ובארצכם לא תעשו, “and in your land you shall not do so.” Seeing the Torah had mentioned such defects as damage to the reproductive organs earlier in our verse, the Torah adds that it is forbidden to castrate animals in the land of Israel even if such animals were not intended as offerings. Even animals which are not fit for consumption by Jews must not be castrated. Contrary to the first impression that the word בארצכם, “in your land,” suggests that only in the land of Israel is it forbidden to castrate animals, this is misleading, and castrating G’d’s creatures is forbidden everywhere. The only reason the Torah wrote that word was to emphasize that even in our land where many of these animals cannot serve the general population as food seeing the animals in question are ritually impure, we must still not castrate such animals as a means of keeping down their numbers. It is also possible that the use by the Torah of the word תעשו here points out that castrating an animal is equivalent to “undoing it;” G’d made it, we undo it but allow it to live at the same time preventing it from procreating. We find a similar use of the word לעשות in Kohelet 4,17 where Solomon speaks about כי אינם יודעים לעשות רע, “for they do not know that they are to destroy the evil and remove it.” At first glance we would have translated the verse as “they do not know how to do evil,” something that clearly does not fit the context of the verse.“ [Rashi does not have trouble with the ordinary meaning of the word לעשות in that verse. Ed.] Another verse in which the word עשה does not have the meaning which it usually has is Genesis 9,24 where the Torah speaks about אשר עשה לו בנו הקטן, normally translated as “which his younger son had done to him,” (Noach who had been naked in his tent). On the face of it, the son (Cham) had done nothing except tell his brothers that their father had uncovered himself while drunk. Nonetheless, our sages in Sanhedrin 70 use the word to mean that he had castrated his father. So we see that the word עשה, though normally meaning “did” in a constructive sense such as when G’d created the universe, may appear in exactly the opposite sense such as when depriving the animal of its regenerative potential by castrating it. This may also be the meaning of the word יעשנה in Proverbs 6,32, where Solomon writes משחית נפשו יעשנה, which at first glance looks as if he says that “he who destroys his life is really creating it.” Instead, the meaning is “if he wants to destroy himself let him do such a thing (commit adultery).” When someone destroys his soul, his life, he most certainly deprives (יעשנה) it of the opportunity to achieve its lofty aims..”

שור או כשב או עז כי יולד, “when an ox, a lamb, or a goat is born, etc.” Sifra at the beginning of Parshat Shemini comments on the sequence of these words “let the ox come and atone for the image of the ox (golden calf),” as David said in Psalms 106,20: “they traded their honour for the image of an ox.” We find a similar exegesis in connection with the gifts to be given for the building of the Tabernacle when Exodus 25,3 speaks first of gifts of “gold, silver, and copper.” According to the Midrash, the gold was to atone for the contributions of gold made by the Israelites which enabled the golden calf to be made. Tanchuma Terumah 8 says that this gold was to atone for the gold contributed at that time. The Midrash Tanchuma Emor 11 quotes Hoseah 7,3 ברעתם ישמחו מלך, “with the thing which represented their wickedness they make a king happy,” i.e. the very instrument of the sin became the instrument of their expiation. Rabbi Levi asked: “What caused the Torah to make the ox the principal animal amongst the sacrificial offerings?” He explains this by means of a parable. A prominent lady at the king’s court had been slandered by other courtiers claiming she had committed adultery with the prime minister. The king had these accusations examined and could not find any substantiation for them. What did the king do then? He gave a dinner party and seated the prime minister who had been the victim of these rumours in the seat of honour in order to show one and all that his investigation had proved the accusations as unfounded. Similarly, G’d examined Satan’s accusation that the Jewish people had made the golden calf; He concluded that they had not, that the golden calf had been the work of the proselytes who had joined the Jewish people at the Exodus. They had been the ones who had said: “these are your gods O Israel” This is why the ox (the subject of the slander) became the chief animal amongst the sacrificial animals. Rabbi Levi spoke of a “society lady,” meaning the Jewish people.

Personally, I would like to add that according to tradition the “prime minister” in that parable is one of the senior ministers at G’d’s court. In order to make plain that the natural born Jews had not been the ones who had initiated the sin of the golden calf, He determined that henceforth the ox would be the primary animal to feature in sacrificial offerings. You will find that similarly the fruit of the עץ הדר, “the tree whose fruit Chavah had eaten in Gan Eden,” became the favourite fruit amongst the four species of plants with which we praise the Lord on the festival of Tabernacles. The fact that the Torah mentions the etrog before the palm frond, a much larger plant, is to indicate that whereas Chavah sinned because she was a victim of deception by the serpent, her husband Adam sinned both in thought and in deed when he ate of that fruit also. We find that history repeats itself in that Adam atoned for his sin by offering an ox as a sacrifice; similarly his descendants, especially highly placed ones, have to offer an ox as their sin-offering when such an offering is called for. This is the deeper meaning of the verse in Hoseah we quoted, that with the very item which their sin consisted of they subsequently pleased the Lord. According to Chulin 60 Adam offered a single-horned bull as his sin-offering. We find a verse which combines both the word שור and the word הדר, thereby alluding to the two examples of the instrument of the sin becoming the instrument of pleasing the Lord. The verse in question is in Deut. 33,17: בכור שורו הדר לו, which we may translate allegorically as: “just as we praise Him with the fruit of the tree הדר, so we atone for our sins by means of the ox, the symbol of original forgiveness.” In a verse preceding the verse from Hoseah we quoted, the prophet said (Hoseah 6,7) והמה כאדם עברו ברית, “they violated the covenant like just like Adam,” an allusion to the comparison of the sin of the golden calf by the Israelites and that of Adam in Gan Eden. On the one hand, the animal which had helped Adam atone for his sin had become the one atoning for the sins of the Israelites. On the other hand, looked at from a philosophical point of view, the Israelites thought that this animal had proven to be the salvation of mankind, i.e. Adam, once, hence it might again become the symbol of their future, seeing Moses had not come back. In fact, Adam had been the original cause of the sin the Israelites participated in. [— My own phraseology in trying to convey this line of reasoning. Ed.] The reason that the Torah permitted just three categories of ritually pure beasts as potential sacrifices for the altar is in deference to the three patriarchs Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov. The ox symbolises Avraham, of whom the Torah wrote that he ran to the cattle in order to serve a meal to the three angels who visited him as reported in Genesis 18,1-15. The sheep is in deference to Yitzchak, when it was offered as a burnt-offering in his stead in Genesis 22,14. The goat was selected in deference to Yaakov who took the two goats at the behest of his mother in order to secure the blessing from his father (Genesis 27,9) (compare Tanchuma Emor 12). These goats were described in the Torah as טובים, “good,” meaning they were to be good both for him personally as well as for his descendants, seeing that by means of two male goats the Jewish people, Yaakov’s descendants, would secure atonement for their sins on the Day of Atonement. When the Torah therefore wrote: “an ox, a sheep, or a goat which will be born, etc.”, it referred to known functions of these animals on behalf of the Jewish people. This is what Solomon had in mind when he wrote in Kohelet 3,15: “What has been already exists, and what is still to come has already been, and G’d always seeks out the pursued.” What Solomon meant was that if someone were to say to you: “if Adam had not sinned at the time when he ate from the tree of knowledge would he still be alive and well nowadays?” You may answer him that the prophet Elijah did not sin and he did indeed not die but is alive to this day. As to the words אשר להיות, “what is still to come,” if someone believes that the idea of G’d resurrecting the dead is something which occurs only in the future [i.e. we have no proof of something like that being possible, Ed.], tell him that it has already occurred, i.e. that both the prophet Elijah, the prophet Elisha, as well as the prophet Ezekiel are on record as having revived the dead (Tanchuma Emor 9). Finally, the words והאלוהים יבקש את הנרדף in the verse from Kohelet which we quoted, means that whereas the righteous pursue (imitate and try to emulate) the other righteous people who preceded them this is normal and appropriate. The wicked persecute both other wicked people as well as righteous people; this is their nature; however, G’d seeks out the persecuted (righteous ones to save them). If you look for proof, read history. Hevel had been persecuted by his brother Kayin; in response G’d turned to Hevel’s offering while rejecting the gift of Kayin (Genesis 4,4-5). Noach had been ridiculed and persecuted by the people of his generation. G’d responded to Noach positively as stated in Genesis 6,8: “Noach found favour in the eyes of G’d.” Shortly afterwards we are told that all the remainder of mankind was wiped out (Genesis 7,23). Avraham was persecuted by Nimrod; he was saved as we know from Nechemyah 9,7 where it is written: “You are the Lord G’d who have chosen Avraham and removed (rescued) him from the fire of the Chaldaens.” Yitzchak was persecuted by the Philistines; in the end Avimelech (King of the Philistines) acknowledged his rigtheousness, G’d’s power and asked to make a treaty with him (Genesis 26,28). Yaakov was persecuted by Esau; nonetheless we have been told in Psalms 135,4: “for G’d chose for Himself Yaakov, Israel, etc.” Joseph was persecuted by his brothers only to become a most successful individual, i.e. “the Lord was with Joseph and he became a successful man” (Genesis 39,2). Moses was persecuted by Pharaoh, but G’d thwarted Pharaoh’s efforts to kill him. The Jewish people were persecuted by the pagans; this is why G’d chose them as His people, as we know from Deut. 14,2: “and the Lord chose you to be His special people.” In our situation we find something parallel. The animals mentioned here are normally the innocent victims of predatory animals. The ox is hunted by the lion, the sheep by the wolf, the goat by the leopard. G’d chose the animals as suitable for sacrificial offerings because they were the persecuted ones, saying: “do not offer Me animals which are pursuers, predators, but certain categories of their victims, the persecuted.”

והיה שבעת ימים תחת אמו, “it shall remain under the care of its mother for seven days.” This may best be understood by means of a parable (Tanchuma Emor 12). A king who visited a country issued a decree that no one would be allowed an audience with him until after they had paid their respects to a certain lady of high society. Similarly, G’d said to the people of Israel: “you may not offer Me a sacrificial offering until after that animal has paid its respects to My daughter, (society lady in the parable) i.e. to the Sabbath. Just as there is no week one day of which is not a Sabbath, so there cannot be a circumcision until the baby in question has experienced at least one Sabbath. (compare Tanchuma Emor 12). The “society lady” in the parable should be the first thought in the mind of the party offering the animal.

ושור או שה, אותו ואת בנו לא תשחטו ביום אחד, “and an ox and its (son) young, you shall not slaughter on the same day.” Seeing that the Torah has already mentioned that there is a special commandment regarding sacrificial animals and their offspring, i.e. that the young must not be separated from the mother for at least seven days before it may be offered up as a sacrifice, the Torah immediately lists another related commandment, namely not to offer both the mother animal and the young on one and the same day. First of all, contrary to the impression gained from the grammar in the verse, the ruling applies to female animals, i.e. mother and young, not father and young. It is perfectly in order to slaughter the calf’s father with the calf on the same day (Chulin 79). This also corresponds to the way Onkelos translates the words, i.e. ותורתא או שיתא לה וברה, “and a cow and a sheep, her and her “son.” In other words, the law applies to mother animals. According to this halachah, the difficulty is that the Torah should have written ופרה ובנה, instead of ושור ובנה. Or, at least, if the Torah considered the word שור as the generic term for the category of cattle, it should have continued with the words אותה ואת בנה, instead of the misleading אותו ואת בנו. However, seeing that the Torah already spoke about a female animal and her son when mentioning the law not to offer the young animal during the first seven days, by continuing with this legislation immediately the Torah hinted that here too we are speaking about a law applying to the mother animal and its young. This is the interpretation of Nachmanides.

A Midrashic approach based on Tanchuma Emor 13 draws a parallel between Proverbs 12,10; “the righteous man knows the soul (needs) of his beast; but the compassion of the wicked is cruelty.” The “righteous one” in that verse is a reference to the Almighty who has said that mother animal and its young are not to be slaughtered on the same day; by contrast the compassion of the wicked cited by Solomon refers to someone like Haman who decreed that all Jews of all generations be killed on the same day (Esther 3,13). Another example of the righteous (G’d) knowing the needs of his beast is reflected in the legislation in Deut. 22,6 that the mother bird is to be sent off before its nest is to be robbed of its chicks or eggs. By contrast, the “compassion for the wicked which is cruelty” was demonstrated by Sancheriv the wicked of whom it is written (Hoseah 10,14) “when mothers and babes were dashed to death together.”

ולא תחללו את שם קדשי ונקדשתי בתוך בני ישראל, “You shall not desecrate My holy Name, rather I should be sanctified among the Children of Israel.” Desecration of the Lord’s name is the most serious sin. We find that on occasion G’d ignored the sin of idolatry while not ignoring the sin of desecrating His name. This is what Ezekiel referred to when he said: (Ezekiel 20,39) “As for you, O house of Israel, thus said the Lord G’d: “go, every one of you and worship his fetishes and continue, if you will not obey Me; but do not profane My holy Name anymore.” Our sages in Yuma 86 state that the sin of desecrating the holy Name of G’d is not one for which the Day of Atonement brings forgiveness. Even repentance does not suspend the punishment due for this sin for a period of time. Even the suffering of afflictions does not wipe out this sin. If one is guilty of the sin of desecrating the name of G’d such a sin is at best “suspended” and the death of the sinner may eventually assist in wiping out this sin.

There is, however, one way of counteracting the sin of desecrating the holy Name of the Lord. This is the sanctification of the Lord’s Name in public by the person who was guilty of desecrating it. The Torah alludes to this when writing: ונקדשתי בתוך בני ישראל, “I want to be sanctified among the Children of Israel.” We have another verse in Proverbs 16,6: “sin will be expiated through kindness and truth;” this means that the sin of desecrating the holy Name of the Lord through speaking lies and committing other sins may be counterbalanced by the subsequent performance of deeds of kindness and truth, thus reversing the damage one had become guilty of. It is somewhat similar to the person afflicted with a disease who can only be cured by imbibing the very opposite ingredients which had caused his sickness. Our sages said: “if a person sinned with his tongue let him engage in Torah study. If he sinned by improper use of his eyes, let him shed many tears;” this is what David alluded to when he said (Psalms119,136) “my eyes shed streams of tears because they did not obey Your teaching.” Note that David did not say: “I did not obey Your commandments;” but he shed the tears because “they did not obey.” The “they” he referred to were his eyes. Concerning this same subject, i.e. how to reverse the negative effect of the sins one has committed, the sages in Vayikra Rabbah 21,4 say that if one has committed a whole package of sins, one should endeavour to offset them with a similar package of commandments performed carefully. If one’s feet had been eager to rush towards an opportunity to commit a sin, they should now be at least as eager to run towards an opportunity to perform good deeds. If one’s hands had been in the habit of spilling the blood of the innocent, the same hands should become preoccupied with the laying of phylacteries accompanied by the liberal distribution of money to the poor.

The following Midrash spells out the advice to counter the sin of desecrating the holy Name of G’d by performing public acts of sanctifying that Name (Sifra Emor 9,4-5). The author understands the directive: “I want to be sanctified among the Children of Israel” as a call for someone to risk his life for the sanctification of the Lord’s name. I might have thought that one could have fulfilled this directive by risking his life on behalf of G’d in private; the Torah adds the words “among the Children of Israel,” to teach that this directive is aimed at performing such an act in public. When doing so one must not hope that G’d would save one but must really be prepared to die for the cause. Anyone who publicly risks his life on behalf of G’d’s name hoping thereby to become the beneficiary of a miracle by G’d will not experience such a miracle. If, however, such a person is clearly resigned to the fact that G‘d will not rescue him, a miracle is liable to be performed for him as occurred in the incident of Chananyah, Mishael, and Azaryah, all of whom were defying the threats of Nevuchadnezzar and who chose to become martyrs explaining that they did not do so in order to demonstrate G’d’s power to save them (compare Daniel 3,18). [The author had elaborated on this drawing on a Midrash in Shir Hashirim Rabbah 7,13 describing these martyrs’ previous discussion with the prophet Ezekiel. Ed.] Furthermore, our sages use this verse as proof that matters involving sanctification of G’d’s Name [not necessarily risking one’s life, but prayers such as the Kedushah, Ed.] have to have an audience of at least ten male adults. They draw a comparison between the death of the ten spies in a group described by the Torah as עדה, a “community,” i.e. the minimum number of adult males to which this term can be applied. (Compare Berachot 21). Rabbeinu Yaakov (Tosaphist) already comments on that statement in the Talmud that it is not admissible to derive such halachic rules from an example of the ten spies, i.e. “an ungodly” congregation rather than a “holy congregation.” The principal message of that discussion in the Talmud is the word בתוך, “amongst.” Clearly, when the word is used here it means “a holy congregation.” When the word appears in connection with Joseph’s ten brothers entering Egypt (Genesis 42,5) it is the Torah’s way of hinting that these brothers at that time were also a holy congregation. [There are many Midrashim proving that the brothers were bent on rescuing Joseph during their trip, certainly a holy task, and one that involved danger to themselves as evident in the story with Benjamin during their second trip. Ed.]