ואמרת אליהם אני ה' אלו-היכם, “and say to them: ‘I am the Lord your G’d.’” According to Nachmanides the plain meaning here is that the words ואמרת אליהם mean: “say to them in My name.”

A Midrashic approach (Sifra Acharey 13,1-3): “the words אני ה' אלו-היכם mean: “I am the Lord your G’d who has told you when you stood at Mount Sinai: ‘I am the Lord your G’d.’ At that time you accepted Me as G’d and all the authority which this implies. Now I am asking you to accept My decrees.” Rabbi Yehudah Hanassi said that it was quite clear to G’d that many years later (in the era of Ezra) the Israelites would have an urge to contravene this legislation totally and to intermarry with all kinds of partners forbidden to them under Torah law. This is why G’d introduced this legislation now as a Divine decree. By repeating His status as the Jewish people’s G’d and lawgiver, the Torah implies that just as G’d pays a reward to those who honour G’d’s laws, He will exact retribution from those who willfully flout this legislation.

A kabbalistic approach: There is not a single word missing here. The Torah informs us that the attribute י-ה-ו-ה, i.e. the tetragrammaton, known to the Israelites as their G’d refers to Himself as “אני” on occasion. Examples of this are found in Exodus 25,9 as well as in Exodus 16,26.

אשר יעשה אותם האדם וחי בהם, “which man shall carry out and live by them.” These words refer to the משפטים, social laws, mentioned in this chapter. It is these laws which ensure that man can function in a civilised manner and maintain his position on earth as the dominant species. We have confirmation of this concept in Proverbs 29,4 where Solomon writes: “a king sustains the land by (social) justice.”

A pertinent comment on the words וחי בהם “so that he may live by them,” is made in Yuma 85 where these words are interpreted as: “so that he will not die by them.” This is the origin of the ruling that the Torah’s laws are voided (at least temporarily) when performing any particular one of them clearly leads to the death of the person about to perform them. (compare Maimonides Hilchot Yesodey HaTorah 5,1-3). There are only three commandments violation of which is prohibited even if one has to give up one’s life in order not to violate them. They are: idolatry, immoral sexual relations such as incest, and murder. In all other instances the simple rule is to rather violate the commandment than be killed on account of observing it. However, this rule of violating the commandment rather than be killed on account of it applies only if the threat of death is in private. When one is required to violate a commandment of the Torah in public or be killed one must not violate the commandment in question however trivial a commandment it may appear to be and thereby desecrate the Holy Name of the Lord. This is quite clear from the Talmud Sanhedrin 74.

A Midrashic approach (Sifra Acharey 9,10): the words וחי בהם, “so that he may live by them,” refer to eternal life in the hereafter. This is also the view of Onkelos who translates these words as: וייחי בהון חיי עלמא, “so that he will live an eternal life.” The different kinds (categories) of life available for body and soul respectively as a result of the performance of the Torah’s commandments are four in all. The word וחי promises the observant Jew participation in all these four kinds of life. The first type of life granted to those who keep the commandments is the quality of life in store for people who keep the commandments primarily for the reward promised. This type of מצוה-observance is known as “walking on the left,” seeing that the party concerned wants to take advantage of what is written in Proverbs 3,16 that the observance of Torah precepts if intended to result in long life is considered as “walking on the right,” whereas if it is intended to secure for the person performing them material wealth it is considered as “walking on the left.” The second category of מצוה-observance is that by people who intend to secure eternal life for themselves in the hereafter. Even though such people do not perform the commandments for their intrinsic value, i.e. לשמה, the souls of such people do have their wish granted. Concerning the two types of motivations underlying the מצוה-performance just mentioned, the prophet (Isaiah 57,15) has said that fulfillment of the commandments results in G’d “reviving the spirits of the lowly and reviving the heart of the contrite.” The third type of motivation for performing the command-ments of the Torah is that by doing so one wants to express one’s feelings of love for the lawgiver, for the Lord, and one is not concerned at all with any benefit that will accrue to him in this world as a result of doing this. Such people will enjoy both long and happy lives in this world as well as their proper share in the hereafter. Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov are models of people who served the Lord out of love and not out of the desire to secure advantages for themselves by doing so. They translated their love for G’d into the way they performed the menial chores of life on earth, be it tending sheep and cattle, engaging in agriculture, or whatever. The fourth category of person observing G’d’s commandments is a person who, in observing G’d’s commandments, does it in such a manner that he thereby negates the physical aspects of life on earth, concentrating all the while only on the transcendental values of life, on the celestial regions. Such people are suitably rewarded in that death has no control over them at all. They return to G’d with their bodies intact as did Chanoch and the prophet Elijah (Compare Nachmanides on the subject, page 100 of his commentary Chavell edition).

There are yet another four types of “life” man may merit as a result of מצוה-performance: One is regular life on earth such as the majority of people enjoy who experience no special disabilities in their lives on earth and are in good health. The second category of life on earth is that of people who have recovered from usually terminal sicknesses and near-fatal accidents. Such lives may be compared to vessels which have been reconstructed after having reached what could be considered as the end of their useful existence. We find a description of something like this in Job 33,25: “let his flesh be healthier than in his youth; let him return to his younger days.” The third kind of life is that granted by G’d to the sinner who was slated for death but has repented with the result that G’d grants him an extension of life. This is what the prophet Ezekiel 33,11 speaks of when he said: ”it is not My desire that the wicked shall die but that he turn back from his evil ways and live!” The fourth category of life is life after the resurrection. All of these four categories of life are part of the Torah’s promise וחי בהם that he who observes the commandments of the Torah may qualify for some or all of these lives.

איש איש אל כל שאר בשרו לא תקרבו, “any man shall not approach his close relative (with a view to sexual relations).” This verse expresses the Torah’s prohibition of incest. According to Nachmanides the following verses describe the type of relations-through blood or through marriage- which are included in this prohibition. The biological reason for this prohibition is presumed to be that children born from such incestuous unions have a limited life expectancy and are generally genetically deficient in some way. Seeing that the whole purpose of sexual relations is the creation of healthy children, cohabitation with the various categories of family members mentioned in this chapter is forbidden. This is the meaning of the words (chapter 20,19) כי את שארו הערה, “for he has revealed his blood-relationship,” i.e. the prohibition is due to the deficiencies in such blood-relationship. Concerning the prohibition to have sexual intercourse with a woman while she is experiencing her monthly cycle, this proves further that prohibitions of marital relations are rooted in considerations of health, the chance of a viable fetus being produced from such sexual unions. Seeing that the fetus is formed out of the blood of the woman either in the main or completely, reproduction of the human species from menstrual blood is scientifically not possible; the fetus would not even be started if cohabitation occurred during that period. What would Nachmanides have to say in respect of Deut. 23,2 where the Torah permits [by implication, Ed.] the person who suffers from crushed testicles, i.e. is unable to sire children, to marry a female convert or a female Gentile slave who has been freed by her master (and has converted)? Surely if the dominating reason of the עריות legislation were rooted in biological considerations these people should not be permitted to cohabit with a Jewess, even one who was not a natural born Jewess! This proves that sexual intercourse not designed to produce Jewish offspring is not necessarily forbidden. I will explain this in context when we come to the relevant verses (Deut. 23,2).

The ראב"ד in his book בעלי הנפש chapter שער הקדושה, writes that sexual intercourse may be divided into five categories. Category one is a duty designed to ensure the survival of the human species. Category two is obligatory on the husband in order for him to fulfill his duty vis-a-vis his wife; this duty is called עונה in Exodus 21,10. Category three is when it serves therapeutic functions, is recommended for one’s health. Category four is when it serves to release carnal urges which preoccupy one’s thinking and may lead to sex with forbidden partners unless given an outlet. Category five, a forbidden category, is to indulge one’s lust as do the animals.

Maimonides in the third part of his Moreh Nevuchim, chapter 49 writes that the reason for the עריות legislation is to reduce the frequency men indulge in cohabitation, to train people to accept that the sex act per se is considered revolting and that when it comes to the Torah’s prohibiting man’s pairing with the females of the species mentioned in our chapter, the common denominator found here is that the women in question are constantly part of his immediate environment and therefore represent a temptation due to their easy availability. Seeing that man is surrounded by such temptation, the Torah decreed harsh penalties against the violation of this legislation. Ibn Ezra in verse 6 cites similar reasons as governing this legislation.

Nachmanides considers that this is a very inadequate reason for such legislation, and that to impose the karet penalty on a transgression merely because these women are close at hand is neither logical nor psychologically sound. Why should the Torah prohibit these relatives because they are close at hand, while permitting one to marry multiple women who are not his relatives? Why should one not be allowed to marry his daughter alone (as is permitted for a gentile), or marry two sisters as Yaakov did? One could not find a more suitable marriage partner for his older son than one of his own daughters, the sister of his son, and bequeath them his inheritance and have them populate in his own home, being that G’d did not create the earth for it to remain a wasteland (Isaiah 45,18). The fact remains that we have no valid tradition concerning the true reasons for this legislation and the choice of which relationships are objectionable. [For instance — why an uncle may marry a niece whereas an aunt may not marry a nephew (even if the nephew happens to be older than the aunt). Ed.]

I will explain the reason for the legislation on my own account. (Rabbi Chavell traces this explanation to a well known Kabbalist, Rabbi Ezriel, quoted in the Sefer Hamitzvot of Rabbi Recanati). Relationships, i.e. kinship, are divided into three categories: The first category comprises kinship between people who had never been separated. The second category comprises new kinship between people between whom there never had been any genetic relationship before. The third category of kinship is that between people who are related by blood but have been separated at one stage or other in life. An example of the first category is Adam and his family; all of his descendants were allowed to intermarry freely, their union being considered like branches which unite with their common root. This is how we must understand the saying of our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 22,3) that when Adam and Chavah had their first marital union they joined on a bed and when they got off the bed there were seven human beings; Kayin and his female twin, Hevel and two female twins. The number seven symbolises the ”union” just as the Menorah (candlestick in the Tabernacle) had seven arms, all of them being part of the central shaft. Our sages say further that from a legal point of view Adam could have married his own daughter, however he performed an act of kindness toward his son Kayin giving him his daughter as a wife. This is the meaning of Psalms 89,3: “the world is built on loving kindness” (compare Sanhedrin 55). This kind of kinship where all the parties concerned had never been separated was not subject to the present legislation. Just as Adam and his wife were made of the same flesh, so their children were the product of genetically the very same material as their parents. No other genetic material was part of any of these children. The second category of human relationships is the exact opposite of the first. Two people who are of genetically totally different background are permitted to join together in marriage precisely because they are not related to one another. Such a union is comparable to the branch of a tree which had been totally cut off and is being planted in the earth again to produce a new root. Thirdly, the kinspeople who are too closely related to one another have been forbidden as potential marriage partners because they had at one time become separated. This is the group of people for whom this legislation has been written. Seeing these people were united generations back but had grown apart in the interval they cannot serve as a symbol of unity, something that marriage, building a family is all about. To sum up: the rule is that people who are genetically distant from one another may unite in marriage in order to demonstrate that genetic distance from one another is no barrier to union, on the contrary the concept of unifying, creating a bond resulting in a union is best demonstrated by such people. People who are genetically very close must not enter marital unions (or sexual unions) because up until then they were symbols of the reverse of union, of separation. Seeing that the kinsmen and kinswomen were not the product of the kind of genetically unified unions such as Adam and Chavah, they do not display signs of such genetic uniformity.

Seeing that branches should unite with their roots (if they did not remain united by not being lopped off), the Torah encourages marriage between such “stray, isolated” branches. The same is true of a solitary trunk. A trunk’s genetic excellence can be demonstrated only by means of its branches. If these branches had been cut off and scattered this is equivalent to the trunk (root) having lost its yichus, genealogical excellence. We may view people who violate the laws pertaining to עריות, forbidden sexual unions, as destroying the concept of creating unity. This is also the reason why the tetragrammaton, the name of G’d emphasizing His Unity, prefaced this legislation. This is why the words אני י-ה-ו-ה are appended at the end of verse two in our chapter. Our sages in Sanhedrin 57 interpreted the words איש איש in our verse as including members of the Gentile nations to whom such legislation (in part) also applies. We find other instances where the expression איש איש is also used to alert us to the fact that the law in question applies also to the Gentiles. A prominent example is Leviticus 24,15 where the prohibition of cursing the name of G’d is legislated. This is also one of the seven Noachide laws. Similarly, worshipping the Moloch and sacrificing one’s children to that deity is forbidden to the Gentiles. This prohibition is also introduced with he words איש איש, (compare Leviticus 20,2).

ערות אביך וערות אמך לא תגלה, “the nakedness of your father and the nakedness of your mother you must not expose.” According to the plain meaning of the text, the verse speaks of a single negative commandment; the meaning is: “you must not reveal the nakedness of your mother for in so doing you would reveal the nakedness of your father.” Their nakedness is basically one. The same is true of verse 14 where the Torah writes “you must not expose the nakedness of your father’s brother; do not approach his wife she is your aunt.” Here too this is a prohibition aimed solely at the aunt as all the laws in this chapter are aimed at the females. The meaning is that in exposing the nakedness of your aunt you would be exposing your father’s brother’s nakedness.

A Midrashic approach based on Sanhedrin 54: we are dealing with two separate laws (negative) in this verse. The expression ערות אביך refers to “your father’s wife” (as opposed to his genitals being exposed). The words ערות אמך refer to “your mother who is not the wife of your father.” As to the word ערות אשת אביך in verse 8, this refers to this prohibition applying even after the death of the father when the woman is no longer your father’s wife. The words ערות אחותך בת אביך in verse 9 refer to a half-sister not born of the same mother or the daughter of your mother who does not share the same father with you. The words מולדת בית או מולדת חוץ in that verse refer to the fact that no distinction is made if she is born out of wedlock or as a child of a legal marriage; in either event she is forbidden to you being considered your sister. You have to respect her kinship to you though it may not be the result of a formalised relationship. As to the Torah repeating in verse 11 ערות בת אשת אביך מולדת אביך, this all belongs together with the line ערות אחותך בת אביך, “your sister who has not been born of the same mother as you.” The repetition simply means that violating this prohibition makes the party doing so guilty of having violated two separate commandments. Someone who has sexual intercourse with a half-sister from another mother becomes guilty of transgressing the injunction against relations with a sister as well as against the injunction not to expose the nakedness of one’s father’s wife’s legal daughter.

ערות בת בנך או בת בתך לא תגלה, “You must not expose the nakedness of your son’s daughter or you daughter’s daughter, etc.” Interestingly, the Torah failed to mention the prohibition of sexual relations with one’s daughter; the reason is that this may be arrived at by simple logic. If the Torah provides a harsh penalty for cohabiting with one’s granddaughter, the same is most certainly appropriate for a father who cohabits with his daughter. The absence of the direct prohibition of sleeping with one’s daughter is comparable to the direct prohibition of eating meat and milk. Seeing that the Torah forbade the boiling of meat in milk, (Exodus 23,19) it is clear that eating such a mixture is most certainly forbidden also. In connection with Exodus 23,19 I explained the reason why the Torah phrased that prohibition as applying to the boiling of the two items of food instead of simply forbidding the consumption of the two at the same time. Seeing that the Torah failed to mention “do not uncover the nakedness of your daughter,” our sages (Yevamot 3) concentrated on a different method of deriving this prohibition by insisting that there is a written link to this legislation in the Torah called גזרה שוה, the use of otherwise redundant words which contribute little to our understanding where they appear. The words in question are זמה,זמה and הנה,הנה respectively (verse 17 and chapter 20,14 ). [The sages were not happy with relying on logic, i.e. a קל וחומר, seeing that such a source for a prohibition, while adequate, cannot be used to determine that the prohibition carries such a harsh penalty as karet. Ed.]

ואשה אל אחותה לא תקח, “you must not marry a woman’s sister in addition to her.” The word לא תקח, normally applied to a legal union, i.e. marriage, in this instance means “do not sleep with her.” There are occasions when sexual union is described as ביאה whereas on other occasions it is described as שכיבה; on still other occasions it is referred to as ידיעה, whereas here it is phrased as קיחה. The reason that the Torah employs words other than קיחה to describe the same act is to ensure that we do not think that only a formal union such as by means of קידושין, a betrothal involving the bride receiving something of value has been forbidden whereas an informal union of two consenting parties is permitted. Seeing that a legal union with one’s wife’s sister while the former is alive is altogether impossible, the word לא תקח clearly does not describe what is impossible but what is possible, i.e. a sexual union without the benefit of marriage. Chapter 20,17 as well as chapter 20,14 where the Torah uses the word קיחה refers to sexual union without the benefit of a legal contract.

ואל אשת עמיתך לא תתן שכבתך לזרע, “You shall not lie carnally with your neighbour’s wife in a manner which will impregnate her.” According to Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra sexual union can have either one of three objectives. One objective is to produce offspring; the second reason is to use it therapeutically; to lower the body’s acidity, etc.; the third objective is to indulge one’s libido, i.e. to act like an animal. When the Torah here added the words: “in order to fertilize,” i.e. the most noble of the three objectives we have listed, it is to tell us that even when this is the objective the Torah absolutely forbids such an act.

Nachmanides writes that the reason that the Torah saw fit to add the words לזרע is that without this word we might have thought that even embracing and hugging someone’s wife results in the karet penalty. This conclusion would have been reasonable seeing that the whole chapter speaks of violations involving that penalty. Thus far Nachmanides.

In other words, the verse tells us that sleeping with someone else’s wife results in the karet penalty. Naturally, when there are witnesses to the act and the party or parties have been warned they are liable to execution as we know from Leviticus 20,10 where the Torah decrees death by execution for both the male and the female partner in such an act of adultery. Solomon already castigated participants in adultery when he wrote, inspired by Holy Spirit, in Proverbs 6,27-29: “Can a man take fire to his bosom without burning his clothes? Can one walk on hot coals and not sear one’s feet? So is he who sleeps with his neighbour’s wife; whoever touches her will not go unpunished.” The reason that Solomon used two parables to make the same point is to tell us that the guilty party will experience punishment after death by being consigned to purgatory whereas here on earth he will be executed for his sin. Furthermore, he may refer to a physical penalty for the man who touches his neighbour, i.e. a physical penalty, whereas he faces a penalty for his soul, i.e. being burned in purgatory. The body is compared to clothing, whereas the soul is compared to hot coals. Only the body is punished by being touched, the soul being “untouchable” in the physical sense. Solomon adds in verse 29 that such an adulterer will not go unpunished; he means that if the adultery had been consummated the guilty party will not escape punishment in purgatory. By the same token, his body will not go unpunished if he touched the woman. I have already explained earlier the mystical aspect of the union of wife and husband on Exodus 20,17, and will have further comments on this in connection with Numbers 5,17.

ומזרעך לא תתן להעביר למולך, “You shall not present any of your children to pass through for the Moloch;” There was a pagan cult called Moloch; part of the form of worship required was that the father make his son walk through two piles of wood set afire until he would be burned to death. The assumption underlying this cruel form of worship was that if he fire-god had been given one member of the family as a sacrifice the remaining members of that family would no longer be in any danger from that god. Not only that, but the surviving children would all grow up and be successful, aided by the power of that god. (Compare our comments on Genesis 12,3). The reason the letter ל at the beginning of the word למולך has the patach vowel indicating that this is an already familiar phenomenon (definitive article), is because the Israelites were familiar with that deity from their many years in Egypt. The reason it was known by the name מולך, similar to מלך, “king,” is that it was identical with a deity worshipped by the Ammonites, (compare Kings I 11,17) also known as מלכום. This deity also appears with the name “Adramelech or Anamelech the god of the Sefaryam” (Kings II 17,31). The word “adar” means “honour,” the word “An” means עונה in Hebrew, “affliction, suffering.” Each of these words has the word מלך appended to it. One single cult was known by so many different names. According to Rabbeinu Chananel each of these names represents a different cult as he explains in his commentary on Parshat Ki Tissa. He writes: there are many different forms of idolatrous cults. Some consist of making the idol have the likeness of a human being or at least the face of a human being. Other cults worship a symbol resembling the appearance of a cherub, angel-like figure. Still others worship a force symbolized by the image of certain domestic beasts, free-roaming animals or birds. This is what we read in Kings II 17,30-31: “The Babylonians made Sukoth-benoth, and the men of Cuth made Nirgal, and the men of Chamath made Ashima; and the Avvites made Nivchaz and Tartak; and the Sepharvides burned their children to Adramelech and Anamelech, the gods of the Sepharvaim.” All of these names are different gods. The expression Sukoth-benoth refers to a hen and her chicks; the name Nirgal refers to the male chicken, the rooster. The name Ashima describes a cat, whereas the name Nivchaz describes a dog. The name Tartak describes a donkey, Adramelech an ape, and Anamelech refers to the peacock.

I believe that these idols were named after certain stars (patterns resembling such animals). This would correspond to Amos 5,26: “Sikkuth and Kiyyun of your astral deity, the images you have made for yourselves.” The words Sikkuth and Kiyyun are both names of stars and are what Jeremiah 44,19 refers to when he said: “and when we make offerings to the Queen of Heaven and pour libations to her.” The people referred to the stars as “Queen of Heaven.” The expression “kiyyun tzalmeychem” in Amos 5,26 refers to Zachal, otherwise known as Shabbtai (Saturn). The word “kochav eloheychem” in the same verse refers to one of the seven fixed stars (planets) i.e. the sun. Thus far Rabbeinu Chananel. The concept underlying these cults was that each of these stars, (planets) has the power to pull down from Heaven certain positive and beneficial outpourings of the Creator’s largess. They called such a deity “kiyyun” on account of the type of food they prepared and served to the image representing the particular deity. [When you consider that the Torah directs that the Altar serves as the gateway to G’d and that the sacrifices presented there are described by G’d as לחם אלוהים “bread (food) for G’d,” the cult does not sound as childish as we are wont to think. The error committed by all the cult-worshippers is that the deities they serve are demonstrably unfree, bound to an orbit we can predict to a fraction of a second, i.e. obviously under a higher authority. Ed.] The word כונים in Jeremiah 44,19 describing the food presented to these deities is an Accadian word describing small cakes. Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra writes that the word נבחז should be spelled נבחן and is composed of the words נובח, “bellows,” and שן, “showing one’s teeth.”

When the Torah in our verse uses the expression להעביר למולך, instead of writing להעביר באש, “to make them pass through fire,” this is due to the fact that everyone at the time knew that the expression להעביר meant to “pass through fire.” There are numerous verses in the Bible confirming this, such as Deut. 18,10, Kings II 16,3; this is why the sages in Sanhedrin 64 had to tell us that the mother of King Chizkiyah had smeared him all over with the blood of a salamander to make him fire-resistant. We also have a verse in Ezekiel 23,37: “and they have even offered to them as food the children they bore to Me.” [Worship of the Lord and simultaneous worship of the Moloch was particularly repugnant to G’d. Ed.] However, the traditional view of our sages of the wording in our verse not mentioning fire specifically is based on their making the father culpable for this transgression already before the child gets to the fire, i.e. at the beginning of the procedure, the one called העברה by the Torah. As soon as even a single one of its limbs is burned the father is guilty of death (Sanhedrin 64). The reason that this verse is appended to one dealing with adultery, something apparently totally unrelated, may be that G’d displays jealousy of the Jewish people serving such cults and thereby being unfaithful to Him, just as a husband is angry when his wife is unfaithful to him. This thought is spelled out in connection with idolatry already in the second of the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20,5) “for I the Lord your G’d am a jealous G’d.”

ושמרתם אתם את חקותי, You shall observe My decrees, etc.” What is the need for the pronoun אתם in this verse, seeing it is already a suffix at the end of the word ושמרתם? It is meant to exclude idolaters (non Jews) from the restrictions of blood relations marrying each other. If a Gentile wants to adopt these laws as applying to himself (as part of his religion) this is not legally possible. Just as when the Torah said in Genesis that man has to toil for his livelihood in the sweat of his brow, not setting aside a Sabbath for the Noachides when such toil was forbidden and thereby releasing him from toiling on the Sabbath, (Sanhedrin 58), so Gentiles who point to the Bible as showing that these laws apply to them also are in error seeing the Torah emphasised this applicability to Jews only by the extra word אתם.

ולא תקיא הארץ אתכם, “so that the land will not vomit you, etc.” This verse belongs to the one following it reminding the Israelites that the former inhabitants had already been disgorged by this land. The Torah wishes to emphasize that the Israelites would not only be disgorged by the land if they failed to observe the laws of עריות, family purity, but they would be subject to the karet penalty in addition.

ונכרתו הנפשות העושות את התועבות האלה, “and the persons committing these (abominations) will be cut off from their people.” The karet penalty appears in the Torah in three different guises. There is a karet penalty which is applicable only to the body of the guilty party. There is also a karet penalty which applies only to the soul; finally, there is a karet penalty which applies both to the body and the soul of the sinner in question. A karet penalty applied to the body only is recognisable by premature death of the guilty person. If someone has led a generally righteous life but has become guilty of a single sin punishable by the karet penalty he is condemned to die prematurely, living maybe only half the number of years allotted to him when he was born. An example of such a karet penalty is the student (young scholar in the Torah Academy) who had touched his wife during the days she had to observe the ritual waiting period before immersing herself in a ritual bath after she had stopped bleeding from her monthly cycle (Shabbat 13). This is called כרת של שנים, a karet penalty resulting in the loss of years;[Seeing that the sin was committed inadvertently through ignorance and it is not recorded that merely touching one’s wife is subject to this terrible penalty even when committed knowingly, it is hard to understand that this should have been the only reason for the early demise of this young scholar. The scholar giving the widow this reason for her husband’s early death may have implied that G’d is especially strict with Torah scholars who ought to have been models of pious conduct. Ed.]. There is also another variation of the karet penalty being applied to the body only when the sin was committed late in the life of the guilty party so that the karet penalty through cutting off many years of the life of the person could no longer be applied. An example illustrating this type of the karet penalty is recorded in Moed Katan 28. We are told that when Rav Yoseph reached his 60th birthday he threw a party inviting all his colleagues the scholars. He celebrated the fact that he now had proof that up until that point in his life he had not been found guilty of the aforementioned karet penalty. He was, however, still subject to the karet penalty known as כרת של ימים, i.e. not living out his allotted time although he had reached what is considered “old age.” Rav Yoseph consoled himself with having definitely escaped the full impact of the karet penalty. Some scholars hold that the karet penalty described as כרת של ימים refers to sudden death, not being able to make preparations for one’s death. Seeing that there is some confusion concerning the matter and the application of כרת של שנים, early death, is easily recognisable whereas the כרת של ימים is not, our sages expressed the view that G’d gives notice of this. If an old man dies after only three days of sickness this is a sign that he did not die of old age (the time which had been allocated to him being up) but died of that penalty. This is what the Jerusalem Talmud Bikkurim 2,1 had in mind when the rhetorical question was asked: “if an old man had eaten forbidden fat or had deliberately violated basic laws of the Sabbath how do we know that he was punished by the karet penalty for his sin?” The answer given by the Talmud is that if he died one day after being taken sick this reflects some kind of anger of G’d at that person. If he died after two days of sickness this reflects death due to a different degree of anger of G’d known as behalah. If he died after three days of sickness this indicates that he was guilty of the karet penalty we described as כרת של ימים. When the Torah writes the words ונכרת האיש ההוא מקרב עמו, “this man will be cut off from the midst of his people,” the type of karet penalty which is meant is that which applies only to the body of the person in question, be it obvious premature death or fairly sudden death at an advanced age (after 60). The soul of such a person will merit immediate transfer to the hereafter in the world of the souls and his resurrection at the time when this will take place is assured. The karet penalty which applies to the soul only applies to people who have sinned by violating very severe laws such as eating chametz on Passover, or eating on the Day of Atonement, or performing forbidden kind of work on that day. If he violated the עריות legislation in our chapter knowingly he is also subject to the karet penalty involving his soul. If the sum total of his sins was greater that his accumulated merits this penalty of karet is applied to his soul after it has been separated from his body. As a result he forfeits his share in the hereafter of the world of the disembodied souls. Concerning who is subject to such a karet penalty the Torah uses the formula ונכרתו הנפשות העושות, ונכרתה הנפש ההיא מעמיה, ונכרתה הנפש ההיא לפני, והאבדתי את הנפש ההיא, (such as here, or Leviticus 7,20; Leviticus 22,30; Leviticus 14,4 according to Sifra Emor 14,4). Although the last mentioned formula appears to speak of loss of physical life, it is possible that the Torah means that such a person does not experience premature physical death but destruction of his soul. After all, we find that many people guilty of deliberately flouting the laws of the Day of Atonement live to a ripe old age. Kohelet 7,15 already pointed out that some wicked people enjoy long life of undisturbed peace and tranquillity on earth. Examples of karet manifest both in early death of the sinner and in loss of his hereafter apply to such sins as idolatry or sins equally serious such as blaspheming the name of the Lord (Numbers 15,30). People guilty of this will be removed from life on earth a well as from any life after death. Concerning which sins are subject to this harsh penalty the Torah writes הכרת תכרת הנפש ההיא עונה בה, “this person (soul) will most surely be cut off and will continue to bear its guilt” (Numbers 15,31). Our sages in Shevuot 13 stated that the word הכרת speaks of the destruction of the bodies of the guilty party whereas the word תכרת refers to destruction of his soul. We must understand the meaning of the word מעמיה, “from its people,” as applying to instances where only the karet of the soul is meant to mean that this soul after death will no longer be part of the Jewish souls who congregate together in the world of disembodied spirits awaiting the resurrection on earth. A soul subject to this penalty will be obliterated. In the words of Samuel II 14,4 לא ישא אלו-הים נפש, “Will not G’d forgive a soul and make plans so that the outcast can find his way back?” [The author uses the wording to show that unless G’d devises a plan to save that soul from oblivion it will indeed be consigned to eternal destruction. Ed.] This is an example of what is meant by the wording: ונכרתה הנפש ההיא מלפני, “this soul will be cut off from My presence” (Leviticus 22,3). What we have written on the subject of karet thus far is the opinion of Ibn Ezra. [Rabbi Chavell points out that our author ‘s interpretation of Ibn Ezra contradicts what the latter writes on Leviticus 24,30. Ed.]

According to our author Maimonides shares the opinion he has outlined so far as is evident from what he wrote in Hilchot Teshuvah chapter 8. I quote: “The reward in store for the righteous is a life in the world of the future, a life that does not know death. The retribution which is visited upon the wicked is that they will not participate in that life but will be cut off and die. Anyone who does not participate in that life dies and is obliterated just like an animal which dies. This is the karet of which the Torah said הכרת תכרת (Numbers 15,31). According to Shevuot 13 the word הכרת refers to death in this world, whereas the word תכרת refers to death of the souls of the people concerned. People who are subject to what is written in that verse will not experience any kind of life after death of their bodies.” Thus far Maimonides.

We must question that seeing that purgatory, גהנם, was created specifically for sinners who had not repented, why should the people mentioned by Maimonides wind up without being aware that they have been punished for their sins? If the perfectly righteous are entitled to everlasting reward, why are not the absolutely wicked people sentenced to everlasting punishment? If the soul is totally obliterated there is obviously no way for such a sinner to experience retribution for his sins! If we were to say that the institution of gehinom was created only for the people whose lifestyle was what is called בינונים, i.e. that their accumulated merits and debits were in balance at the time they had died, it would follow that the totally wicked are better off than the people who have many merits to their credit! This is something that our intelligence cannot tolerate as being fair. Furthermore, assuming this was really the judgment administered to the wicked, i.e. obliteration of body and soul without suffering, why did the rabbis of the Mishnah in Sanhedrin 90 not enumerate the sinners subject to the karet penalty as one of the groups which forfeits life in the hereafter? We must understand the words in that Mishnah: “these are the people who do not have a share in the hereafter,” as referring to an individual claim to a share in the hereafter over and above the share in the hereafter which every Jew has assigned to him (as a birthright) unless he forfeits it. The people mentioned in that Mishnah do not forfeit the various outpourings of tzedakah, loving kindness from G’d’s treasuries which are dispensed to people much as alms are distributed to the poor, not as compensation for services rendered but as a demonstration of G’d’s loving kindness for mankind. If someone does not have any money and depends on being invited for the Sabbath by a neighbour, he is considered as such a person who does not receive his livelihood from G’d in is own right but only through an intermediary. Similarly, if even the souls which descend to gehinom are understood to enjoy respite from their sufferings on Sabbaths and holidays (if only to bring home to these souls that they failed to appreciate the value of these days while they were on earth), these souls are in a situation similar to the poor man we have just described. Even the souls which will never be rehabilitated in gehinom are accorded this kind of respite on the days we just mentioned. As a result of such statements by our sages we must conclude that the concept of total obliteration of a purely spiritual soul is something that does not exist, in fact maybe inherently impossible due to the nature of such a soul. The correct interpretation of the words ונכרתה הנפש ההיא מעמיה, “this soul will be cut off from its people (Leviticus 7,20),” is that it is cut off permanently from the original place assigned to it, the place it had originated from in the “quarry” where all the souls emanate. Besides, how can we understand the karet penalty as involving the total destruction of a soul in light of the statement in the Talmud Rosh Hashanah 17 that these sinful souls are being judged in purgatory throughout the generations. Clearly the author of that statement refers to the continued existence of such souls, not their perdition. Such a continued existence would not make sense unless they had a future. Could there have been any group of people guilty of more fundamental sins than Korach and his co-conspirators who denied G’d and His prophet Moses, people who have been wiped out in this life and have not enjoyed the hereafter and yet they are suffering in gehinom, i.e. their souls continue to exist? In fact, they will be granted physical life at the time of the resurrection as we know from Sanhedrin 109 based on the verse Samuel I 2,6 מוריד שאול ויעל, “G’d who lowers to she-ol (gehinom) and raises up again.” The word מעמיה, “from its people,” means “from the other souls of its people.” Such a soul will remain separated from the people it has once belonged to. The very word ונכרתה, “to be cut off,” implies that the severing is one which is final, absolute. Just as a branch is lopped off the trunk which was its source of life, so this soul is severed from the people which used to sustain it by reason of its being part of it. In spite of all this the “solitary” soul will enjoy the radiance of the Shechinah in a place other than the one originally designated for it after it has completed its period of punishment. In other words, the word מעמיה limits the period of punishment, makes it less than absolute and eternal. The above is an opinion quoted by Nachmanides [According to Rabbi Chavell, seeing that the writings of Nachmanides on our verse do not bear this out at all. Ed.]. Similarly, when the Torah speaks of “this soul will be cut off from My presence,” the reference is to the site where G’d’s Shechina usually resides. This would refer to the land of Israel, as that country is the gateway to heaven, the place from which the souls make their ascent. This is the reason that pious people are so anxious to die there and be buried there in order to facilitate the ascent of their souls. The prophet Jonah (1,10) made this clear when he tried to escape the presence of the Shechinah in the land of Israel; by chartering a boat to take him away from there so that the Lord would not communicate with him and give him detailed instructions as to what he was to say to the people of Nineveh. We have a tradition that as a rule, prophets do not receive communications from G’d while outside the land of Israel. [A major exception was Ezekiel, whose entire prophetic career was in Babylon. Ed.] When the Torah refers to persons who have been contaminated by ritual impurity through contact with a dead person and who enter holy precincts without the benefit of having undergone purification, the penalty is described as ונכרתה הנפש ההיא מתוך הקהל, “this person (soul) will be cut off from the community (which practices the rules of ritual purity).” Seeing that the person described saw fit to separate himself from the community, his penalty is that G’d will separate his soul from the community in question. This does not mean, however, that another location will not be assigned to this soul after it has served the penalty decreed for it. The soul in question will not wind up like that of an animal just because that person neglected purification rites before entering sacred ground.

Onkelos demonstrated his superior wisdom by refraining from translating the precise meaning of the karet penalty. Whenever it is mentioned he merely writes: וישתצי אנשא ההוא, “this man will be cut off” (compare 7,20 and 19,8, et al). The fact that in this instance Onkelos relates the penalty the Torah decrees to the body of the person by writing אנשא instead of נפש, appears to prove that he does not view the karet penalty as a wiping out of the soul.

The philosophers think that the karet penalty is one that is aimed at the soul of the sinner, seeing that the soul is something preparatory, i.e. the instrument which enables the body of man to acquire any intelligence, etc. They bring ironclad proof for their contention by citing the fact that when man is first formed he has no vestige of intelligence. As he grows up physically his intelli- gence grows and his wisdom grows apace. All of this is proof that the soul is only a preparatory stage, a receptacle enabling the intelligence to be asssimilaed. If the soul itself were intellligent man should have demonstrated his intelligence from the day he is born, they say.

It is well known that we do not consider the theories of the philosphers as binding on our outlook in life as their whole theories are based only on criteria which they can examine experimentally. We prefer to rely in matters like this on what we have been told by the prophets and our sages. They had traditions based on the true state of affairs. Our prophets and sages are all agreed that the soul enters our bodies in a perfect state, not something infantile that has to rely on biological growth and food. When the Torah reports that the creation of man was concluded with G’d blowing into man’s nostrils a נשמת חיים, a living soul, it is clear that since this soul came directly from the Creator that it was not something incomplete requiring the development of the body to give it value. Clearly, it, as distinct from the body, was something of an eternal nature. It originated in celestial regions, regions where the concept of death does not exist and is not operative. In view of the fact that the soul is something so infinitely superior to terrestrially created entities the expression ברא, “created,” (a term applicable to matters terrestrtrial) has not been mentioned in connection with it. The wisdom which the fetus was already equipped with while inside the mother’s womb became subject to loss of memory through the baby undergoing the traumatic experience of being born and leaving the secure environment in which it had existed up until that time. The Kabbalists compared this soul to a light which has been lit and sbsequently extinguished at the moment the baby enters this imperfect world. This is the meaning of what the Talmud said (Niddah 30 and 36) that a fetus has a light above its head enabling it to see from one end of the world to the other end. Do not be incredulous when you read such words, as it is a fact that man can lie in one part of the earth and in his sleep he sees (in a dream) matters which occur thousands of miles away. The whole concept is documented by Job 29,2-3: “O that I were as in months gone by, in the days when G’d watched over me, when His lamp shone over my head.” As soon as the baby leaves the mother’s womb an angel strikes it on its mouth causing it to forget all (the Torah) it had learned while in the mother’s womb. This is a meaning of Genesis 4,7 לפתח חטאת רובץ, “at the entrance (of the mother’s womb) sin lies in wait.”

We also have a Midrash which states that ‘they place a burning light on top of the fetus’ head enabling it to see from one end of the world to the other. The Midrash quotes the verse from Job 29,3 as its source. It continues that an angel guides the fetus to Gan Eden every morning and shows him all the righteous people who sit there and enjoy their existence wearing their respective crowns on their heads. The angel says to the fetus: ‘you should know who the people are that you observe seated there. All these people were created just like you in the wombs of their respective mothers and upon leaving their mother’s wombs they went on to lead a righteous life on earth, observing the Lord’s commandments. In recognition of this they now enjoy life in Gan Eden.” The angel continues to advise the infant that he too will eventually die and if he observes G’d’s commandments during his stay on earth he will merit to share in the life just shown to him in Gan Eden. Failing this, he would wind up in a different kind of place altogether. In the evenings, the same angel would show this infant what goes on in Gehinom. He would show him all the suffering experienced by the inmates of that place, pointing out that these people were being punished for violating G’d’s laws while they lived on earth. He would warn the infant to consider all this carefully when he would leave his mother’s womb so that he would lead the kind of life G’d wants him to lead in his own interest. When the time comes for the fetus to leave his mother’s womb he would forget all that he had seen before. As a result of forgetting such important information the infant cries at the time he enters this life, knowing that there was something important he should have remembered. Thus far the Midrash. What the Midrash makes plain is that while in the womb of his mother the infant is fully able to comprehend all that the angel shows to him, i.e. he has a fully developed intellect, otherwise what is the point of the angel showing him all this. The reason that G’d decrees for the infant to forget all he has learned while inside his mother’s womb is to ensure that when he does lead the right kind of life on earth he will merit the reward in store for people who do this of their own free will.

Nachmanides on our verse writes as follows: when the Torah writes that the sinning soul will be subject to the karet penalty this is the Torah’s way of informing us that the souls of people who are not guilty of sins involving this penalty will survive the death of their bodies. It is simply not the manner of a king who legislated penalties against people who violate his rules not to reward those who observe the rules in an appropriate manner.

The soul of man may be considered like a shining light supplied by G’d (Proverbs 20,27) which was breathed into him by the mouth of the Supreme G’d personally as described in Genesis 2,7. The very fact that the soul as distinct from the body is not an “alloy” of four elements but is one single “component,” already predisposes it for eternal life as there are no possible imbalances between the constituent parts which could lead to its disintegrating such as the body. Just as the disembodied angels are creatures that endure indefinitely, the soul is a similar type of abstract intelligence intended to exist indefinitely. Keeping this thought in mind is why the Torah wrote in Numbers 15,31 עונה בה, “its sin remains with it,” i.e. seeing the soul does not perish, the sin which has become part of it does not perish either. Or better still, the only cause of causing the soul to perish is the sin which cleaves to it. Seeing that there is no other way the soul can perish there was no need for the Torah to spell out that innocent souls enjoy life of infinite length. This is what the sages had in mind when they said that the words מקרב עמה, “from the midst of its people” (Numbers 15,30), mean that its people will enjoy peace. (Compare Sifri Shelach 112). The very destruction of a sinful soul is proof that other souls live on indefinitely. This is why the Torah warns repeatedly about this penalty karet; it is something not “natural” but supernatural. When the Torah spells out assurances of certain rewards these are always in the nature of cause and effect, i.e. something “natural.” This is no different when the fate of the soul is the subject. There was no need to tell us that souls survive the death of the body as it is no more than natural for things to return to their origin sooner or later. A body, i.e. dust, returns to its origin dust, whereas the soul returns to its origin in the celestial spheres. Solomon has already spelled this out in Kohelet 12,7 when he said that “dust (body) returns to earth whereas the spirit returns to G’d.”