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!

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.

ואמרת 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.

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 ואמרת, 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 מצוה, 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 invitation 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 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.

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.]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 Ibn Ezra someone erred by writing that the Sabbath is different from all other days in that the day precedes the night. Rabbi Ibn Ezra 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 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.

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 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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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 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.

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."

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.

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 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).

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.