And a woman with her sister you shall not take to become rivals, to lay bare her nakedness while her sister is still alive. Rabbi Benamozegh offers a critical examination and refutation of an interpretation presented by the 17th century French theologian Pierre Jurieu, particularly concerning the Sadducees’ stance on polygamy. Jurieu suggests that the Sadducees interpreted our verse to mean a prohibition against marrying two women at the same time. Jurieu draws an analogy from a different Torah verse found in Shemot 26:3, which discusses the coupling of curtains in the Tabernacle, using the phrase “one with another”, which in Hebrew translates literally to ‘a woman to her sister’. In this context, “one with another” is understood to mean connecting one distinct curtain with another distinct curtain. Jurieu extrapolates this understanding to the verse “a woman with her sister”, interpreting it to mean that just as the curtains are distinct and separate entities joined together, so too the phrase implies a prohibition against marrying one distinct woman while still married to another. In other words, he suggests that the Sadducees read this verse as an implicit prohibition of polygamy. Rabbi Benamozegh challenges this view, arguing that such an interpretation is fundamentally flawed. He questions the logic behind understanding “with her sister” as referring to every woman. If this were the case, he argues, then how is the prohibition of marrying a woman and her sister derived? Furthermore, he raises the question of why the Torah explicitly prohibits a man from “the nakedness of a woman and her daughter you shall not lay bare” in the preceding verse (18:17) if all women are implied in the prohibition. Delving deeper, Rabbi Benamozegh addresses the specific language used in the two verses in question. He notes the difference in the wording of the prohibition in 18:18, which focuses on “you shall not take to become rivals” rather than the wording in 18:17, which focuses on not laying bare “the nakedness of a woman and her daughter”. From this, perhaps Jurieu also inferred a general prohibition against polygamy. However, Rabbi Benamozegh argues that this specific phrasing is used because the prohibition differs from other forbidden relations. He explains that unlike other relations where marriage is never permitted, a man may indeed marry his wife’s sister after his wife’s death. Therefore, the Torah uses the language of “taking to become rivals” to indicate that it is only forbidden to marry the sister during the wife’s lifetime, not after her death. Rabbi Benamozegh concludes by dismissing the opinion of the Sadducees as presented by Jurieu, thereby nullifying the argument against polygamy.

And the land became defiled, and I made a reckoning with it for its iniquity, and the land spewed out its inhabitants. Rabbi Benamozegh delves into the nuanced use of allegorical language in the Torah. He begins by addressing the phrase “and the land became defiled” interpreting it in a manner that unveils the nature of sin and its consequences. He challenges the notion of simplifying complex Torah verses such as this by labelling them as allegories, as Shadal does here. After all, how can a land be “defiled”? He argues that this approach to allegorise everything can be reductive, potentially leading to a dismissal of the deeper search for truth. This perspective is crucial in understanding the distinction between different books in the Jewish canon. For example, he contrasts the usage of allegory in the Torah with its prevalence in the Prophetic books (Nebi’im and Ketubim). In the Five Books of Moshe (Torah), allegorical expressions are sparingly used. To support this, Rabbi Benamozegh refers to Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra’s responses to the Karaites who regarded tefillin as a mere allegory, and not a physical ritual. There, Ibn Ezra emphasises that Moshe’s teachings in the Torah do not follow the same pattern of parables and allegories found in Mishle, attributed to King Solomon. Rabbi Benamozegh notes that Moshe’s language frequently adopts the kind of terminology seen in our verse when discussing the sin of the land and its atonement. He cites Bemidbar 35:33, a verse that suggests the land can only be purified of bloodshed through the blood of the perpetrator. The verse conveys the idea that the sin of murder defiles the land, and the only way to atone for this sin is through the punishment of the murderer. Thus, he asks: If these are indeed simply allegorical, as Shadal alleges, why does Moshe resort to this allegorical style only in this specific context? Instead, Rabbi Benamozegh proposes that Moshe’s choice of words in these instances aligns with the opinion of the sages of Kabbalah. According to them, sin has a pervasive effect on all aspects of reality, with a particularly profound impact on the land in which those who commit the sins dwell. This effect is even more significant in the Land of Israel, viewed as the Divine abode, a chosen dwelling place, and the foundational stone from which the world originated. Therefore, Moshe’s choice of phrasing in these contexts, such as ‘defilement’ of the land, underscores the gravity and spiritual reality of sin’s impact, especially in a significant land like Israel.