## Tur HaArokh, Leviticus

###### Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 24:2:1
[Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 24:2:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Leviticus/r/24:2:1)

**צו את בני ישראל.**פירש"י זו פרשת מצות הנרות (ופרשת) ואתה תצוה את בני ישראל לא נאמרה אלא על פרשת המשכן וכו'. וכתב הרמב"ן ואינו נכון בעיני שאין הפרשה ההיא סמוכה לפרשת המנורה. ועוד כבר נאמר ויעל את הנרות לפני ה' כאשר צוה ה' את משה הנה המצוה והמעשה נזכרים ונעשים כבר אלא צורך הפרשה זו לשני דברים ששם צוה ויקחו אליך תרומה מאת בני ישראל כלומר שיביאו שמן זית ומאור כשאר תרומת המשכן וכן עשו כדכתי' והנשיאי' הביאו את הבשם ואת השמן ואע"פ שנאמר שם חוקת עולם לדורותיכם הוא על ההדלקה ועכשיו כלה השמן שהביאו הנשיאים לנדבה וצוה שיקחו ישראל משל ציבור לדורותם שמן זית למאור כשמן הראשון. ועוד שם לא נאמר אלא יערוך אותו אהרן ובניו ויהיה על המנורה או אפי' בלא מנורה אם תשבר או תאבד בשובם מן הגולה וכאן פירש דוקא על המנורה הטהורה. (ורבותינו דרשו. כצ"ל) על טהרה של מנורה שלא יסמכה בקיסמים ובנסרות:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
צו את בני ישראל, “command the Children of Israel, etc.” *Rashi* explains that the paragraph following as well as the portion commencing with Exodus 27,20-21 both pertain only to the chapters dealing with the building of the Tabernacle, even though it deals with the lighting of the lights in the *menorah*. The paragraph dealing with the construction of the *menorah* in Exodus 27 was mentioned there only as it was needed to list the furnishings of the Tabernacle.
 Nachmanides writes that this interpretation does not appear appropriate to him, as the portion is not linked to a paragraph dealing with the *menorah* at all. Moreover, the Torah had already reported that Moses placed the lights in the *menorah* in Exodus 40,25, just as he placed the remainder of the furnishings inside the Tabernacle. In other words, both the commandment and the execution of it were mentioned already in the Book of Exodus. Therefore, in Nachmanides’ view the need for the present paragraph is twofold. 1) In Exodus the matter is related in conjunction with the commandment to the Israelites to supply the fuel for the *menorah* just as they were invited to supply all the building materials for the Tabernacle. The princes are reported as having supplied the initial quantities of the spices for the incense as well as the initial amount of olive oil for the *menorah.* However, in the Book of Exodus no mention is made of the supply of materials that were being used up on a daily basis. This is so in spite of the fact that the composition of the materials is described as חקת עולם, as a law of unlimited duration. (Exodus 27,21) Those words referred to the manner in which the *menorah* was to be lit. By now the initial supply had been exhausted and new arrangements had to be made. 2) In Exodus the instructions had been limited for either Aaron or his sons to perform the task of lighting the *menorah*, nothing having been said about what procedure to follow if the original *menorah* were to become defunct, or lost, as when the Israelites went into exile, etc. In Exodus the word תמיד, permanently, has not been mentioned in connection with the lighting of the *menorah*, whereas here mention is made specifically of regulations pertaining to the “pure *menorah*.”


###### Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 24:4:1
[Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 24:4:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Leviticus/r/24:4:1)

**יערוך את הנרות לפני ה'.**שלא יתקן בחוץ ויכניסם לפנים:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
יערוך את הנרות לפני ה' תמיד, “he shall arrange the lights before *Hashem,* continually. He must not arrange everything outside the Tabernacle and then carry the *menorah* into the Tabernacle.


###### Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 24:4:2
[Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 24:4:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Leviticus/r/24:4:2)

**תמיד.**אפי' בשבת ובטומאה. בפרשת ואתה תצוה לא כתוב בה תמיד לפי שלא הזכיר בה אלא לשון יחידי יערוך אותו דהיינו נר מערבי והוא לא היה דולק תמיד כי הי' כבה כשישראל היו חוטאים אבל כאן דכתיב יערוך את הנרות כתיב תמיד ששאר הנרות היו לעולם דולקין כמשפטם עד אור הבקר:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
תמיד, “continually.“ The word תמיד suggests that this procedure is applicable even on the Sabbath days when lighting fire is prohibited outside the Temple, or when all the priests are in a state of ritual impurity. In *Parshat Tetzaveh, (*Exodus 27,20-21) no mention is made of the word תמיד seeing that the whole procedure there was addressed only to a single individual, i.e. יערוך אותו, “he is to arrange it,” meaning the subject was only the light in the center of the seven shafts, arms, of the *menorah.* This light did not burn continually, as it went out when the Israelites had become collectively guilty of sins. In our verse the instructions include all the lights of the *menorah*, and even though the נר המערבי the light in the center, may have been out, the other lights did not manifest such displeasure by G’d by going out when they would not be expected to do so. They always burned through the entire night.


###### Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 24:9:1
[Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 24:9:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Leviticus/r/24:9:1)

**והיתה לאהרן ולבניו.**פירש"י והיתה קאי על המנחה. והרמב"ן כתב ויתכן כי והיתה חוזר על כל אחת מן המערכות:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
והיתה לאהרן ולבניו “It shall belong to Aaron and his sons.” *Rashi* explains that the word והיתה refers to the bread of the *minchah* offering discussed in verses 5-8. According to Nachmanides the word may include all the other presentations on the altar also. [Even though the word is in the feminine mode and לחם, bread is in the masculine mode. Ed.]


###### Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 24:10:1
[Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 24:10:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Leviticus/r/24:10:1)

**ויצא בן אשה ישראלית.**כתב זה כאן לדעת האומר מפרשה של מעלה יצא שחטא בשפתיו על (אשה) ה' והוכיחו איש מישראל וינצו שניהם ויחר אפו ויקלל. ופי' ויצא פי' הרמב"ן שיצא ממקומו שהיה שם או מאהלו ובא בתוך העם וינצו שם. ופי' במחנה כי היה המסיבה במחנה ושמעו אותו רבים ותפשו בו ויביאו אותו אל משה האהלה. ופי' בן הישראלי' ואיש הישראלי להורות כי גוי הבא על בת ישראל הוולד כשר ומכל מקום פגום הוא לכהונה כ"ש שאינו ישראלי בשמו לענין היחס בדגלים ובנחלת הארץ כי לשמות מטות אבותם ינחלו. ומה שדורש בת"כ מלמד שנתגייר לא היה צריך לגירות אלא כמו כל ישראל שנכנסו לברית במילה וטבילה והרצאת דמים אלא נתכוונו לומר שהלך אחר אמו ונראה כישראל וזהו בתוך בני ישראל שהיה עמהם ולא רצה ללכת אחר אביו להיות במצרים:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
ויצא בן אישה הישראלית, “The son of an Israelite woman went out, etc.” The fact that this paragraph has been inserted at this point, prompted the opinion that this individual blasphemed concerning the commandment of the showbreads, which in his opinion was an inappropriate offering, i.e. offering stale bread before G’d, by leaving it on the table for an entire week. Upon blaspheming, sinning with his mouth, he was called to order by another Israelite, as a result of which an argument ensued when this individual cursed the name of G’d.
 Nachmanides justifies the somewhat obscure introductory word ויצא, “he went out,” here by explaining that this individual “stepped out of line,” by saying what he did. Alternatively, the meaning is that prior to saying what he said he had stepped outside his tent, [presumably in order that his comments would become common knowledge. Ed.] In other words, the resulting argument took place where everybody witnessed it. We need to explain the additional word במחנה, “in the camp,” then as meaning that many people heard it and seized him bringing him to Moses’ tent to be dealt with there.
 The meaning of the words בן הישראלית, “son of an Israelite woman,” and איש הישראלי, “and the son of an Israelite (male),” teach that when a Gentile sleeps with an Israelite woman and this results in the birth of a child, such a child is considered a member of the Jewish people, i.e. when he grows up he is איש ישראלי, “a Jewish man.” The emphasis on the word ישראלי suggests that though he is Jewish, he is not fit for the priesthood, for instance, neither is he a member of any of the tribes of the Jewish people of whom the army was made up of. As a result, he would not share in the distribution of the land of Israel to the various tribes, and he would not have a claim on any of that land by reason of his having a Jewish mother.
 When the *Torat Kohanim* writes that the meaning of the words בתוך בני ישראל is that this man had undergone conversion to Judaism, this is not to be taken at face value, as he did not need to convert to Judaism, seeing that he had a Jewish mother; the meaning is that this man had undergone the same rules of conversion that every Israelite had undergone prior to the eating of the Passover, i.e. circumcision, ritual immersion, and loss of the requisite minimum amount of blood during circumcision. In other words, outwardly he appeared to all to be a fully-fledged Jew. He had made it plain that he preferred the Jewish people and did not consider himself as a member of his father’s people or religion.


###### Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 24:23:1
[Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 24:23:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Leviticus/r/24:23:1)

**ובני ישראל עשו כאשר צוה ה' את משה.**כתב הרמב"ן דורש בת"כ כאשר צוה אף לסמיכה ולדחייה ולתלייה וללא תלין. ור' אברהם כתב שעשו מאותו היום והלאה כמשפט הזה. ואינו נכון שיהא הכתוב על העתיד. ופשוטו וירגמו אותו אבן כי עשו בני ישראל כאשר צוה ה' את משה כי כן דרך לכפול בכל השומרים מצות השם כמו שכתוב בפרשת פסח ובפרשת הפקודים ויעשו בני ישראל ככל אשר צוה ה' את משה כן עשו. והנכון בעיני מפני שפרט תחלה בסקילה ואחרי כן חזר לומר ובני ישראל עשו שפירש הכתוב לומר כי כאשר דבר משה אל בני ישראל הוציאו מיד המקלל ורגמו אותו ועשו כן כל בני ישראל לשמור ולעשות כאשר צוה ה' את משה לא לשנאת בן המצרי שנצה עם הישראלי אלא לבער הפגום מתוכם:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
ובני ישראל עשו כאשר צוה ה' את משה, “and the Children of Israel did as G’d had commanded to Moses.”
 Nachmanides draws attention to a statement in *Torat Kohanim,* according to which the words “as G’d had commanded Moses,” included the requirement that all those who had heard the blasphemer were required to place their hands and weight, סמיכה, upon him prior to his being stoned, as well as the requirement to push him down from an elevated wall into a pit, and to hang him subsequent to his death until the evening after his execution.
 Ibn Ezra states that the procedures mentioned in *Torat Kohanim* became effective from that day onwards for all people who were executed at the command of the courts. Nachmanides disagrees with Ibn Ezra on this, claiming that if so, the legislation to do so would have had to be phrased in the future tense. The plain meaning of our verse is that the Israelites carried out the instructions G’d had given to Moses. There is nothing strange in the Torah describing this execution in more than the minimal number of words, as we have many instances of the Torah doing so, as for instance in connection with the Passover, (Exodus 12,28) or with the census of the Jewish people (Numbers 1,54).
 Personally, (Nachmanides writing) I feel that the reason for the above being apparently repeated is that the instruction was given to Moses individually. When the Torah reports that all the people participated in this execution “as G’d had commanded Moses,” the point the Torah made is that the people did not feel any personal animosity towards this man who had an Egyptian father, but that their participation in the execution was motivated purely by the fact that G’d had commanded Moses that this was what was to be done. They wanted to participate in removing stains on their collective national character by doing so.


###### Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 24:47:1
[Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 24:47:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Leviticus/r/24:47:1)

**משפחת גר.**פירש"י זה הגוי כשהוא אומר לעקר זה הנמכר לע"ז עצמה. וכתב הרמב"ן וא"כ פי' הפסוק או לעקר ומשפח' גר וקורא ע"ז עקר לפי שחייבין לשרש אחריה ולעוקר'. ואנקלוס תרגם לארמאי והוא הנכון ופי' עקר לשון שורש פי' שנאחז ונשרש בישראל. ואמר משפחת גר שהגר ותושב שהשיגה ידו עמנו הוא גרם למה שמך עמו שימכר לעקר משפחתו וצוה הכתוב שתהיה לו גאולה והיא מצות עשה לכל ישראל שיגאול אותו ואחר כך צוה בקרובים שהם קודמים. וטעם המצוה ברור כדי שלא ילמד ממעשיהם כי בשאר הנמכרים הגאולה בקרובים רשות. ולכך אמר כאן כי לי בני ישראל עבדים עבדי הם לומר אע"פ שאין הגר תושב והעקר חייבין במצות היובל לא יקנו את עבדי להם לעבדים:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
משפחת גר, “the family of a total stranger.” According to *Rashi* the Torah refers to a real idolator (non Jew), the word עקר meaning the idolatrous cult itself. The reason why the Torah uses the term עקר, “something to be uprooted, eradicated,” is that the Torah had charged us with eradicating all kinds of symbols and cults in our land. (Nachmanides)
 Onkelos translates the word עקר as an Aramaic word, a correct interpretation, the word literally meaning “root.” The Torah in using this term here criticizes a community in which such cults had been tolerated and had taken root. The reason why the word משפחת, “family of,” had been added is to remind is that tolerating such aliens and allowing them to prosper in our land is the reason why some of our own people have fallen on hard times and are now facing the ultimate degradation of being sold into slavery to families of strangers in their own land. The Torah is adamant that such Jews must be redeemed, and that the cost of their redemption must be paid for by Jewish family members, who had allowed their own flesh and blood to be so demeaned. Although this duty falls upon the immediate family of the person so sold first, the entire Jewish community is called upon being the “redeemer” when the family of the party concerned is either unable or unwilling to perform its duty. In order to make this point crystal clear, the duty of the Jewish community at large is mentioned before the next of kin of the victim of such a sale. The principal reason of the legislation is to prevent a situation from arising in which the victim will prefer the religion of his new masters who may by then have shown him more compassion than his own people. When a Jew has been sold into service to a fellow Jew, the redemption by members of his family prior to the *sh’mittah* year is something of a voluntary nature, as there is no fear that he will become estranged to his people and to his religion. In the situation discussed here it is an absolute duty. Jews are to be servants (in a contractual relationship) only of their Creator, not servants of servants.