## Em LaMikra, Leviticus

###### Em LaMikra, Leviticus 26:1:1
[Em LaMikra, Leviticus 26:1:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Em%20LaMikra/s/Leviticus/r/26:1:1)

**ואבן משכית.** ראיתי להרמבמ"ן (ויקרא כ"ב) שפי' אבן משכית, אבן שהיו מחוקקים עליה **היירוגליפישי** (כתיבת כהני מצרים) ע"כ. ולא כן דעתי, שא"כ, מה זה שאמר **להשתחוות עליה**, ולא היה דרך המצריים להשתחוות לאבני **ירוגליפישי** — ועוד שא"כ היל"ל להשתחוות **אליה.** ויתכן שהיא כמו מצבה, כמו ויקח יעקב אבן וירימה מצבה, וקראה אבן משכית, כי האבנים הנעבדים היו נתונים תוך נרתק של כסף או זהב כמו תפוחי זהב במשכיות כסף, וכן האבן של מקדש הקאבא לישמעאלים, ובזה ידוייק אומרו להשתחוות **עליה**, כי כפי הרוב האבנים האלה היו נתונים למטה מהאדם, והעובד כורע ומשתחוה עליה לנשקה, ובפ' מסעי (במדבר ל"ג נ"ב) והורשתי את כל יושבי הארץ מפניכם **ואבדתם את כל משכיותם** .

**Vayiqra in Context. An English summary by Sina Kahen and Ben Rothstein; Da'at Press, 2024:**
*You shall make you no idols nor set up a sculptured image or a sacred pillar for yourselves, and you shall not put a figured stone in your land to bow over it, for I am YHWH your God.*
Rabbi Benamozegh offers a critical analysis of the concept of the *“figured stone”* (אבן משכית) and engages in a scholarly debate with the interpretations of the 13th century Naḥmanides on this verse.
Rabbi Benamozegh questions Naḥmanides’ notion that the *“figured stone”* refers to a stone with Egyptian hieroglyphs, used in priestly rituals. He challenges this view by pointing out the inconsistency in the idea of the Israelites being commanded to *“bow”* or prostrate themselves upon such a stone, as this was not even a custom in Egyptian worship. He argues that if the intention were to worship towards the stone, the text would have explicitly stated ‘to prostrate *towards* it,’ rather than ‘to prostrate *upon* it.’
Rabbi Benamozegh then presents his own interpretation, likening the *“figured stone”* to a pillar, drawing a parallel with the Biblical episode where Ya’aqob erects a stone as a pillar to mark the place where God had spoken to him via his dream (*Bereshit* 35:14). Rabbi Benamozegh suggests that pillars such as these could be referred to by the term *“figured stone”* because they were set in covers of precious metals, similar to the imagery described in *Proverbs* 25:11 of *“golden apples in silver filigrees”* (תפוחי זהב במשכיות כסף). He also makes a reference to the stone of the Ka’aba in Mecca, a key feature of the Islamic tradition, which is similarly covered in such a manner.
Rabbi Benamozegh explains that the reason the verse prohibited prostration *upon* these stones is because such stones were positioned lower than the worshipper, facilitating a physical act of prostration and kissing, as an expression of reverence and worship.
Finally, he points out that the stones described in this verse are the same as those referenced in the Biblical directive to dispel idolatry, as seen in *Bemidbar* 33:52, where the Israelites are commanded to dispossess the land’s inhabitants and destroy all their *“figured stones”* and their *“sculptured images”*.


###### Em LaMikra, Leviticus 26:21:1
[Em LaMikra, Leviticus 26:21:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Em%20LaMikra/s/Leviticus/r/26:21:1)

**ואם תלכו עמי קרי.** לדעתי הנכון כי"א שזכר ראב"ע שטעמו כמו שאמרו הפלשתים כי לא ידו נגעה בנו מקרה הוא — ע"כ, ותפיסתו של הרב נה"ו אינה תפיסה, שהוא כתב, כי אם כן מה טעם והלכתי אף אני עמכם בקרי, ולדעתי הוא מבואר כי תחת שיחסו הכל אל המקרה ולא להשגחת ה', תסור מהם השגחתו ויעזבם אל מקרי העולם כטעם אומרו ואנכי הסתר אסתיר פני מהם וגו' הרי שתאר העונש בהסתרת פנים כלומר בסור ההשגחה והעזיבה אל הקרי, וכן על כי אין אלהי בקרבי, ולהפך עיני ה' אלהיך בה וגו' וכן והתהלכתי בתוככם — ואם יש קצת דוחק במליצת והלכתי עמכם בקרי, הטעם הוא שכן מדרך הסופרים לדחוק הלשון כדי להשוותו אל מה שקדם, זה לעמת זה, על יש' נאמר ואם תלכו עמי קרי, ותחת שיאמר ועזבתי אתכם או והסתרתי פני מכם, כתב אף אני אלך עמם בקרי זה כנגד זה, ומדה כנגד מדה.

**Vayiqra in Context. An English summary by Sina Kahen and Ben Rothstein; Da'at Press, 2024:**
*And if you come in with happenstance against Me and do not want to heed Me, I will go on with blows against you sevenfold for your offenses.*
Rabbi Benamozegh begins by referencing a commentary from Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra that addresses the term קרי, which connotes ‘randomness’, ‘chance’, or ‘happenstance’.
According to Ibn Ezra’s second interpretation, the meaning of this term can be understood by referring to the narrative involving the Philistines in *Sefer Shemuel* (I 6:9). That verse conveys the idea that the harm inflicted upon the Philistines was not a result of God’s direct intervention but rather described as a ‘random’ event or ‘chance’ that occurred to them. Rabbi Benamozegh agrees with this interpretation, viewing it as a caution against failing to acknowledge God’s role in worldly events. He then cites Rabbi Naftali Wessely’s difficulty with this understanding, as how could God say that He will also walk ‘happenstance’ with the Israelites? Surely everything that occurs is due to God’s decree. Rabbi Benamozegh refutes his argument in the following manner.
Rabbi Benamozegh agrees with the position of Ibn Ezra, interpreting the verse as expressing a profound theological concept: when humans attribute every life experience merely to chance, disregarding Divine providence, there is a corresponding Divine response. This Divine response is itself the ‘leaving of things to chance’ on God’s part, acting as though there were no Israelites, in imitation of the behaviour of the Israelites acting as if there were no God.
To underscore this interpretation, Rabbi Benamozegh references Torah verses such as when the people will say, *“Because there is no God in our midst”* (*Debarim* 31:17-18), where God speaks of hiding His face in response to disobedience. He contrasts this with *Debarim* 11:12, *“the eyes of the Lord your God are always upon it,”* reflecting the idea that God’s vigilant care and guidance are contingent on the acknowledgment of His presence and role in human life.
Rabbi Benamozegh also delves into the linguistic nuances of a later verse in *Vayiqra* (26:24), *“and I will come in happenstance against you.”* He points out that this wording appears *“strained”*, suggesting this is *“the way of the scribes”* to draw a parallel between seemingly disparate concepts. This linguistic style is used to juxtapose the idea of God walking with people in a state of happenstance, or apparent randomness (as opposed to the more direct expressions of God leaving or hiding His face), with the Israelites doing the same. This creates a textual symmetry, adhering to the principle of *“measure for measure”* (מדה כנגד מדה). This principle, a recurring theme in Rabbinic theology, indicates that God’s responses are proportionate and directly related to human actions, emphasising a reciprocal relationship between Divine response and human behaviour.


###### Em LaMikra, Leviticus 26:45:1
[Em LaMikra, Leviticus 26:45:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Em%20LaMikra/s/Leviticus/r/26:45:1)

**וזכרתי להם ברית ראשונים.** ברית שכרת עם יוצאי מצרים שהם ראשונים אצל בניהם אחריהם — והם הם דורו של משה כמו שנאמר זכרתי לך חסד נעוריך אהבת כלולותיך וגו' ועל יוצאי מצרים ידבר והרב נה"ו נדחק והאריך ללא צורך.

**Vayiqra in Context. An English summary by Sina Kahen and Ben Rothstein; Da'at Press, 2024:**
*And I will remember for them the Covenant of the first ones whom I brought out from the land of Egypt before the eyes of the nations to be God for them, I am YHWH.*
Rabbi Benamozegh interprets this verse as a reference to the special Covenant established with the ancestors who emerged from the land of Egypt.
These ancestors, in the context of their descendants, are specifically those from the generation of Moshe. This interpretation is further supported by *Yirmiyahu* 2:2, *“I recall the goodness of your youth, your love as a bride”,* which poetically recalls the early, formative period of the Israelites’ relationship with God during and after their Exodus from Egypt.
Rabbi Benamozegh emphasises that our verse underscores the enduring nature of the Covenant between God and the Israelites, passed down through generations. The Covenant is not merely a historical agreement but a living bond that continues to resonate with the descendants of those who initially received it. This continuous connection, as Rabbi Benamozegh suggests, is pivotal in understanding Judaism’s emphasis on the collective memory and the spiritual legacy of their ancestors.