And Moshe said to Aharon, “This is just what YHWH spoke, saying, ‘Through those close to Me shall I be hallowed and in all the people’s presence shall I be honoured.’” Rabbi Benamozegh uses this verse to analyse the relationship between the Written Torah and the Oral Law. He starts by noting an apparent discrepancy in our verse: it states, “this is what YHWH meant by saying”, but there is no record in the Torah of God saying these words to Moshe. Rabbi Benamozegh argues that this implies not everything God told Moshe was written down in the Torah - many commands and teachings were given orally. Rabbi Benamozegh engages in a detailed critique of 19th century Italian scholar Shadal, who tried to reconcile this discrepancy by comparing this verse to a narrative involving Laban, Bethuel, and Eliezer in Sefer Bereshit. This narrative, found in Bereshit 24, describes Eliezer’s journey to find a wife for Yiṣḥaq, where he encounters Ribka and witnesses events that he interprets as Divine signs. Shadal suggests that the phrase “this is what YHWH meant by saying” in our verse is akin to the Divine intervention in Eliezer’s story, where Laban and Bethuel recognise God’s hand in the events, even though His involvement in that story is not explicitly written. Rabbi Benamozegh identifies two key errors in this comparison. First, he argues that Shadal’s interpretation is unnecessary because the Divine guidance in Eliezer’s encounter with Ribka is already clear and direct in the narrative, without the need for further allegorical interpretation. Second, he challenges the application of this interpretation to our verse, where the phrase “this is what YHWH meant by saying” appears to indicate a direct, explicit command from God that was previously stated. In contrast, the guidance in Eliezer’s story is indirect, revealed through events rather than explicit Divine speech. He then delves into the analysis of the plague of locusts in Sefer Shemot. In this narrative, the command of the plague is not explicitly detailed in the text. The 12th century French commentator Rabbi Yosef Bekhor Shor suggests that this omission of an explicit command from God is intentional, aimed at brevity, and that this is the same as our verse here. However, Rabbi Benamozegh strongly rejects this take too. He argues, granted the command for the plague of locusts need not be included, but why would such a statement as the one in our verse be left out simply to be concise? He considers the deaths of those closest to the service of God to be too essential a statement of God to be left out simply for the sake of brevity. Rabbi Benamozegh also asserts that given the explicit mention of Divine speech in the text (“this is what YHWH meant by saying”), it is more reasonable to assume that God did indeed speak those words to Moshe, even if those words were not recorded in the Torah.

Rabbi Benamozegh then discusses the meaning of the end of the verse, that “Through those close to me I shall be hallowed.” He notes that the 11th century French commentator Rashi links these words to those in Shemot 29, where God says, “I shall be hallowed by my glory”, and that this is an example of the interconnectedness of the books of the Torah. Lastly, Rabbi Benamozegh addresses the absence of detailed instructions for certain ritual practices, specifically the ritual sprinklings. He notes that Rashi observes this absence in his own commentary, implying that not every Divine command was explicitly written in the Torah. For if the command was not given at all, then the Israelites of the time would have challenged Moshe for the source of these ritual practises, in much the same way as contemporary deniers of the Oral Law challenge it and accuse the rabbis of fabricating it. Rabbi Benamozegh observes that Moshe received both the Written and Oral Laws, and while the Written Law was recorded, the Oral Law was not, and we cannot expect Moshe to live through each generation reassuring them that this tradition is authentic too, just as the tradition of the Written Law.

And Moshe said to Aharon and to Eleazar and to Itamar his sons, “Your heads you shall not dishevel nor your garments rend, lest you die and the fury come upon the whole community... Rabbi Benamozegh presents a multifaceted exploration of this verse based on historical context, particularly in relation to Egyptian traditions. Our verse states, “your heads you shall not dishevel”, which Rabbi Benamozegh believes is further expanded in Yeḥezkel 44:20 as “They shall not shave their heads nor let their hair go untrimmed; they shall keep their hair trimmed.” He notes that the Sages interpret “trim” (כסם) in a specific way, where the hair is kept short enough that the top of each hair borders on the root of the next hair, but is not shaved completely. This haircut is attributed to Ben Elạsa, who is related by the Talmud to have spent a large amount of money to have his hair cut this way, in order to show what the haircut of the Kohen Gadol looked like. This interpretation is supported by historical references to Egyptian priests who were described similarly. These priests had very short hair, cut in a circle that went round the back of the head, a detail documented in Book II of 17th century archaeologist and monk Bernard de Montfaucon’s ‘L’antiquité expliquée et représentée en figures,’ cited in the work of Masonic writer Reghellini de Scio. Rabbi Benamozegh insists that the similarities between Israelite and Egyptian customs do not imply mere imitation. Instead, it suggests that the Egyptians, more than other nations, preserved significant elements of appropriate ideas and practices. This assertion is reinforced by elements of Kabbalistic teachings, which did not recognise the potential benefits and dangers inherent in this as a general principle. A clear example of this principle is seen in the comparison of ancient laws between Israel and Egypt. Esteemed Roman historians like Tacitus and Suetonius observed the similarities in beliefs between Israelites and Egyptians, concluding that these beliefs were, in Rabbi Benamozegh’s words, “stamped with one seal”. However, Rabbi Benamozegh emphasises that Moshe’s approach to Egyptian beliefs and customs was not to simply imitate them, but only to do those practices which were correct, as evidenced in God’s warning in Vayiqra 18:3, “Like the practice of the land of Egypt in which you dwelt, you shall not do...” Rabbi Benamozegh moves on to carefully contrast the paths taken by Israel and Greece, two nations who had been influenced by Egyptian culture. While Israel is described as having ascended, surpassing their Egyptian predecessors, the Greeks, despite deriving their beliefs and customs from the same source, are depicted as having descended, falling below even the Egyptians in terms of spiritual and cultural development.

Additionally, Rabbi Benamozegh touches on how Egypt is perceived in Kabbalistic thought. To the Kabbalists, Egypt is considered second to Israel in holiness and is referred to as the ‘secondary chariot’ (after the Torah’s description of the chariot in which Yosef rode). Rabbi Benamozegh notes that this Kabbalistic notion parallels early Christian scholarship, where 2nd century scholars like Origen engaged in ranking ancient Gentile greats according to their closeness or distance from Israel.

Wine and strong drink you shall not drink, you and your sons with you, when you come into the Tent of Meeting, lest you die – a perpetual state for your generations... Rabbi Benamozegh offers a detailed interpretation of the Torah’s injunction against the consumption of wine and strong drink. This passage is understood by Ḥazal to encompass all intoxicating substances, a viewpoint also recognised by 4th century Christian scholar, Jerome. In his writings, Jerome acknowledges the Talmudic interpretation, noting that the Hebrew word שכר refers to any drink that can intoxicate. Rabbi Benamozegh expands this discussion by citing examples from non-Israelite ancient societies that similarly prohibited the use of intoxicating substances. A notable instance is the Carthaginian law (c. 400 BCE), which forbade the introduction of wine and any intoxicating substance into military camps. This prohibition extended beyond the military context, as it also applied to various segments of Carthaginian society. The law restricted the consumption of wine even by slaves and maidservants, let alone city leaders, including seniors and city officials, throughout their term of service. Moreover, specific regulations governed the behaviour of city leaders and judges, barring them from drinking wine while sitting in judgement. Additionally, when their Senate convened to discuss serious matters or religious decrees, it was stipulated that none of the participants could consume wine on that day. Rabbi Benamozegh notes that these accounts are referenced in the works of 3rd century Greek historian, Eusebius of Caesarea.