני ה' אלהיכם I AM THE LORD YOUR GOD — Just think Whom you are changing (by these practices which lead to idolatry) for whom! (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 7 11)

אני ה' אלוקיכם, “I alone am the Lord your G’d.” You are not to look for refuge with anyone other than I.

To be occupied with them. Rashi is answering the question that it is obvious that a person would not willingly [“seek out” so as to] defile himself. He answers, [that the verse is warning against seeking, i.e.,] “to be occupied with them, etc.”

מפני שיבה תקום THOU SHALT RISE UP BEFORE A HOARY HEAD — One might think this reverence is also due to an ignorant old man! Scripture however says זקן — "thou shalt honour the face of the ״זקן — and זקן denotes only one who has acquired wisdom (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 7 12;Kiddushin 32b).

THOU SHALT RISE UP BEFORE THE HOARY HEAD. “I might think that one is to rise before an uncultured old man; Scripture therefore states, and thou shalt honor the face of ‘zakein’ (the old man). Zakein [from the root kanah, acquire] means only one who has ‘acquired’ wisdom.” This is Rashi’s language. And the text of the Torath Kohanim,²⁰²Torath Kohanim, Kedoshim 7:12. as it is taught in the Gemara of Tractate Kiddushin²⁰³Kiddushin 32 b. [is as follows: “I might think that one is to rise before an uncultured old man;] Scripture therefore states zakein, the word zakein meaning only one who is wise, as it is said, Gather unto Me seventy men ‘miziknei’ (of the elders) of Israel.²⁰⁴Numbers 11:16. And since these seventy elders were to constitute together with Moses the members of the Sanhedrin, it is clear that miziknei means “of the wise men” of Israel. And Rabbi Yosei the Galilean says: The word zakein means only one who has ‘acquired’ wisdom, as it is said, The Eternal ‘kanani’ (made me) [literally: acquired me, i.e., wisdom] at the beginning of His way.”²⁰⁵Proverbs 8:22. The sense conveyed is: “G-d created me [i.e., wisdom] to be His acquisition at the beginning of Creation.” Now according to the words of both of them [i.e., the First Sage in this Beraitha and Rabbi Yosei the Galilean], this commandment [of honoring the aged] applies only if he is a scholar. And Onkelos who rendered the verse before us: “thou shalt rise up before him who understands [the knowledge of] the Torah, and honor the face of the aged,” would also seem to agree with this opinion [that zakein is one who “acquired” wisdom]. Yet despite all this, the concluding opinion of the Gemara in accordance with the final decision of the law is not so, for the Rabbis have said [in the Gemara]:²⁰³Kiddushin 32 b. “Isi the son of Yehudah says: Any hoary head is included [under the terms of this commandment], and Rabbi Yochanan said: The final decision of the law is as Isi the son of Yehudah interpreted it.” Thus Scripture is commanding [in the first half of the verse] to honor any old man, even the uncultured, that is, the unlearned, and then [in the second half of the verse] it gives another commandment concerning the zakein, that is one who has acquired wisdom, even if he be young and learned. It is possible that this is also the opinion of Onkelos, except that he translated the hoary head as “young and learned” [and hence the first half of his translation reads, “thou shalt rise up before him who understands — the knowledge of the Torah,” meaning even if he is young and learned], since the term zakein [in the second half of the verse, which clearly means “one who has acquired wisdom”] came and indicated that the term hoary head includes all kinds of old age, whether old in the knowledge of the Torah or old in days.²⁰⁶For otherwise why did the Torah use two different terms: seiva (the hoary head) and zakein (the old man)? Onkelos thus reasoned that since zakein definitely means “he who has acquired wisdom,” it shows that seiva must mean all kinds of old people, whether learned or not learned. Hence in translating the verse he rendered zakein first and then seiva, although in the Hebrew text the order of the terms is the opposite. In short, then, it may be that Onkelos also agrees with the opinion of Isi the son of Yehudah that one must show honor to all kinds of old people, whether aged in the knowledge of the Torah or just aged in years.

מפני שיבה תקום, while it is in order to show respect and deference to someone whose experience in life is based on his age, this does not compare to the respect and deference that we must show to

מפני שיבה תקום, "You shall rise in the presence of an aged person, etc." Kidushin 32 explains that the word שיבה refers to someone advanced in years, whereas the word זקן refers to someone who has acquired wisdom. The word תקום means to rise as a sign of respect, והדרת פני. The wording in the Talmud is difficult as in order to correspond to what the Talmud says the Torah should have written: מפני שיבה ומפני זקן תקום והדרת. Perhaps the Talmud intended to distinguish between different signs of recognition to be accorded to physical maturity, old age, and to spiritual maturity, i.e. זקנה. In the former case it suffices to rise from one's seat momentarily, whereas in the latter case one is to remain standing for longer; the idea is that זקנה, spiritual maturity, rates a greater degree of recognition than שיבה, mere physical old age.

ויראת מאלוקיך אני ה', “you shall be in awe of your G’d, I am Hashem.” Ibn Ezra sees in our verse a warning by G’d that if we fail to accord honour and accord dignity to the elderly, He may punish us for this in our own old age. Other commentators see in the statement a reminder that these elderly have been honoured by G’d with attaining long life and wisdom, and it would not do for us not to accord them at least the same recognition that G’d has shown them. They back up their approach by quoting Isaiah 24,23 ונגד זקניו כבוד, “and the Presence (of G’d) will be revealed to His elders.”

מפני שיבה תקום, “in the presence (arrival) of a biologically old person you shall rise.” This regulation applies even to an aged person who is totally uneducated, unaware of Torah laws and consequently often contravenes them. Onkelos translates the word לא תשם in Genesis 47,19 as לא תבור, “let it not become like a בור, “uncouth, uncultured.” In other words, he thinks that all biologically aged people deserve this measure of respect.

Perhaps even an ignorant (אשמאי) old man. Rashi [on that Gemara] explains that this is an expression of אשם (sin), meaning, a wicked man who is liable for many sins. Rabeinu Tam explains that this person is an ignoramus [desolate of wisdom], as in the expression “not become desolate (תשם)” (Bereishis 47:19), which Unkelos translates as לא תבור, i.e., desolate. (Gur Aryeh) You might ask that this [Rashi’s interpretation] is obvious, since why would one think that a wicked man should be honored? The verse (Shemos 22:27) writes, “Do not curse a leader of your people” [from which the Sages deduce in Bava Metzia 48b that this only applies] “when he acts [according to] the behavior of your people”! The answer is that one may have thought one has to stand in the presence of a wicked [old] man because he must have lived a long life due to having fulfilled mitzvos, and thus, one may have thought he must be honored. Therefore, the verse is necessary.

An elder and you shall have fear. This is a warning to the elderly person that he should not cause others trouble.

AND THOU SHALT HONOR THE FACE OF THE OLD — What does the term "honoring” an old man imply? That one should not sit in his seat nor contradict his statements. One might think that one is allowed to close one’s eyes as though one does not see him (the old man)! Scripture however states "but be afraid of thy God”, because in this thing it is given to the heart of him only who does the action to know the motive that prompts him for no one has an insight into this except himself, and in reference to any thing where it is given only to the heart to know, Scripture states “and thou shalt be afraid of thy God Who knows thy secret thoughts״ (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 7 14; Kiddushin 32b).

פני זקן, the elder who has achieved his rank in society due to his Torah knowledge, his constant striving to become more closely attached to G’d. (compare Kidushin 32.)

The words והדרת פני זקן, “you shall honour the presence of a sage,” on the other hand, is a sign of much greater respect. Our sages understand the very word זקן as an acronym of the words זה שקנה חכמה, someone who has acquired wisdom. They base this interpretation on Proverbs 8,22: ה' קנני ראשית דרכו, “the Lord has acquired me (endowed me with wisdom) at the beginning of His way.” At any rate at this point the words of Onkelos suggest that he understands both the word שיבה and זקן as people possessed of varying degrees of wisdom due to their age, the former less than the latter. The former may be proficient only in the written Torah, the latter also in the oral Torah.

Only one who has acquired wisdom. This is not derived from an acrostic of זקן, but from the gezeirah shavah זקן זקן regarding the elders of Yisroel as it is written (Bamidbar 11:16), “Whom you know to be the people’s elders (זקני), and its officers,” meaning that they are great and wise.

We may also take our cue from Bereshit Rabbah 65,9 where we are told that Abraham asked to look old in order that he could be told apart from his son Isaac who resembled him greatly (based on Genesis 24,1 ואברהם זקן). When the Torah says to rise on account of a man aged in years, this is the way to be מהדר, to lend distinction to someone like Abraham who was advanced in years.

It states, “in the presence of the elderly,” and close by it says, “If a proselyte comes to live with you,” to inform that even in the presence of an ignorant elder you shall rise.

Perhaps he is permitted to close his eyes. You might ask, how can one think he is permitted to close his eyes? Obviously, this would be a transgression! The explanation is that he might think he is permitted to close his eyes before he reaches his four amos, since he is not obligated to rise before him until he enters his four amos.

There may also be an allusion here to the statement in Bereshit Rabbah 12,6 that one of the consequences of Adam's sin was that he lost in "height," i.e. that the wicked do not attain their full height or that they shrink in height. G'd therefore commanded Adam to be sure to repent his error and to mend his ways so that he could attain his full stature. Our sages said in Yevamot 50 that if one possesses the necessary merit one is granted the full number of years allocated to him (70 or more) at birth; if one has not lived in accordance with G'd's commandments one forfeits some of these years and dies before one has completed the normal lifespan of 70 years. The word קומה therefore does not represent physical height but spiritual height. The measure of the verse then is: "if you want to reach a good old age, attain the spiritual height you are meant to attain!" The verse challenges each individual to develop to his full spiritual potential as much as it directs us to display honour for people who have attained old age. Inasmuch as Kohelet 12,1 has already told us that old age is frequently accompanied by afflictions so that one curses those years, the Torah suggests that the way to head off these frequent by-products of aging is to תקום, rise to one's spiritual stature מפני, on account of what might otherwise befall one in old age. Once one reaches that stage, one becomes totally dependent on G'd's personal and beneficial providence.

The words והדרת פני זקן may even allude to one's own old age; our sages (Sukkah 53) are on record as saying about themselves: "hail to our youth which has not shamed our old age;" they referred to the kind of old age in which one can recall that one had led an exemplary life already from one's youth so that no one could point to a "skeleton in one's cupboard." The Torah therefore advises young men to lead the kind of lives now that would not make it necessary for them to ever be ashamed of their younger years. We are taught in Chagigah 14 that when a righteous person departs this life they compliment Abraham in heaven on the fact that this righteous person was a descendant of his. On the other hand, when a wicked person dies not only does no one compliment Abraham, but he is pained by the failure of that person to have become a penitent before he died. When the Torah speaks of "enhance the face of the old man," the reference is to Abraham who feels chagrined that not all of his descendants are true to his example. The Torah continues to warn us of what is in store in the hereafter by writing ויראת מאלוקיך, "and you shall fear your G'd." This refers to the fear of the punishment to be meted out when the soul comes up for judgment. אני השם, "I am the Lord." This refers to the reward for one's exemplary lifestyle, i.e. that one qualifies for life in the hereafter. Alternatively, these concluding words of our verse may illustrate both fear and love. G'd is telling us that He is to be both feared and loved. G'd's very name is the epitome of love, He is the root cause of all love.

לא תונו [AND IF A STRANGER SOJOURN WITH THEE IN THY LAND], YE SHALL NOT VEX HIM — This implies vexing him with words (cf. Rashi on Exodus 22:20) — do not say to him, “Yesterday you were an idolator and now you come to study the Torah which was given from the mouth of the Almighty!” (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 8 2; Bava Metzia 58b, 59b.)

After the Torah warned that the Torah scholars, etc., must be shown due respect, it also warns us not to treat with disdain people who are on the lower rung of the economic ladder. וכי יגור אתך גר לא תונו אותו, even if this unfair treatment consists only of words, not deeds. The Torah continues,

וכי יגור אתך גר, "And if a proselyte sojourn with you in your land, etc." The Torah commences with the singular, i.e. אתך, amongst you (sing), while switching to plural, i.e. ארצכם, "your country" (pl); the reason is that proselytes have been attracted to Judaism through the original proselyte, the first Jew, Abraham, the "spiritual father" of all proselytes. Another factor in attracting pagans to convert to Judaism is the Holy Land itself. We perceive all the souls of the converts as having been "captured" souls which had been ensnared by Satan either in bulk as a result of Adam's sin or individually on subsequent occasions. The word אתך alludes to Abraham's ability to attract converts, the word ארצכם to the ability of the land of Israel itself to exert such an influence.

וכי יגור אתך גר, “and if a proselyte shall reside amongst you,” The reason why the Torah saw fit to write this verse immediately after having told us to treat our native born elderly with dignity and respect, is that G’d draws a comparison between the former and the latter, both being people who by circumstance are somewhat handicapped, one by age and frailty, the other by not yet having established his self-worth in the new nation he has joined. Other opinions see in the sequence of how to respect elders and not to discriminate against proselytes a message that anyone who discriminates legally or otherwise against proselytes offends the Creator Who instructed us to be especially courteous to the elderly.

The anguish of [wounding] words. Because the verse in parshas Behar (25:14) it is written לא תונו (“do not cheat one another”), which is speaking of cheating in monetary matters since the verses there discuss buying and selling. Therefore, לא תונו here must be speaking [not about monetary matters, but] about the anguish of [wounding] words.

וכי יגור אתך גר, “if someone lives amongst you who claims to be a convert, I might have thought that he must be accepted as such on his own testimony; therefore the Torah adds the word: אתך, “with you,” i.e. you are familiar with him and he has behaved in a manner which lends support to his claim. He needs to support his claim by witnesses. (Sifra)

This verse also contains an allusion to the manner in which the שכינה remains with us in this life. Accordingly, the "alien" referred to is the One whose original home was in a different, i.e. celestial domain. G'd commanded His presence to take up residence within each individual Jew as mentioned in Psalms 78,60: אהל שכן באדם, "a tent which He established within (amongst) man." ארצכם, in your land; this is a reference to the Holy Land, the home of G'd's presence. It left its home to take up residence on earth. כאזרח מכם, This is a warning for strangers in the land of Israel to convert to Judasim.

כי גרים הייתם FOR YE WERE STRANGERS [IN THE LAND OF EGYPT] — "Do not reproach thy fellow-man for a fault which is also thine” (cf. Rashi on Exodus 22:20).

כאזרח מכם, "he shall be like a natural-born resident amongst you." Here the Torah reveals the mystical dimension (i.e. their spiritual status) of all the souls of the Jewish people while they were submerged in Egypt and its culture amongst the various nations. This is why the Torah describes them as "like one of your very own," i.e. you have much more in common with converts than you think. Should you query how it is possible that the seed of wicked people, someone whose father was a Gentile, could suddenly be rated as equal to people whose fathers were beloved of G'd, the Torah reminds us כי גרים הייתם בארץ מצרים, "that the souls of these strangers (converts) were intertwined with those of your own when you were still in Egypt." Please read what I have written on this subject in Parshat Yitro on 20,2 (page 673) and the meaning of "I have taken you out of Egypt, etc." What applied to that situation also applies to the situation described here. The "stranger" who was part of the קליפות, the spiritually negative domain, has come to take refuge under the wings of G'd's שכינה. As of now his soul has returned to its holy roots. Once we adopt this approach it is clear that when the Torah speaks of כי גרים הייתם בארץ מצרים, "for you yourselves were strangers in the land of Egypt," the Torah compliments the converts. If the Torah were concerned only with the conversion of people whose souls were never attached to sanctity and whose bodies now wanted to become part of the families of the Israelites, it is hardly likely that they would suddenly become beloved by G'd seeing that their family background is so different. Jewish families are not comparable to Gentile families. The only reason these proselytes are embraced wholeheartedly by the Torah is that the Torah views these converts as people who are returning to their roots.

LOVE HIM LIKE YOURSELF: The nations of the ancient world would only love their own people, and they would defraud other peoples because they saw them as despicable foreigners. Therefore, it says here, that you need to love him like yourself, and act toward him just as you would want. You should act towards him as you would want other people to act toward you if you were a foreigner. This is in accord with what is written several verses earlier (Leviticus 19:18): "Love your neighbor (re'ah) as yourself"

כאזרח מכם, “as if a natural born Jew.” Just like a natural born Jew is expected to observe aj] the laws of the Torah, so is this convert expected to do so. This verse is the reason why the sages ruled that if a convert is prepared to accept all the laws of Judaism with the exception of one, he is not accepted as a convert. Rabbi Joseph son of Rabbi Yehudah said that even it the prospective convert refuses to accept any of the nonbiblical protective clauses of the Torah he is not to be accepted. (Sifra)

אני ה' אלהיכם I AM THE LORD YOUR GOD — Thy God and his God am I! (אלהיכם “your” God — the God of both of you).

כי גרים הייתם בארץ מצרים, “for you were treated as strangers while in Egypt.” Rashi comments on this phrase that we must not be critical of a shortcoming of a stranger and treat him as second class, as we did not like it when we were treated as second class during the hundreds of years we were in Egypt. While there we worshipped the same idols that the Egyptians had worshipped, so that we have nothing to feel superior about. Joshua reminded the people of this shortly before his death in (Joshua 24,14)

לא תעשו עול במשפט YE SHALL NOT DO UNRIGHTEOUSNESS IN משפט — If this has a reference to the execution of justice it would be redundant, for it has already been stated (v. 15) “Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment”. What, then is the meaning of משפט mentioned here? It refers to what is right in respect to measure of length, to weight and to measure of capacity. The use of the word משפט here teaches us, therefore, that one who has to do with measuring (in trade or commerce) is termed (is regarded as) “a judge” so that if he gives false measure he is like the judge who perverts justice and he is therefore called "an unjust person” (עַוָּל), hateful, detested, doomed to destruction, and an abomination (cf. Rashi v. 15). He brings about those five things which are mentioned in connection with the judge who perverts justice: he defiles the land, profanes the Name of the Lord, causes the Shechinah to depart from Israel's midst, Israel to fall by the sword and to be exiled from their land (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 8 5).

לא תעשו עול במשפט במדה במשקל ובמשורה, seeing that the term אונאה, unfair dealings, also includes unfair business practices, the Torah issues a general prohibition concerning this addressed both to the locally born Jew and the recent convert, or stranger. The words used include measures for measuring liquids, dry matters, as well as the use of deceptive weights.

במדה, measures of length used to measure fields.

לא תעשו עול במשפט, ”do not pervert the judicial process.” According to Ibn Ezra the verse refers especially to treatment of proselytes, as the reason why the Torah felt it necessary to write ושפטתם צדק בין איש ובין אחיו ובין גרו, “judge righteously between a man and his brother, and between his fellow who is a proselyte, or even a resident alien!” (Deut. 1,16)

לא תעשו עול במשפט, “Do not commit a perversion of justice.” This prohibition has already appeared in almost the identical words in 19,15 in connection with the poor who was not to be given preferential treatment. In that instance the “justice” referred to was in connection with social legislation which had been spelled out by the Torah (legislating nationally). Here the Torah writes a similar warning concerning internationally accepted norms such as weights and measures. It is reminiscent of Exodus 15,25 “there He gave them statutes and social laws.” That legislation too preceded the giving of the Torah, i.e. laws designed to regulate the people’s life in the desert.

One who measures is termed a judge. Since the verse writes “judgment” it teaches that one who measures is termed a judge. And the difference this makes is that “if he acts falsely in measure, he is as one, etc.”

ובמשורה, “or in measure.” Our sages used this expression when they said that water should be drunk “in measured quantities (sparingly);” (Ethics of our Fathers 6,4)

במדה — This denotes land measure (linear and square measure);

משורה, a measure used to measure liquids. Our sages use this expression when speaking of measures of water in Avot 6,4.

במדה, “concerning measure.” This applies to division of the land in Eretz Yisrael (Baba Metzia 61). The Talmud there discusses brothers who share in their father’s inheritance and who have measured the tract of land of one brother in the winter using a rope which is wet because of the time of year. When measuring the tract of land for the second brother in the summer, they must not use the same rope as the sun would have shortened the length of that rope to the disadvantage of the second brother.

And causes five [catastrophic] matters. You might ask, why do we need the word “judgment” to teach this? Here too the verse writes עול which implies “corrupt, hateful, [etc.],” as Rashi explained above (verse 15) regarding a judge. You might also ask, why does he explain here that this “causes five [catastrophic] matters, etc.” Why did he not explain this earlier regarding a judge? The answer is that Rashi is saying as follows. Why does the verse write “judgment”? To teach that he is like a judge. Concerning what? [You cannot say that it is to teach you that he is corrupt, hateful, etc.] because here too the verse says עול [which implies these things]. The answer is that he is compared to a judge to inform you that he causes the five [catastrophic] matters which are said regarding a judge.

במשקל is what the word literally implies (“in weight", from שקל, to weigh);

במשקל, “concerning weights.” One must not dunk one’s weights in salt causing them to lose actual weight due to corrosion (compare Baba Metzia 61 and Baba Batra 89). Dunking the weights in salt would result in loss to the purchaser. There are variant readings which suggest that the weights become heavier; in that event this warning would be addressed to the purchaser and not to the seller.

Land measure. I.e., when there are two brothers or two partners, you may not measure for one of them in winter when the rope is wet and stretches more, and for the other one in the summer when the rope is hard and does not stretch, causing one of them a loss. Alternatively, even if one measures with [the length of a rod of] wood, one may not measure for one of them in summer and for the other in winter, because in summer the earth is dry and cracked, while in winter it is [tightly] joined together.

ובמשורה — This denotes liquid and dry measure (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 8 6; Bava Metzia 61b).

ובמשורה, “or volume measures.” Our sages in Baba Batra 89 explain that the seller must not heat up the item (liquid) he is selling to give it an inflated measure by volume. As soon as the liquid cools down it will be found deficient in measure. According to Rashbam there this may apply to the foam which forms on top of a heated liquid filling the measure deceptively. Therefore, the seller has to wait after he has filled the measuring device until the liquid in question has cooled before making sure that he has measured fairly. He needs to make good any shrinkage due to previous overheating.
Another aspect of this law is that the seller must not pour at great speed into the measuring device as this too would create foam depleting the real amount of liquid given to the buyer. Air bubbles are not allowed to be counted as part of the liquid dispensed. According to our sages the measuring tube called משורה is used to measure small quantities. If even when the loss to the purchaser in objective terms is minimal the Torah is concerned with such a loss, how much more will the Torah frown on someone dispensing in a similar manner into a large measuring container where the total loss to the purchaser is much greater! The reason the Torah mentioned משורה as an example was that one transgresses this law already at the time one heats the product in question even if no sale had been made as yet and one cannot be accused of trying to defraud a specific person, prospective purchaser. Even when the seller has not yet poured into his משורה, the fact that he heated the product he was going to sell makes him guilty of attempted fraud.
Just as the sages said that one is guilty for possessing faulty weights from the time one has manufactured them, even if one has not used them, so one is guilty of tampering with the liquids to be sold even if no buyer is at hand. It recalls what Solomon said in Proverbs 20,9: ”who can say I have made my heart pure, I am free from sin ?” “False weights and false measures are both alike, an abomination to the Lord.” Just as man becomes culpable for evil intentions [if they were subsequently carried out, Ed.] even while he had not yet carried out the felony, so he will be held responsible for making false weights and measures.
Our sages said in connection with idolatry that a person is subject to the curse of G’d already at the time he fashions an idol even though he has not yet worshipped it (compare Avodah Zarah 52 and Deut. 27,15). In the case of idolatry culpability also commences with construction of the idol based on Deut. 9,21 where he Torah writes: ואת חטאתכם אשר עשיתם את העגל, “and your sin that you committed- the calf.”
The Torah therefore wrote משורה, to let us know that if an amount as little as a פרוטה, a tiny coin, is affected by the inaccurate measuring device, the person involved is liable to punishment as soon as he heated the liquid involved. Rabbi Levi said in Baba Batra 88 that penalties applied to people cheating with weights and measures are more severe than those applied to people guilty of sexual offenses, seeing that such people can repent their sins as long as no mamzer, “bastard,” has been born out of such a union [at which time the sin becomes irreversible, Ed.] Seeing that the practice of unfair weights and measures is indiscriminate in its application, the guilty party does not know whom he has cheated and he therefore cannot make restitution. Repentance without restitution is no proper repentance.

Liquid and dry. The correct text is, “’Volume,’ that is liquid measure.” The text should not include the words “dry measure,” because משורה is a liquid measure as it says (Amos 6:4) “And drink water in a measure.”

אבני צדק are stones used for weights wherewith one weighs.

הין, another measure used for measuring liquids.

That is a dry measure. Because it says [regarding manna] (Shemos 16:36), “The omer is a tenth of an eiphoh.”

איפת — The “Epha” is a certain dry measure.

That is a liquid measure. As it says [regarding oil and wine] (see Bamidbar 28:5, 6), “One fourth of a hin.”

והין — The “Hin” is a certain liquid measure.

Who dips his weights in salt to cheat people. Some explain that the buyer dips his weights in salt so that they should be heavy because of the dampness of the salt. Others explain that the seller dips his weights in salt as salt is strong and sharp and erodes the weight and makes it lighter, and he sells to people by weighing with this [lighter] weight.

אשר הוצאתי אתכם WHO BROUGHT YOU FORTH [FROM EGYPT] for this purpose, that you shall be honest in your actions (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 8 10). Another explanation is: I distinguished in Egypt between those who were firstborn and those who were not firstborn (a matter which is hidden from human cognizance), I am also certain to exact punishment from him who secretly puts his weights in salt in order to take advantage of people who are not aware of it (cf. Bava Metzia 61b).

ושמרתם את כל חקותי ואת כל משפטי, study them so that you will become aware of how fair they are.

ושמרתם את כל חקתי, “you are to meticulously observe all My statutes;” this was repeated here once more as it sums up the chapter.

ועשיתם אותם, through your study of both My statutes and My social legislation you will become impressed with their worth so that you will observe them and carry them out as a result of having gained greater insight of their meaning.

'אני ה; the Torah means to remind us that observance of G’d’s laws must be because they are G’d’s laws, i.e. we must not add or detract from the details of these laws in the mistaken belief that we would improve them by our additions or subtractions. Seeing G’d Himself is surely perfect, how could His legislation be any less than perfect?

And you shall love your neighbor as yourself:... And the philosophers have already explained that the primary axiom which is the root of moral philosophy is that one should will that everything that he does be a universal axiom (chok kollel). This means that that if he should want that evil occur to his fellow so that he will benefit, he must evaluate it to see if he would want it to be a universal axiom, such that this axiom would be that everyone may cause damage to their fellows when it brings benefit to themselves. And this will certainly not be acceptable to him, that damage should be caused to him in order that benefit come to his fellows. And through this, he too will desist from doing it to his fellow. And likewise if he is able to benefit his fellow and he desists from it, he must evaluate it to see if he would want this to be a universal axiom, such that all people would desist from benefitting him. And this is [the meaning of] that which Rabbi Akiva said, that it is the great principle (klal gadol) of the Torah. However the critical philosophers questioned this maxim, since this axiom is still not universal. For according to this, everyone would act on the basis of the benefit to themselves, whereas it is fitting that all of their actions be on account of axioms of sublime universal reason without any admixture of personal benefit. And for this reason, Ben Azzai elevated the axiom to a more sublime matter when he based [it] on "This is the book of the generations of man." For all men are bound together like one body. All of them were created in the image of God to complete the highest image and form which contains the souls of all mankind. All of them are like one single person, and like one body which is composed of different members... According to this theory, the words of Rabbi Akiva follow his own understanding (leshitato), since he expounds (Sifra Behar 5:43, Bava Metzia 62a), "Your life comes before that of your fellow."

And that is that He commanded us that one who does certain sins must offer a guilt-offering sacrifice. And that is what is called a definite guilt-offering. And the sins for which one is liable for this sacrifice are misappropriation; theft; one who has sexual intercourse with a designated maidservant; and one who swears falsely with an oath over a deposit. And that is one who misappropriated in error and derived benefit worth a perutah (a small coin) from sanctified property - whether sanctified for Temple upkeep or whether sanctified for the altar; one who robbed the value of a perutah or more from his fellow and took an oath; one who had sexual intercourse with a designated maidservant, whether inadvertent or volitional. [In these cases,] he is obligated to offer a sacrifice for his sin, and it is not a sin-offering sacrifice; indeed, it is a guilt-offering, and it is called a definite guilt-offering. And He said regarding misappropriation, "and he sinned in error, etc. and he shall bring his guilt offering" (Leviticus 5:15). He [also] said, "and he denied his countryman [...] and swore falsely, etc. his guilt offering shall he bring." (Leviticus 5:21-25). And He said, "and she is a designated maidservant for a man [...]. And he shall bring his guilt offering" (Leviticus 19:20-21). And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Keritot. (See Parashat Vayikra; Mishneh Torah, Offerings for Unintentional Transgressions 9.)