SPEAK UNTO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL. Since this chapter deals with [the laws of] prohibited sexual intercourse which apply equally to all Israel, therefore He said only, Speak unto the children of Israel, and did not specify the priests but included them together. Therefore He said at first, I am the Eternal your G-d, just as He did in the Ten Commandments [which He began with the words, I am the Eternal thy G-d].²¹⁴ And the meaning of the verse, Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them: I am the Eternal your G-d, is as if He said, “Say unto them in My Name, ‘I am the Eternal your G-d.’” Similarly, Speak unto all the congregation of the children of Israel, and say unto them: Ye shall be holy, for I the Eternal your G-d am holy,²¹⁵ [means: “say unto them in My Name, ‘Ye shall be holy'”]. It is possible that the reason [why the verse does not say: “this is what G-d commanded,” is not because it means: “say unto them in My Name” as explained above, but] is rather as follows: When Moses came out from before the Eternal without the veil²¹⁶ [on his face], and he came out, and spoke unto the children of Israel that which he was commanded,²¹⁷, Verse 34. he did not need to say to them: “Thus said the Eternal,” for it was known to them that it was His spirit that spoke through him [Moses] and His word was upon his tongue,²¹⁸ in My Name, I am the Eternal your G-d,” since it was known to them that Moses did not speak in his own name. and that he did not speak in his own name. Similarly, in many places in the Book of Deuteronomy it is stated in the same way, such as: And it shall come to pass, if ye shall hearken diligently unto My commandments, which I command you this day … that I will give the rain of your Land … And I will give grass in thy fields,²¹⁹ and [it is known that] Moses is not the one who giveth rain upon the earth, and sendeth waters upon the fields,²²⁰ and makes the grass grow in the fields, but it is G-d, blessed be He [that does these things]. Similarly it is said, But the Eternal hath not given you a heart to know … And I have led you forty years in the desert … Ye have not eaten bread, neither have ye drunk wine or strong drink; that ye might know that I am the Eternal your G-d.²²¹ …] clearly indicates that the expression in the following verse, And I have led you etc. is also a reference to the Eternal, and not to Moses. The meaning of the expression to love the Eternal your G-d²²², 11:13. [which is stated in the third person, when that same verse begins in the first person, And it shall come to pass, if ye shall hearken diligently unto My commandments], has already been explained.²²³

footnotes: ²¹⁴ Exodus 20:2. ²¹⁵ Further, 19:2. ²¹⁶ Exodus 34:33-35. ²¹⁷ Ibid. ²¹⁸ See II Samuel 23:2. Hence it is no longer necessary to explain the meaning of the verse to be [as we said above]: “Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them ²¹⁹ Deuteronomy 11:13-15. ²²⁰ Job 5:10. ²²¹ Deuteronomy 29:3-5. The opening verse [But the Eternal ²²² Ibid. ²²³ Exodus 24:1 (towards end — Vol. II, p. 422-3).

According to the opinion of Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra, the Scriptural command, After the doings of the land of Egypt … shall ye not do,²²⁴ is a reference to [the practice of sacrificing to] the demons mentioned above [in 17:7]; and after the doings of the land of Canaan … shall ye not do²²⁴ is an allusion to the forbidden sexual relationships, in which the Canaanites were very bad and sinful,²²⁵ as He stated at the end of this section, For all these abominations have the men of the Land done.²²⁶ And in the opinion of our Rabbis in the Torath Kohanim,²²⁷ 9:3. the Egyptians were also addicted to carnality, in all forms of the forbidden relationships, and with males and cattle. This is the truth, [as Scripture states] that there were also sodomites in the Land,²²⁸. referring [to the abominations of the nations] which were there from the beginning till now. Scripture further testifies concerning them, the Egyptians, thy neighbors, great of flesh,²²⁹ and it further says, whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue of horses,²³⁰, 23:20. the term “flesh” being a euphemism [for the sexual organ]. Similarly, in the expressions, his flesh ran with his issue,²³¹ and her issue in her flesh be blood²³², Verse 19. [the term “flesh” is an allusion to the sexual organ].

footnotes: ²²⁴ Verse 3. ²²⁴ Verse 3. ²²⁵ Genesis 13:13. ²²⁶ Further, Verse 27. ²²⁷ Torath Kohanim, Acharei ²²⁸ I Kings 14:24. The verse concludes: they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the Eternal drove out before the children of Israel ²²⁹ Ezekiel 16:26. ²³⁰ Ibid. ²³¹ Above, 15:2. ²³² Ibid.

MINE ORDINANCES SHALL YE DO. “These are matters prescribed in the Torah which, even if they were not prescribed, one would know that they ought to be prescribed.” Thus the language of Rashi. And in the Torath Kohanim it is stated:²³³ 13:10. “These are matters written in the Torah which, even if they were not written, would deserve to have been written, such as robberies, forbidden sexual relationships, idolatry, bloodshed and blasphemy.” Now by way of the simple meaning of Scripture, the term mishpatai (Mine ordinances) is to be understood in its simple sense. It is a reference to the laws stated in the section of V’eileh Hamishpatim (And these are the ordinances)²³⁴ and in the whole Torah. Therefore He states here, which if a man do, he shall live by them,²³⁵ as these laws were given so that man should live, and for the development of countries, and peace among men, so that no one should cause harm to his fellowman or kill him. The prophet Ezekiel likewise mentioned many times with reference to these mishpatim (ordinances), which if a man do, he shall live by them,²³⁶ while of the Sabbath he says, to be a sign between Me and them.²³⁷, Verse 12. Similarly in the Book of Nehemiah it says, Thine ordinances, which if a man do, he shall live by them.²³⁸ But our Rabbis have said:²³⁹ “He shall live by them²³⁵ — but not die by them. This teaches that danger to life overrides the Sabbath laws and [all] the commandments.” And according to the Midrashic interpretation it means:²⁴⁰ 9:10. It is also mentioned here in Rashi. “He shall live by them²³⁵ — in the World to Come. Should you say it means that he shall live in this world, will he not in the end die!”²⁴¹ must refer to eternal life. And if so, the expression which if a man do, he shall live by them²³⁵ refers back [not only to the mishpatim (ordinances), as we explained before, but] also to chukothai [“My statutes,” those laws for which no reason is given, but the observance of which also assures one eternal life]. Know that man’s [reward in] life for the observance of the commandments is in accordance with his preparation for them. For he who fulfills the commandments not for their own sake, but in order to receive a reward, will be rewarded on account of them in this world with longevity, riches, possessions, and honor. It is concerning this [kind of observance of the laws of the Torah] that it is said, in her left hand are riches and honor,²⁴² which the Rabbis interpreted to mean:²⁴³ “to those that stand on the left of it [i.e., to those who engage in the observance of the Torah not for its own sake], there are material riches and honor.” Similarly, those who engage in the observance of the commandments so as to merit by them reward in the World to Come, these being the people who serve G-d out of fear [of punishment], will be found worthy on account of their intention to be saved from the judgments that will come upon the wicked, and their souls shall abide in joyfulness²⁴⁴ [in life eternal]. But those who engage in the observance of the commandments out of love, as is right and proper, together with worldly occupation, similar to what is mentioned in the Torah in the section of Im Bechukothai,²⁴⁵. Further, 26:3. And your threshing shall reach unto the vintage,²⁴⁶, Verse 5. they will merit good life in this world according to the usual nature of things, and in life eternal, in the World to Come, their merits will still be complete before them [since the reward they received in their lifetime will not reduce that which is to come to them in the hereafter]. But those who abandon altogether the concerns of this world and pay no attention to it, acting as if they themselves were not creatures of physical being, and all their thoughts and intentions are directed only to their Creator, just as was the case with Elijah, [these people] on account of their soul cleaving to the Glorious Name will live forever in body and soul, as is evidenced in Scripture concerning Elijah²⁴⁷. and as is known of him in tradition,²⁴⁸ and as the Midrashim speak of Enoch²⁴⁹. Many Midrashim describe his activity after his ascencion into heaven. See, however, Rashi ibid. and of those belonging to the World to Come who will rise at the resurrection. It is for this reason that on the subject of reward for observance of the commandments the verses speak [in various ways, such as]: *that thy days may be long;*²⁵⁰ *that thou mayest live;*²⁵¹ and that thou mayest prolong thy days.²⁵², 22:7. For these expressions include all kinds of life, each according to his due.

footnotes: ²³³ Torath Kohanim, Acharei ²³⁴ Exodus 21:1. ²³⁵ Further, Verse 5. ²³⁶ Ezekiel 20:11, 13 and 21. ²³⁷ Ibid. ²³⁸ Nehemiah 9:29. ²³⁹ Yoma 85 b. ²³⁵ Further, Verse 5. ²⁴⁰ Torath Kohanim, Acharei ²³⁵ Further, Verse 5. ²⁴¹ Hence the Divine assurance that he shall live by them ²³⁵ Further, Verse 5. ²⁴² Proverbs 3:16. ²⁴³ Shabbath 63 a. ²⁴⁴ See Psalms 25:13. ²⁴⁵ If ye walk in My statutes ²⁴⁶ Ibid. ²⁴⁷ II Kings 2:11: and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven ²⁴⁸ The Talmud and Midrashim abound in instances which prove that Elijah’s removal from earth was no interruption of his earthly existence. On the contrary, in countless appearances he traverses the world in order to protect the innocent etc. (see L. Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews, IV, pp. 202-235). ²⁴⁹ Genesis 5:24: And Enoch walked with G-d, and he was not; for G-d took him ²⁵⁰ Exodus 20:12. ²⁵¹ Deuteronomy 16:20. ²⁵² Ibid.

NONE OF YOU SHALL APPROACH TO ANY THAT IS NEAR OF KIN TO HIM, TO UNCOVER THEIR NAKEDNESS. The reason for the prohibition of sexual relationships with one’s near of kin is not expressly written [in the Torah]. The Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] wrote in the Moreh Nebuchim²⁵³ that [this law seeks to inculcate the lessons that] we should limit sexual intercourse, hold it in contempt, and perform it rarely. Now these women which Scripture has forbidden amongst the relatives of one’s wife are forbidden because they are constantly together with him in his house,²⁵⁴, Friedlander’s translation). Now “if we were allowed to marry any of them, and were only precluded from sexual intercourse with them without marriage, most people would constantly become guilty of misconduct with them. But as they are entirely forbidden to us … there is reason to expect that people will not seek it, and will not think of it” (ibid.). and the same applies to one’s own relatives [sisters, aunts, and the wife of one’s uncle], who are frequently with him and he is closeted together with them. A similar reason the Rabbi states for all forbidden relations. Now Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra has already written²⁵⁵ likewise that since the passion of man’s heart is like that of the animals, it was impossible for Scripture to forbid all females, and therefore it prohibited only those that are available to him at all times. But this is a very weak reason, that Scripture should make a person liable to the punishment of excision in the case of these forbidden relations, just because they are sometimes found together with him, and at the same time permit a man to marry many women, even in the hundreds and thousands! And what harm would there be if a man would marry only his daughter, just as was permitted to the Noachides,²⁵⁶ or marry two sisters as did our patriarch Jacob? A person also could not do better than to give his daughter in marriage to his elder son, and they would inherit his possessions and multiply and increase in his house, for He created not the earth a waste, He formed it to be inhabited!²⁵⁷ We have no tradition as to [the reason of] this prohibition of forbidden relationships, but logically it would appear that there is in this matter one of the secrets of creation, which attaches to the soul and is part of the secret of the transmigration [of souls], to which we have already alluded.²⁵⁸ Know that sexual intercourse is held distant and in contempt in the Torah unless it is for the preservation of the human species, and therefore where there can be no offspring [such as in pederasty or carnal intercourse with beasts], it is forbidden. Similarly, where [the union is such that] the child born therefrom will not have a healthy existence, nor succeed from it, the Torah prohibited such a union. This is the sense of the expressions: el kol ‘sh’eir’ b’saro [literally: to any ‘flesh’ next to his flesh]; *for he hath made naked ‘eth sh’eiro’*²⁵⁹. [literally: his flesh]. Thus the Torah forbade these marriages on account of sh’eir [i.e., because the forbidden relations constitute “flesh” next to one’s own], the term sh’eir being derived from the expression [in the verse], ‘hanish’ar’ (he that is left) in Zion, and he that remaineth in Jerusalem.²⁶⁰ denoting “flesh” or “relative” is something which “remains” with a person, as it is his own or next to his flesh. Hence Scripture states, they are ‘sha’arah’ (near kinswomen); it is lewdness,²⁶¹ meaning to say, “these are not marriages, nor fit for such a relationship, for they will not succeed [in having healthy offspring, as explained above]; rather it is lewdness, mere thoughts of indecency.” Thus the forbidden relationships are included in “the statutes,” the laws which constitute “the decrees of the King.” Now a decree is an ordinance which originates in the knowledge of the King, Who is wise in the management of His kingdom, and it is He Who knows the need for and the benefit of the command that He ordained, and He does not tell it to anyone except to His wise counsellors.

footnotes: ²⁵³ Guide of the Perplexed III, 49. ²⁵⁴ “For as a rule, the mother of the wife, her grandmother, daughter, granddaughter, and sister-in-law are often with her; the husband meets them always when he goes out, when he comes in, and when he is at his work” (ibid. ²⁵⁵ In the verse before us. ²⁵⁶ Sanhedrin 58 b. ²⁵⁷ Isaiah 45:18. ²⁵⁸ Genesis 38:8 (Vol. I, pp. 469-470). ²⁵⁹ Further, 20:19. See Ramban on Exodus 21:9 (Vol. II, pp. 356-7), where he elaborates on the meaning of this word sh’eir ²⁶⁰ Isaiah 4:3. The term sh’eir ²⁶¹ Further, Verse 17.

THE NAKEDNESS OF THY FATHER, AND THE NAKEDNESS OF THY MOTHER, SHALT THOU NOT UNCOVER. Rashi commented: “The nakedness of thy father — this refers to thy father’s wife. And the nakedness of thy mother — this is intended to include one’s own mother, although she be not the wife of one’s father. The nakedness of thy father’s wife shalt thou not uncover²⁶² — this is intended to include in this prohibition one’s father’s wife even after [the father’s] death.” Similarly Rashi explained: “Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father’s brother.²⁶³ And what does this [uncovering of his] nakedness mean? Thou shalt not approach to his wife.”²⁶³ This is indeed true according to the correct sense [of the verses]. But in the Gemara of Tractate Sanhedrin²⁶⁴ the Rabbis concluded that the verses, the nakedness of thy father, and the nakedness of thy father’s brother,²⁶³ are prohibitions against carnal relationships with these males themselves [and not with their wives], and [are required] to make the offender liable to a double penalty if he committed it in error [lying carnally with his father or uncle].²⁶⁵ But I wonder, according to the opinion of the Sages [who explain the verse, the nakedness of thy father as being a prohibition against lying carnally with one’s father], why did He not likewise admonish against lying carnally with a son or brother, in addition to prohibiting [sexual relationships with their] wives?²⁶⁶ Perhaps the Torah was more particular in guarding the honor of the elders. However, each and every verse in this section [of forbidden relationships] constitutes only one prohibition,²⁶⁷ does not constitute two separate prohibitions as Rashi explained it [one referring to one’s father’s wife, and one to one’s own mother although she is not the wife of one’s father, as stated above], but they are one prohibition, as explained further on in the text. there being here no case of two admonitions in one prohibition, for the command concerning sisters [in Verse 9] and also daughters [in Verse 10] each constitute but one prohibition [and not, as Rashi explained there, that each verse contains two prohibitions]. The correct interpretation by way of the simple meaning of Scripture appears to me to be that the nakedness of thy father, and the nakedness of thy mother [shalt thou not uncover], constitute but one negative commandment and one admonition, which forbids intercourse with one’s own mother, for in having such intercourse he thereby uncovers the nakedness of his father and that of his mother. This is the sense of the [concluding] expression in this verse, she is thy mother, meaning that you have done with her two evils, in that you have uncovered the nakedness of your mother and that of your father. Following the admonition against uncovering the nakedness of one’s father, which refers [as explained] to one’s mother, He went back [in the following Verse 8] and admonished against [uncovering] the nakedness of one’s father’s wife, although she be not one’s mother, saying, The nakedness of thy father’s wife shalt thou not uncover; it is thy father’s nakedness.²⁶⁸ Similarly, Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father’s brother²⁶⁹ means [as the verse itself continues], thou shalt not approach to his wife.²⁶⁹ This is why it does not say “and” to [his wife thou shalt not approach].

footnotes: ²⁶² Verse 8. ²⁶³ Verse 14. ²⁶³ Verse 14. ²⁶⁴ Sanhedrin 54 a. ²⁶³ Verse 14. ²⁶⁵ If the sin were committed knowingly, there would be no point in saying that “a double penalty is incurred,” since the punishment for either of these two sins is death by stoning, and death cannot be inflicted more than once. Hence “the double penalty” must be where he committed it unwittingly, in which case he must bring two sin-offerings. See “The Commandments,” Vol. II, pp. 315-317. ²⁶⁶ Verses 15-16. ²⁶⁷ Hence the verse before us, the nakedness of thy father and the nakedness of thy mother ²⁶⁸ Verse 8. ²⁶⁹ Verse 14. ²⁶⁹ Verse 14.

THE NAKEDNESS OF THY SISTER, THE DAUGHTER OF THY FATHER, OR THE DAUGHTER OF THY MOTHER, WHETHER BORN AT HOME, OR BORN ABROAD, EVEN THEIR NAKEDNESS THOU SHALT NOT UNCOVER. “Whether born at home, or born abroad — this means whether [the court] says to your father, ‘Keep her mother as your wife,’ or whether it has to say to him, ‘Divorce her mother,’ as for instance when she [i.e., the mother] is a mamzereth or a nethinah” [a mamzereth is the female product from one of the forbidden sexual relationships in this section, and a nethinah is a female descendant of the Gibeonites — relationships with these women being in both cases punishable by whipping]. Thus the language of Rashi. But it is not correct, since this interpretation leads to the conclusion that a sister that is born from [a woman who is herself one of] the relations forbidden [to his father],²⁷⁰, the penalty for which is excision [and not mere whipping], it would follow that the child born from that union is not included under the terms of this prohibition; since by stating these two examples — that the mother was either a mamzereth or a nethinah, with whom, in both of which cases, sexual intercourse is punishable only with whipping — Rashi thereby seems to exclude from this verse the case where the mother was one of the forbidden relations, where the penalty is excision! This conclusion is obviously incorrect. is not included in this prohibition [against marrying one’s sister. For since Rashi explained the expressions whether born at home, or born abroad as referring to the mother, whether she is a lawful wife or a mamzereth or nethinah, both of whom are forbidden to the father only by punishment of whipping, and not by excision, unlike all forbidden relations, then the illogical result follows that if the mother were one of those relations forbidden to his father by punishment of excision, then the son’s sister born from that union would not be included in this prohibition]! And yet all [sisters] are forbidden by excision [i.e., regardless of whether the sister was born of a union itself permitted, or forbidden by whipping only, or by excision], unless she be born of a bondwoman or a Cuthean woman [in which case she is not considered his sister at all]! And I wonder at the Rabbi [Rashi]! For in the Gemara of Tractate Yebamoth²⁷¹ in the second chapter it is clearly stated: “Perhaps I can say that this excludes a sister born of a union forbidden by whipping [as in the case where his father married a mamzereth and she gave birth to a daughter, for I might say that the marriage, being forbidden, had no validity, and she is therefore not his ‘sister’ in the sense that she is included in the prohibition against having intercourse with one’s sister]! Said Rav Papa: In unions punishable by whipping, the marriage, [although forbidden], has legal validity. For it is written, If a man have two wives, the one beloved, and the other hated.²⁷² Now is there before G-d a beloved one and a hated one [i.e., could it be supposed that the law should allow discrimination between the children of a favored wife and those of a hated wife]? Rather, you must say ‘beloved’ denotes ‘beloved for her well-chosen marriage’ [i.e., that it was blameless, since it was within the law], and ‘hated’ means ‘hated for her [illicit] marriage.’ And the Merciful One states, ‘ki thihyena l’ish’ (if a man ‘have’) — two wives.²⁷³ is a word indicating legal status of marriage. Thus you must say that in the case of a marriage which is “hated” because it is punishable merely by whipping, [as in the case of a man marrying a mamzereth], the act of betrothal does take effect, and the daughter born from such a union is considered one’s “sister” with respect to the prohibition before us. Perhaps I might say that this excludes a sister born of a union punishable by excision [so that she is not his ‘sister’ in the sense that she is included in the prohibition against having intercourse with one’s sister]! Said Rava: Scripture states, The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or the daughter of thy mother, whether born at home, or born abroad, which means whether [the court] can say to your father, ‘Keep [the mother as your wife],’ or whether it has to say to him, ‘Hotzei’ [as explained further on], and yet the Merciful One states that she is thy sister!”²⁷⁴ and yet goes on to mention the one ‘born abroad,’ it is clear that even a daughter born of a union which is punishable by excision [as explained further on], is a “sister” with respect to this prohibition. Now the meaning of the word hotzei is that [the court] tells him, “Take her out from your house, for she is not your [legitimate] wife, and the act of marriage has no legal validity in those cases where the union is punishable by excision or by any of the [four] deaths by the hand of the court.” And yet notwithstanding this, one is punished for having intercourse with her because she is considered his sister!²⁷⁵ Only one’s sister born from a bondwoman or a Cuthean woman is not included in this prohibition, since the offspring is of her own [legal] standing. By way of the plain meaning of Scripture the verse is stating: “The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or the daughter of thy mother, whether born of a marriage, as when the father brought the woman into the home as a wife [and she gave birth to a daughter], or born abroad, as when the man found her outside, and lay hold on her, and lie with her²⁷⁶ and she gave him birth [to a daughter], thou shalt not uncover their nakedness.” Thus He mentioned [the prohibition concerning] a mother’s daughter whether she be born in wedlock or from unchastity. For even though in either case she is only his mother’s daughter and not his father’s daughter, [and if so, why did Scripture have to mention both cases], yet one might have thought that a brotherly relationship [forbidding sexual intercourse] applies only to a sister born in wedlock, but not to one born from unchastity, where everything is “free;” therefore Scripture had to admonish against all [kinds of sisters]. There is yet another verse which He stated with reference to one’s father’s daughter, stating The nakedness of thy father’s wife’s daughter, begotten of thy father [thou shalt not uncover],²⁷⁷ this being [a prohibition against having intercourse with] a sister who is one’s father’s daughter born of his legitimate wife. It was necessary that He state this, because having said [in Verse 9 before us], the nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, without any qualification, and then in connection with the daughter of thy mother He explained whether born at home through marriage, or born abroad through unchastity, one might therefore have thought that one’s father’s daughter born in unchastity is permissible to him; for perhaps the Torah was not particular about a man’s offspring born in unchastity, because these are not known to him; therefore He said in explanation, The nakedness of thy father’s wife’s daughter [thou shalt not uncover], thus declaring that the daughter of one’s father mentioned at first [in Verse 9 before us] is not one’s father’s daughter born of his legitimate wife [since that is specifically mentioned further on in Verse 11]. Also, because in the case of the Noachides the prohibition [against sexual intercourse] was only if the brotherhood was from the same mother, and not [if it was exclusively] from the father, Scripture therefore explains that with respect to Israelites, all are alike in the prohibition [whether they are born of one father or one mother]. The correct interpretation of this verse is what the Sages have said in the Gemara of Tractate Yebamoth;²⁷⁸ “A man who has intercourse with his sister, who is also the daughter of his father’s wife [through marriage]²⁷⁹, in Rashi. who is not his mother,²⁸⁰ is guilty both on account of his sister, and his father’s wife’s daughter.” And there in the Gemara the Rabbis explained the reason: “Observe, it is written, the nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father etc.; what need was there for the expression, the nakedness of thy father’s wife’s daughter etc.?²⁷⁷ In order to teach that he is guilty both on account of his sister, and his father’s wife’s daughter.” Thus Scripture repeats certain prohibitions in order to make one [who commits these abominable practices] guilty on many counts, for even with reference to creeping things [which we are forbidden to eat] He has repeated many prohibitions regarding one matter, in order to punish the offender on all counts.

footnotes: ²⁷⁰ I.e., if his mother had sexual relationships with one of the forbidden relations ²⁷¹ Yebamoth 23 a. ²⁷² Deuteronomy 21:15. ²⁷³ The word thihyena ²⁷⁴ Since Verse 9 before us begins, The nakedness of ‘thy sister,’ ²⁷⁵ It is thus clear that even if the mother were one of those forbidden relations to his father with whom sexual intercourse is punishable by excision, the daughter born is still forbidden as a “sister.” This does not appear to be so from the language of Rashi before us, who singled out cases of marriages forbidden only by whipping, in which cases the betrothal is valid! See above, Note 270. ²⁷⁶ Deuteronomy 22:28. ²⁷⁷ Verse 11. ²⁷⁸ Yebamoth 22a. ²⁷⁹ So explained ibid. ²⁸⁰ This phrase is not found in our Gemara, but it is a correct explanation. ²⁷⁷ Verse 11.

IT IS ‘ZIMAH’ (LEWDNESS). Onkelos translated: “it is a sinful plan,” and Rashi commented thereon, “because your evil inclination counsels you to sin.” But I know of no sense to this, for with regard to all forbidden relations and all other transgressions, it is the evil inclination that counsels one to sin! [Why then is this verse prohibiting intercourse with a woman and her daughter, singled out by the use of this expression?] But the meaning of the matter is that the term zimah is derived from the expression, as ‘zamam’ (he had purposed) to do unto his brother.²⁸¹ A proper thought is called m’zimah, as it said, And no ‘m’zimah’ (purpose) can be withholden from Thee,²⁸² and lewdness that is thought of in secret is called zimah, similar to that which it is said, If my heart have been enticed unto a woman,²⁸³, 31:9. and Scripture concludes, For that were ‘zimah’ (a heinous crime); yea, it were an iniquity to be punished by the judges.²⁸⁴, Verse 11. Similarly, ‘v’zimatheich’ (thy lewdness) *and thy harlotries;*²⁸⁵ and ‘zimath’ (the lewdness of) thy harlotry,²⁸⁶ denoting these illicit acts committed in private and in public. In my opinion Scripture states it is ‘zimah’, in the case of [sexual relationships with] a woman and her daughter, and also a woman and her mother,²⁸⁷ in order to condemn the matter, saying that when one lies with the one, who is his wife, he thinks of the other one on account of their relationship and likeness, and thus lying with both of them is a cause of lewdness to him. This matter is similar to that which the Rabbis have mentioned:²⁸⁸ “And I will purge out from among you the rebels, and them that transgress against Me.²⁸⁹ These are the children [who are the offspring] of nine different dispositions [in their parents] etc.”²⁹⁰ It is for this reason that Scripture states here, the nakedness of a woman and her daughter etc., and similarly it says, And if a man take with his wife also her mother, it is lewdness,²⁸⁷ and does not say “the nakedness of your wife’s daughter, or your wife’s mother, you shalt not uncover” [but rather mentions them in each case together, by saying: the nakedness of a woman and her mother, or the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, in order to indicate that the prohibition is on account of thinking of the two together]. And the explanation of the verses here is as follows: At the beginning of the section He said, None of you shall approach to any that is ‘sh’eir’ (near of) flesh to him, to uncover their nakedness,²⁹¹ thus prohibiting [sexual intercourse with] those who are near of flesh to him, and He stated the reason for this to be, for theirs is thine own nakedness,²⁹², Verse 10. and so now [in Verse 17 before us] where He prohibits the wife’s relations, He states ‘sha’arah heinah’ (they are near kinswomen), meaning to say that they are also forbidden because they [the women] are near of flesh to each other, and lying with both of them would be lewdness, as I have explained. Similarly Scripture states, and each hath lewdly defiled his daughter-in-law,²⁹³ meaning that he defiled her to her husband, for even when she will be with her husband, she will think of his father because of their likeness. Now Scripture calls lying with animals tevel hu,²⁹⁴ denoting [as Rashi explained] “the mingling [from the root balal] of the human semen with that of the animal,” and so it also says of lying with a daughter-in-law that *they have done ‘tevel,’*²⁹⁵ meaning that father and son will become joined to her as one person, and she will lie with both of them together in thought.

footnotes: ²⁸¹ Deuteronomy 19:19. ²⁸² Job 42:2. ²⁸³ Ibid. ²⁸⁴ Ibid. ²⁸⁵ Ezekiel 23:29. ²⁸⁶ Jeremiah 13:27. ²⁸⁷ Further, 20:14. ²⁸⁸ Nedarim 20 b. ²⁸⁹ Ezekiel 20:38. ²⁹⁰ And one of these classifications is “the offspring of the hated one,” for since her husband hates her, his thoughts are of another woman, and it is therefore an act of lewdness (Rashi, Nedarim). ²⁸⁷ Further, 20:14. ²⁹¹ Above, Verse 6. ²⁹² Ibid. ²⁹³ Ezekiel 22:11. ²⁹⁴ Verse 23. ²⁹⁵ Further, 20:12.

AND THOU SHALT NOT TAKE A WOMAN TO HER SISTER, TO BE A RIVAL TO HER, TO UNCOVER HER NAKEDNESS, BESIDE THE OTHER IN HER LIFETIME. Here Scripture explains the reason for the prohibition, stating that it is not proper for you to take a woman in addition to her sister, to be a rival one to another, for it is fitting that they love one another and not be rivals. He did not say so with respect to a woman and her daughter,²⁹⁶ or a woman and her mother,²⁸⁷ because they are “near of flesh” and therefore forbidden even after the death of the other [while in the case of two sisters, it is only during the lifetime of his wife, even if she is already divorced from him, that he may not marry her sister].

footnotes: ²⁹⁶ Verse 17. ²⁸⁷ Further, 20:14.

AND UNTO A WOMAN DURING HER SEPARATION FOR HER UNCLEANNESS, THOU SHALT NOT APPROACH TO UNCOVER HER NAKEDNESS. Scripture prohibited [having intercourse with] a menstruant woman for the reason I have mentioned,²⁹⁷ that the Torah permitted sexual intercourse only for the sake of raising children,²⁹⁸ and since the whole child or the greater part thereof is created out of the woman’s blood, as I have already mentioned,²⁹⁹. and from the blood of menstruation it is not created at all [therefore the Torah prohibited intercourse with her during the period of her impurity]. Indeed, how could a child be formed out of this blood, since it is deadly poisonous, capable of causing the death of any creature that drinks or eats it! Now when the womb contains a large amount of this blood of menstruation, the woman cannot become pregnant, as this blood is not endowed at all with the capacity for forming [a child]. Even if she were to become pregnant from other blood, and then derive nourishment from this blood, the child would die. Physicians have also mentioned already that if the foetus derives nourishment from the best of blood, and all its nutriment be of the best quality, but some of this blood of menstruation is mixed with it, it will cause it to go bad, and produce in the child inflammatory swellings and sores of all kinds. And in the opinion of our Rabbis,³⁰⁰ 1. even if a small part of this [blood of menstruation] remains, in the foetus, the child will be a leper. By virtue, then, of all these reasons it was fitting that the Torah prohibit intercourse with a menstruant. The doctors have also told us in connection with it, a true experience, which is one of the wondrous works of Him Who is perfect in knowledge³⁰¹ in creation, that if a menstruant woman at the beginning of her issue were to concentrate her gaze for some time upon a polished iron mirror, there would appear in the mirror red spots resembling drops of blood, for the bad part therein [i.e., in the issue] that is by its nature harmful, causes a certain odium, and the unhealthy condition of the air attaches to the mirror, just as a viper kills with its gaze. And surely it is harmful to have intercourse with her then, since physically and mentally she is attached to the man’s body and mind. Therefore Scripture prohibited it by saying, and her impurity will be upon him,³⁰² meaning that her condition is a contagious one. It is with reference to this that it states, the uncleanness of a woman in her impurity,³⁰³ always mentioning in connection with her the term “impurity,” which is like that used in speaking of a creeping thing and of a leper, in which cases their impurity is within their bodies. It is possible that this is the sense of the expression, he hath bared her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood,³⁰⁴ for that blemished fountain should be covered, and not bared in order to draw its bad and extremely harmful waters. Thus intercourse has been prohibited to the holy seed³⁰⁵ all the days of her impurity, until she immerses herself in water [i.e., in a ritual pool],³⁰⁶ for then she will be purified also in her thoughts,³⁰⁷, on the significance of immersion, that it is not merely a matter of removing mud or dirt which may be removed by water, but “it is a Scriptural decree, the validity of the act depending upon the disposition of the heart. It is for this reason that the Sages have said: ‘If he immersed himself without intention, it is as though he had not immersed himself at all’ (Chagigah 18 b) … Thus he whose heart intends to purify himself, becomes purified as soon as the [actual] immersion is accomplished.” It is clear, then, that since both body and soul must participate in the act of immersion, the effect and potency of the purification applies to both body and soul as Ramban here states, “for then she will be purified also in her thoughts, and become completely clean.” See “The Commandments,” Vol. I, pp. 117-119. and become completely clean [in body and mind].

footnotes: ²⁹⁷ Above, Verse 6. ²⁹⁸ See my Hebrew commentary p. 104, that Rabbeinu Bachya questioned this attitude of Ramban. It would also appear from Ramban’s quote of Ibn Ezra further on in Verse 20, that the purpose of sexual intercourse is threefold, and the raising of children is only one purpose. Hence Ramban’s statement here must be understood in the sense that the “principal” purpose thereof is the raising of children. ²⁹⁹ Above, at beginning of Seder Tazria ³⁰⁰ Tanchuma, Metzora ³⁰¹ Job 37:16. ³⁰² Above, 15:24. ³⁰³ Ezekiel 36:17. ³⁰⁴ Further, 20:18. ³⁰⁵ Isaiah 6:13. ³⁰⁶ For no amount of washing the body can take the place of ritual immersion, where such is prescribed. ³⁰⁷ This is obviously a reference to what Rambam wrote in his Mishneh Torah at the end of Hilchoth Mikvaoth

AND THOU SHALT NOT LIE CARNALLY³⁰⁸ WITH THY NEIGHBOR’S WIFE. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra commented: “For there is a threefold purpose to sexual intercourse: one is to beget children, a second is to relieve the body of its fluids, and the third is for passion, which is likened to that of the animals. Now when Scripture said l’zara,³⁰⁸ it means ‘even l’zara’ [i.e., even for the purpose of begetting children], and thus it prohibited [having intercourse with another man’s wife] altogether.” It is possible that He said l’zara in order to mention the reason for the prohibition, since it will not be known to whom “the child” belongs, and as a result, great and wicked abominations³⁰⁹ might be done by both.³¹⁰ Now Scripture did not mention [this expression l’zara further on when it speaks] of the punishment [for this sin],³¹¹. because even for intimacy of the first stage without emitting seed, he is already liable to punishment. It is for this reason that [in the case of a suspected adulteress] Scripture states, and a man lie with her carnally,³¹² literally means “a lying of seed.” for it is on account of the zera³¹³ that he suspects her. Similarly in the case of a betrothed bondswoman it also says, lieth carnally³¹⁴, which literally means “a lying of seed.” with her, because the prohibition is on account of the child that he will beget from a bondwoman [who is betrothed to a Hebrew servant].³¹⁵ The correct interpretation appears to me to be that since another man’s wife is completely forbidden to one, whosoever toucheth her shall not go unpunished,³¹⁶ therefore Scripture had to say here l’zara.³⁰⁸ For had it said only: “and thou shalt not lie with thy neighbor’s wife,” it would have appeared that it forbids [by punishment of excision] even lying with her just for embracing and kissing, since here [in this section] it speaks only of those forbidden relations that are punishable with excision. Therefore it was necessary to mention that the intimacy was l’zara,³⁰⁸ in order to explain that He is prohibiting here sexual intercourse. This is also the reason for the expression in the case of the betrothed bondswoman,³¹⁴, which literally means “a lying of seed.” because she is like another man’s wife. Similarly it states in the case of another man’s wife, And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife,³¹⁷ and it does not state “lieth,” for it is not mere lying with her that He prohibits [under punishment of death]. He does not state here [in the verse before us forbidding intercourse with another man’s wife], “to uncover her nakedness,” for He only mentions this expression with reference to the next of kin and a menstruant,³¹⁸ since the prohibition there is because of the uncovering, just as He said, for he hath made naked his near kin.³¹⁹

footnotes: ³⁰⁸ Literally: “to seed.” See text further. ³⁰⁸ Literally: “to seed.” See text further. ³⁰⁹ See Ezekiel 8:6 and 9. ³¹⁰ I.e., both the child and the father. For not knowing their true relationship, they might marry one of the forbidden relations, etc. ³¹¹ Further, 20:10: And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife … both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death ³¹² Numbers 5:13. The Hebrew shichvath zera ³¹³ Literally: “seed.” In the light of what Ramban has written above, it may also mean that his jealousy is aroused on account of his children, whose legitimacy will henceforth be questioned. ³¹⁴ Further, 19:20. Here too the term used is shichvath zera ³¹⁵ Kerithoth 11 a. ³¹⁶ Proverbs 6:29. ³⁰⁸ Literally: “to seed.” See text further. ³⁰⁸ Literally: “to seed.” See text further. ³¹⁴ Further, 19:20. Here too the term used is shichvath zera ³¹⁷ Further, 20:10. ³¹⁸ Verse 19. ³¹⁹ Further, 20:19.

AND THOU SHALT NOT GIVE ANY OF THY SEED ‘L’HA’AVIR’ (TO PASS THROUGH)³²⁰ ‘LAMOLECH’ (TO MOLECH). This was an idol the name of which was “Molech.” Scripture mentions it with the definite article,³²¹ [in the word lamolech] is vowelled with a pathach [instead of with a shva which would have made it l’molech], it is quite clear that it is speaking of an idol that is known. See Ramban on Exodus 22:19. (Vol. II, p. 390) quoting Rashi. since it was well-known to them from Egypt. And Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra wrote that it is possible that Molech is identical with Milcom the detestation of the Ammonites.³²² And so indeed it would appear, for it is written, Then did Solomon build a high place for Chemosh the detestation of Moab … and for Molech the detestation of the children of Ammon.³²³, Verse 7. Milcom of Verse 5, is thus identical with Molech of Verse 7. Hence the idol by the name of Molech mentioned here in the Torah appears to be, as Ibn Ezra wrote, Milcom the detestation of the Ammonites. And this [name Milcom] was also well-known to them.³²⁴, when from the text here before us in the Torah it is plain that they knew the idol already from Egypt [as is explained in the text above]? To this question Ramban answers that it was also known to them by the name “Milcom” [in the time of Solomon]. Hence Scripture used that name. Now Rashi commented: “And this was the manner in which the Molech was worshipped: he [the father] would hand over his son to the priests, and the priests lit two large pyres [one opposite the other], and they made the child pass on foot between the two fires. Thou shalt not give, this refers to [the father] handing over [the child] to the priests. ‘L’ha’avir lamolech’ is the passing through the open fire.” But this is not correct. For the Rabbis have already said in the Gemara of Tractate Sanhedrin:³²⁵ “If he made him pass on foot [between the fires] the father is free from punishment [because that was not the customary way of worshipping the idol]; rather, [he is liable only if it was] ‘like a leaping place of Purim,’”³²⁶). The Talmudic text k’mishvarto d’puria is thus explained by Rashi “as a leaping place of Purim,” i.e., like a bonfire made on Purim for merriment, over which children leap. Ramban will later on explain that at the Molech the child was passed through the flames so many times that the flames actually burnt him. meaning that he made him pass through the actual fire [by leaping through it]. Scripture mentions [both conditions to make the father liable to punishment]: a “giving” as it is said, and thou shalt not ‘give’ any of thy seed …], and the act of making him “pass through the fire” [as it is said in Deuteronomy 18:10: There shall not be found among you anyone that ‘maketh his son or his daughter pass through the fire’], so that the father does not incur punishment unless he delivers his child to the priests [of Molech] and he [i.e., the father] made him pass through the fire, as is explained in Tractate Sanhedrin.³²⁵ Similarly, that which the Rabbi [Rashi] wrote that the father hands him over to the priests and they make him pass through the fire — and so he wrote also in his commentaries to Tractate Sanhedrin³²⁷, 64 a. — that does not appear to be so from the language of the Rabbis here in the Gemara.³²⁸ Moreover, how could the father be liable to death for the worship of Molech done by others [i.e., the priests]?³²⁹ The very language of Scripture, that maketh his son or his daughter pass through the fire,³³⁰ indicates that it is the father himself who passes him through the fire. Rather, the matter is as follows: the father himself delivers the child to the priests in the name of their detestation. It is with reference to this that it is written, he hath ‘given’ his seed unto Molech,³³¹ similar to what is done within the Sanctuary precincts, as it is written, and he shall give them unto the priest.³³² Perhaps the priests waved the child before the Molech, or brought it near the idol, and then they returned it to the hands of the father, and he took him and passed him through the open flame, this being the sense of the expression, he that maketh his son or his daughter pass through the fire.³³⁰ And so the Rabbis have said in the Yerushalmi:³³³. “[The penalty of death] is never incurred [by the father] unless he delivers the child to the priests, and then he [the father] takes him and passes him through the fire,” that is to say, he takes the child from the priests, and he himself passes him through the fire. However, there was no actual burning of the child. For the Rabbis have said,³²⁵ “If one passed himself through the fire, he is not liable” [to death], which shows that the offender is alive even after he has passed through the fire. And so did Rashi explain [that there was no actual burning of the child].³²⁵ Yet notwithstanding all this, it appears to me on the basis of decisive verses that the child was actually consumed by the flames, for Scripture states, *and their sons, whom they bore unto Me, they have also made them pass through unto them ‘to be devoured,’*³³⁴ and further on there it says, and when they had slain their children to their idols,³³⁵, Verse 39. meaning that they passed him through the fire until he was burnt or died in the fire, this being “the slaying” [mentioned in the verse], for the expression they have made them pass through unto them is a reference to the worship of Molech, and Scripture states to be devoured and also mentions the term slaying! If so, when the Rabbis said [with reference to the Molech that it was] “like a leaping place of Purim,”³²⁶). The Talmudic text k’mishvarto d’puria is thus explained by Rashi “as a leaping place of Purim,” i.e., like a bonfire made on Purim for merriment, over which children leap. Ramban will later on explain that at the Molech the child was passed through the flames so many times that the flames actually burnt him. they meant to say that they made the child pass through the flame many times, until he died in the burning fire. Thus by law of the Torah the father is liable to punishment from the moment of the child’s first passing through, as soon as the fire takes hold of him, such as where one of his limbs took fire. It is for this reason that the Rabbis had to say that he who passes himself through the fire is not liable, [since the liability to punishment begins at the moment when the fire takes hold of one of his limbs, when he is still alive]. But the fire actually consumed the victim, as this was their sacrifice to Molech. And the expression of ma’avir ba’eish [which until now we have understood as “passing through the fire”] always denotes “something burnt by fire, but not [totally] consumed thereby,” for they used to put [the victim] in the fire, and then remove the body from there, and not let it turn into ashes like burnt [sacrifices], similar to utensils of gentiles [which, in order to be purified from the forbidden food they have absorbed], are made white-hot in the flame, and it is said of them, ye shall make to go through the fire, and it shall be clean.³³⁶ And it is said of the Ammonites, and he made them pass through the brick-kiln,³³⁷ meaning that he burnt them just as they do to bricks in a baking furnace. If so, ‘ma’avir’ his son or his daughter through the fire³³⁰ means placing him in the fire so that it should take hold of him, not merely passing him through it. And this is the meaning of ha’avarah which is mentioned in connection with the Molech, which was by fire according to the opinion of our Rabbis,³²⁵ who derived it by means of a similarity of the term ha’avarah [“passing through,” mentioned here in the verse before us, and in Deuteronomy 18:10]: “just as there the ‘passing through’ is in fire [as it is said, There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter ‘pass through the fire’], so here too the meaning is through the fire [although it is not clearly stated], and just as here it is to the Molech, so there too it is to Molech.” Proof to the words of the Rabbis [that the meaning of this ‘passing through’ mentioned here was by fire], is that which is written of King Josiah, And he defiled Topheth, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, that no man might make his son or his daughter to pass through the fire to Molech.³³⁸ Thus the term ha’avarah (‘passing through’) mentioned here in connection with Molech means by fire. So also is it written of King Manasseh: He also made his children ‘to pass through the fire’ in the valley of the son of Hinnom.³³⁹ And I have found it written of King Ahaz, And he also made his son ‘to pass through the fire,’ according to the abominations of the heathen, whom the Eternal cast out from before the children of Israel,³⁴⁰ and in the Book of Chronicles it is stated [of the same king], and ‘he burnt’ his children in the fire, according to the abominations of the heathen whom the Eternal cast out.³⁴¹ If so, ha’avarah (the ‘passing through’) in fact was a burning with real fire.³⁴² (“passing through”) was really an hav’arah (an actual burning of fire), since the verse in Kings speaking of King Ahaz uses the term ha’avarah, while the verse in Chronicles describing the same acts of the same king uses the term hav’arah. Thus it is clear that the two words are identical in meaning in this context. Now that which Scripture states, and the Sepharvites burnt their children in the fire to Adrammelech and Anammelech, the gods of Sepharvaim,³⁴³ [and it does not mention Molech], that was another idol, which was worshipped by burning the victims completely as a sacrifice [which was burnt to ashes]. They used to worship the Baal in a similar manner, as it is written of Jeremiah, Go forth unto the valley of the son of Hinnom,³⁴⁴ and there it says further, and they have filled this place with the blood of innocents; and have built the high places of Baal, to burn their sons in the fire ‘for burnt-offerings’ unto Baal; which I commanded not, nor spoke it, neither came it into My mind.³⁴⁵, Verses 4-5. And it is further written, And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to make their sons and their daughters pass through unto Molech; which I commanded not, neither came it into My mind, that they should do this abomination.³⁴⁶, 32:35. However, due to the fact that these two [last mentioned] verses speak of the high places of Baal, both being in the valley of the son of Hinnom, and the admonition in connection with both of them is identical: which I commanded not, nor spoke it, neither came it into My mind, and the Molech was [also] there in that impure place, as it is written in connection with King Josiah,³⁴⁷ (II Kings 23:10). The verse was mentioned above by Ramban (see text at Note 338). it would appear from all this that they used to burn their children as sacrifices to Molech, which was the Baal, both names being closely associated, and meaning royalty and lordship. This is not the Baal of Peor³⁴⁸ or Baal-zebub,³⁴⁹ for this one [referred to by Jeremiah] was called Baal without any qualification, as Molech was so called, [without any qualification]. Scripture mentions in connection with the worship thereof the term ha’avarah (passing through),³⁴⁶, 32:35. because the main act of worship was by passing the children through [the two pyres] until the fire took hold of them, and it calls it “burning”³⁴⁵, Verses 4-5. because they would die there. That is why they are called “burnt-offerings” [as it is said, to burn their sons in the fire for burnt-offerings].³⁴⁵, Verses 4-5. Similarly, I am of the opinion that the gods of Sepharvaim³⁴³ are also identified with Molech, for their surnames [Adrammelech and Anammelech]³⁴³ denote kingship [as the word melech indicates]. Both of them were worshipped in the same way, although one was called Adra,³⁵⁰ in Aramaic means “distinction,” and the mule is so called because it gives distinction to its owner when travelling, because it carries all his belongings. The name Adrammelech thus means “The mule is the king,” or “the animal which gives distinction to the king.” See II Samuel 13:29, that the mule was ridden by princes, and I Kings 1:33 that it was ridden by the king. Ramban in explaining Adrammelech to be identical with Molech, thus suggests that the Sepharvites called their idol Adar, a name meaning “distinction,” and Adrammelech is “the king of distinction.” which is an expression of respect, and the second was called Ana which is of the root oneh (answers),³⁵¹) is a reference to the horse because it “answers” its master when engaged in battle. See my Hebrew commentary p. 107, Note 44. The name Anammelech means “The horse is the king,” or “the animal which answers the king” in battle. Ramban here suggests, then, that Molech was called Anammelech because “he is the king who answers.” and the name “melech” was attached to both, which is like Molech. The “burning” mentioned in connection with them³⁴³ was the death of the victims by fire, as I have explained [above]. But if we were to say that these detestations [Adrammelech and Anammelech] were not the Molech, then it is possible that because they were worshipped by means of sons and daughters being brought to them in fire, in a similar manner to that which it says about the Molech, therefore their names [Adra and Ana] were combined with his name, and form a melech (king) or Baal, but the modes of worship were not the same. For the Molech was worshipped with “passing through” [the fire], and the gods of Sepharvaim with burning,³⁴³ and the Baal with slaughtering first and then burning, like burnt-offerings.³⁴⁵, Verses 4-5. And it is further said [in Jeremiah] that in the place of the Topheth, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom³³⁸ there were also high places to Baal [as mentioned in connection with King Josiah, that he defiled that place so that no man might make his son or his daughter to pass through the fire to Molech], and it also mentions there the Molech [and Molech and Baal were to some extent identical, as stated above]. Thus that which Scripture states, And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to make their sons and their daughters to pass through unto Molech³⁴⁶, 32:35. [which would seem to indicate that Molech and Baal are entirely identical, contrary to what we have said above], really means: “and” to make their sons and their daughters pass through [the fire] unto Molech. Now our Rabbis have said:³⁵² “The father of Hezekiah king of Judah too [i.e., Ahaz] wanted to do so to him [in his infancy], and to burn him in the fire, but his mother saved him from death by rubbing him with the oil of³⁵³ a salamander.”³⁵⁴). Now Ahaz “made him pass through” to Molech, as it is written, And he also made his son ‘to pass through’ the fire, according to the abominations of the heathen, whom the Eternal cast out from before the children of Israel,³⁴¹ this expression being identical to that used in the case of Molech; if so, [the “passing through” to Molech] meant actual burning until the fire took hold of the victim and he died. However, the righteous [Hezekiah] was saved by this salamander, which the Holy One, blessed be He, created for his sake. By way of the simple meaning of Scripture they³⁵⁵ have said that the matter of “making a son or daughter pass through the fire” was one of the forms of sorcery, for it is in connection with sorcery that it is said, There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter pass through the fire, one that useth divination, a soothsayer, or an enchanter, or a sorcerer.³⁵⁶ And in the case of King Manasseh Scripture likewise states, He also made his children to pass through the fire in the valley of the son of Hinnom; and he practised soothsaying, and used enchantments, and practised sorcery and appointed them that divined by a ghost or a familiar spirit,³⁵⁷ and it is further written, and they caused their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire, and used divination and enchantments,³⁵⁸ [these verses indicating that the rite of “passing through the fire” was some form of witchcraft], and the Molech was an idol to which they offered little children.³⁵⁹ But since we have found it written, that no man might make his son or his daughter to pass through the fire to Molech³⁶⁰ [which shows clearly that “passing through the fire” was in connection with the worship of Molech], the words of our Rabbis that all forms of worshipping Molech were by fire, have been shown to be trustworthy. But it is [also] possible [as the verses indicate] that they used this rite for false divination and to prophesy by means of it, according to their foolishness, these being the prophets of Baal who would first offer to him sacrifices of children, and then have vain dreams and a lying divination.³⁶¹ Therefore the Torah associates the matter of the Molech with that of [the various kinds of] divination. For here [in the Book of Leviticus] it placed [the subject of the Molech] immediately before the soul that turneth unto the ghosts, and unto the familiar spirits,³⁶² and in the Book of Deuteronomy³⁶³ the whole section is devoted to the subject of those who predict the future falsely. Now Scripture [here in the verse before us] states that the act of passing children through the fire to Molech constitutes a profaning of G-d’s Name,³⁶⁴. and in the other section [i.e., in Seder Kedoshim] it adds, to defile My Sanctuary, and to profane My Holy Name.³⁶⁵ Perhaps the meaning thereof is as follows: [To give of one’s children to Molech is] “to defile the people that is sanctified to My Name, whom I commanded, *Sanctify yourselves, and be ye holy, for I the Eternal, Who sanctify you, am holy;*³⁶⁶ — And to profane My holy Name,³⁶⁵ when they commit this serious sin before Me.” For thus He speaks of the serious sins, such as, and a man and his father go unto the same maid, to profane My holy Name.³⁶⁷ It is possible that He says so [to defile My Sanctuary,³⁶⁵ in connection with the Molech], because a father who sacrifices of his seed to Molech and afterwards comes into G-d’s Sanctuary to bring an offering, defiles the Sanctuary, as his offerings are defiled and are an abomination to G-d, and he himself is forever defiled, having become impure by the evil he did; just as He said of [those who turn to] the ghosts and the familiar spirits, seek them not out, to be defiled by them,³⁶⁸ and it is further written, and because they had defiled it with their idols.³⁶⁹ And He also mentions [in connection with the Molech] the profaning of G-d’s Name [as it says, and to profane My holy Name³⁶⁵], because when the nations hear that he honored the Molech with his seed, and to G-d he brought an offering of his cattle, it will be a profaning of G-d’s Name. It is concerning this that the prophet Ezekiel said, and their sons, whom they bore unto Me, they have also made them pass through unto them to be devoured. Moreover this they have done unto Me: they have defiled My Sanctuary in the same day.³⁷⁰, 23:37-38. And the prophet continues, For when they had slain their children to their idols, then they came the same day into My Sanctuary to profane it; and, lo, thus have they done in the midst of My house.³⁷¹, Verse 39. By way of the Truth, [the mystic teachings of the Cabala], Israel the holy seed³⁷² is born in the house of G-d, this being the meaning of the expression whom they bore unto Me.³⁷³ Thus he who sacrifices one of G-d’s people to the Molech, defiles G-d’s Sanctuary and profanes His Great Name, similar to the expression, And he [i.e., the High Priest] shall not profane his seed among his people.³⁷⁴ It is for this reason that He said [of the person who gives of his seed to Molech], And I will set My face against that man,³⁷⁵, 20:3. [and again], Then will I set My face against that man.³⁷⁶, Verse 5. The student learned in the mystic lore of the Cabala will understand.

footnotes: ³²⁰ I.e., to let any of them pass through [the fire] to Molech. The implications will be fully discussed in the text. ³²¹ Since the prefix lamed ³²² I Kings 11:5. ³²³ Ibid. ³²⁴ Ramban’s intention is to forestall the following question: If, as we have said, Molech is the same as Milcom, why does Scripture call Milcom the detestation of the children of Ammon ³²⁵ Sanhedrin 64 b. ³²⁶ “Like children leaping over a bonfire” (Rashi ibid. ³²⁵ Sanhedrin 64 b. ³²⁷ Ibid. ³²⁸ The Gemara speaks there of a case where “he made all his offspring pass through the fire” — an expression which indicates that it is the father himself who makes them pass through the fire. ³²⁹ In other words, if, as Rashi said, it is the priests who perform the rite of passing the child through the fire, it is they who do the forbidden act of worship and not the father. So how could he be made liable to punishment for the act of other people? The mere handing over of the child to the priests is not in itself an act of worship. ³³⁰ Deuteronomy 18:10. ³³¹ Further, 20:3. ³³² Above, 15:14. ³³⁰ Deuteronomy 18:10. ³³³ Yerushalmi Sanhedrin VII, 10. On “Yerushalmi,” see Note 44 in Seder Metzora ³²⁵ Sanhedrin 64 b. ³²⁵ Sanhedrin 64 b. ³³⁴ Ezekiel 23:37. ³³⁵ Ibid. ³²⁶ “Like children leaping over a bonfire” (Rashi ibid. ³³⁶ Numbers 31:23. ³³⁷ II Samuel 12:31. ³³⁰ Deuteronomy 18:10. ³²⁵ Sanhedrin 64 b. ³³⁸ II Kings 23:10. ³³⁹ II Chronicles 33:6. ³⁴⁰ II Kings 16:3. ³⁴¹ II Chronicles 28:3. ³⁴² Ramban is thus suggesting that the word ha’avarah ³⁴³ II Kings 17:31. ³⁴⁴ Jeremiah 19:2. ³⁴⁵ Ibid. ³⁴⁶ Ibid. ³⁴⁷ And he defiled Topheth which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, that no man might make his son or his daughter pass through the fire to Molech ³⁴⁸ Numbers 25:3. ³⁴⁹ II Kings 1:2. ³⁴⁶ Ibid. ³⁴⁵ Ibid. ³⁴⁵ Ibid. ³⁴³ II Kings 17:31. ³⁴³ II Kings 17:31. ³⁵⁰ In Sanhedrin 63 b the Talmud explains the word to mean “the mule.” The word adar ³⁵¹ This term according to the Talmud (Sanhedrin ibid. ³⁴³ II Kings 17:31. ³⁴³ II Kings 17:31. ³⁴⁵ Ibid. ³³⁸ II Kings 23:10. ³⁴⁶ Ibid. ³⁵² Sanhedrin 63 b. ³⁵³ “With the oil of” — this phrase is not mentioned in the Gemara. It is evidently Ramban’s comment as to how it was done. Rashi, however writes that the application was done with the blood of the salamander (see following note). ³⁵⁴ “A small reptile engendered in a fire that has burnt continually for seven years, and he who covers himself with its blood becomes fire-proof” (Rashi ibid. ³⁴¹ II Chronicles 28:3. ³⁵⁵ Evidently the reference is to certain commentators. But I have not identified these. ³⁵⁶ Deuteronomy 18:10. The fact that all these practices are mentioned together proves that the rite of “passing through the fire” was also some form of witchcraft, while the actual burning of the victim was an entirely different matter, since that was a form of idol worship to Molech. All this we would say according to the plain meaning of Scripture. But see further, Note 359. ³⁵⁷ II Chronicles 33:6. Here too the same reasoning as in the previous note applies. ³⁵⁸ II Kings 17:17. Here likewise it would seem that “passing through the fire” was a form of witchcraft, something different from the worship of Molech. But see the following note. ³⁵⁹ Accordingly, in line with the plain meaning of Scripture we would say that the rite of “passing through the fire” was something different from the burning of the victim to Molech. But since we have found it written etc. (see text). ³⁶⁰ II Kings 23:10. ³⁶¹ Ezekiel 13:7. ³⁶² Further, 20:6. ³⁶³ Deuteronomy 18:9-14. ³⁶⁴ The verse here concludes, Neither shalt thou profane the Name of thy G-d ³⁶⁵ Further, 20:3. ³⁶⁶ This is a combination of two verses, Above, 11:44 and further, 21:8. ³⁶⁵ Further, 20:3. ³⁶⁷ Amos 2:7. ³⁶⁵ Further, 20:3. ³⁶⁸ Further, 19:31. ³⁶⁹ Ezekiel 36:18. ³⁶⁵ Further, 20:3. ³⁷⁰ Ibid. ³⁷¹ Ibid. ³⁷² Isaiah 6:13. ³⁷³ Ezekiel 23:37. ³⁷⁴ Further, 21:15. ³⁷⁵ Ibid. ³⁷⁶ Ibid.

Now the reason for the prohibitions against lying carnally with a male,³⁷⁷ or an animal,³⁷⁸ is well-known, as it is an abominable act and is not for the preservation of the human species, because [the copulation] of [male and male or of] man and animal will not beget offspring. And Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra commented:³⁷⁷ “Since we find [Lot’s daughter using] the expression, Behold, ‘shachavti’ (I lay) yesternight with my father,³⁷⁹ [and she did not say, nishkavti, in the passive, or “Behold, shachav imi avi, — my father lay with me,” this shows that the term shachav, although in the active form, refers to the person who commits that act as well as the passive partner who permits herself or himself to be thus abused]; thus it follows that the verse, And with a male ‘lo thishkav’ (thou shalt not lie),³⁷⁷ constitutes a prohibition both against the one who actively commits pederasty, and against the one who permits himself to be thus abused.” [Thus far are the words of Ibn Ezra.] But if it be as Ibn Ezra said, why is the woman not included in the verse, And thou shalt not lie with any beast,³⁷⁸ [and it is clear that she is not so included from the fact that Scripture had to continue, Neither shall any woman stand before a beast, to lie down thereto],³⁷⁸ for women are included in all admonitions of the Torah? Rather, the use of the expression, Behold, ‘shachavti’ (I lay) yesternight with my father³⁷⁹ is due to the fact that it was Lot’s daughters who, through lying with him, [were instrumental in that affair] in order to beget seed of him. As is known, the seed comes either from the movement of the whole body, just as foam is formed in the mouths of galloping horses, or it is brought forth in the veins nearby [the sexual organ], where it gathers by the continuing motion thereof until it is emitted. Were they then not to have lain with Lot, his seed would not have come forth, for in his drunkenness he was like a silent stone.

footnotes: ³⁷⁷ Verse 22. ³⁷⁸ Verse 23. ³⁷⁷ Verse 22. ³⁷⁹ Genesis 19:34. ³⁷⁷ Verse 22. ³⁷⁸ Verse 23. ³⁷⁸ Verse 23. ³⁷⁹ Genesis 19:34.

AND THE LAND WAS DEFILED, THEREFORE DID I VISIT THE INIQUITY THEREOF UPON IT, AND THE LAND VOMITED OUT HER INHABITANTS. Scripture was very strict in forbidding these sexual relationships on account of the Land which becomes defiled by them, and which in turn will vomit out the people that do [these abominations]. Now forbidden sexual relationships are matters affecting personal conduct, and do not depend on the Land, [so why should the Land be affected by these personal immoral acts]? But the secret of the matter is in the verse which states, When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when He separated the children of men, He set the borders of the people, etc. For the portion of the Eternal is His people etc.³⁸⁰ The meaning thereof is as follows: The Glorious Name³⁸¹, 28:58. created everything and He placed the power of the lower creatures in the higher beings, giving over each and every nation in their lands, after their nations³⁸² some known star or constellation, as is known by means of astrological speculation. It is with reference to this that it is said, which the Eternal thy G-d hath allotted unto all the people,³⁸³ for He allotted to all nations constellations in the heavens, and higher above them are the angels of the Supreme One whom He placed as lords over them, as it is written, But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me,³⁸⁴ and it is written, lo, the prince of Greece shall come.³⁸⁵, Verse 20. They are called “kings,” as it is written [there], and I was left over there beside the kings of Persia.³⁸⁴ Now the Glorious Name³⁸¹, 28:58. is G-d of gods, and Lord of lords³⁸⁶ over the whole world. But the Land of Israel, which is in the middle of the inhabited earth,³⁸⁷ is the inheritance of the Eternal designated to His Name. He has placed none of the angels as chief, observer, or ruler³⁸⁸ over it, since He gave it as a heritage to His people who declare the Unity of His Name, the seed of His beloved ones [i.e., the patriarchs]. It is with reference to this that He said, and ye shall be Mine own treasure from among all peoples; for all the earth is Mine,³⁸⁹ and it is further written, so shall ye be My people, and I will be your G-d,³⁹⁰ and you will not be subject to other powers at all. Now He [also] sanctified the people who dwell in His Land with the sanctity of observing the laws against forbidden sexual relationships, and with the abundant commandments, so that they [His people] would be dedicated to His Name. It is for this reason that He said, And ye shall keep all My statutes, and all Mine ordinances, and do them, that the Land, whither I bring you to dwell therein, vomit you not out,³⁹¹ and it is further written, But I have said unto you: ‘Ye shall inherit their Land, and I will give it unto you to possess it’ … I am the Eternal your G-d, Who have set you apart from the peoples,³⁹², Verse 24. meaning to say, that He has set us apart from all the nations over whom He appointed princes and other celestial powers, by giving us the Land [of Israel] so that He, blessed be He, will be our G-d, and we will be dedicated to His Name. Thus the Land which is the inheritance of the Glorious Name, will vomit out all those who defile it and will not tolerate worshippers of idols, nor those who practise immorality. Now this section mentioned the Molech,³⁹³ which is a form of idolatry, together with the forbidden sexual relationships, and with reference to all of them He said, Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things; for in all of these the nations are defiled,³⁹⁴ and the Land vomited out her inhabitants³⁹⁵ [thus showing that the Land is unable to contain idol worshippers or those who practise immorality]. And so also did He say in the second section [i.e., in Seder Kedoshim], and I have set you apart from the peoples, that ye should be Mine,³⁹⁶ which is [the basis for] the strict prohibition against idolatry. Therefore He stated that it is because they are dedicated to His Name that He gave them the Land, as it is said, And I have said unto you: ‘Ye shall inherit their Land, and I will give it unto you to possess it’ … I am the Eternal your G-d, Who have set you apart from the peoples.³⁹², Verse 24. Now outside the Land of Israel, although it all belongs to the Glorious Name,³⁸¹, 28:58. yet its purity is not perfect, because of “the servants” who hold sway there, and the nations go astray after their princes to worship them as well. It is for this reason that Scripture states, the G-d of the whole earth shall He be called,³⁹⁷ since He is the G-d of gods Who rules over all, and He will in the end punish the host of the high heaven on high,³⁹⁸, 24:21. removing the celestial powers and demolishing the array of “the servants,” and afterwards He will punish the kings of the earth upon the earth.³⁹⁸, 24:21. This is the meaning of the verse stating, The matter is by the decree of ‘irin’ (the wakeful ones), and ‘sh’elta’ (the sentence) by the word of the holy ones,³⁹⁹ meaning, the matter that was decreed on Nebuchadnezzar [that he be driven from men and eat grass as oxen etc.] is the pronouncement of the guarding angels and the sentence of the word of the holy ones, who have ordained on the powers emanating from them that it be so. They [the angels] are called irin [literally: “the wakeful ones”], because from their emanations proceed all the powers that stir all activities, similar to that which it says, and behold ‘ir’ (a wakeful one) and a holy one came down from heaven. He cried aloud, and said thus: ‘Hew down the tree etc.⁴⁰⁰, Verse 10-11. — [In the verse] And ‘sh’elta’ (the sentence) is by word of the holy ones,³⁹⁹ [the word sh’elta] is like sha’alu, meaning first “they ask” what is the will of the Supreme One about it, and afterwards they decree that it be so done. It is with reference to this that Daniel told Nebuchadnezzar, it is the decree of the Most High,⁴⁰¹, Verse 21. for everything is from Him, blessed be He. Thus the Glorious Name,³⁸¹, 28:58. blessed be He, is G-d of gods,³⁸⁶ in the whole world, and G-d of the Land of Israel which is the inheritance of the Eternal.⁴⁰² This is the meaning of the expression, and he will go astray after the foreign gods of the Land,⁴⁰³ for the gods are foreign to the Land of G-d and His inheritance. This is what Scripture means when it states [of the Cutheans who were settled by the king of Assyria in the cities of the kingdom of Israel], they knew not the manner of the G-d of the Land; therefore He hath sent lions among them, and, behold, they slay them, because they know not the manner of the G-d of the Land.⁴⁰⁴ Now the Cutheans were not punished in their own land when they worshipped their gods, by G-d sending lions among them, but only when they came into the Land of G-d and conducted themselves as before, did He send lions among them who slew them. And so the Rabbis taught in the Sifra:⁴⁰⁵ 11:14. “And the Land vomit not you out also etc.⁴⁰⁶ The Land of Israel is unlike other lands; it is unable to contain sinners.” And in the Sifre we find that the Rabbis taught:⁴⁰⁷, 315. “And there was no strange god with Him⁴⁰⁸ [when He took Israel out of Egypt, and protected them during their wandering through the wilderness], so that none of the princes of the nations should have power to come and exercise authority over you, something like that which it is said, and when I go forth, lo, the prince of Greece shall come, etc.”³⁸⁵, Verse 20. This is the meaning of the saying of the Rabbis:⁴⁰⁹ “Whoever lives outside the Land, is as if he had no G-d, for it is said, I am the Eternal your G-d, Who brought you forth out of the land of Egypt, to give you the land of Canaan, to be your G-d,⁴¹⁰ and it is further said, for they have driven me [David] out this day that I should not cleave unto the inheritance of the Eternal, saying: Go, serve other gods.”⁴¹¹ This can only mean to teach you that he who lives outside the Land is like etc.’” (Kethuboth). Having been forced to leave the Land, David was thus justified in saying that those responsible for it had, as it were, said to him, “Go, etc.” And in the Tosephta of Tractate Abodah Zarah the Rabbis have said:⁴¹² Note 124. “Now it is said, And I [Jacob] will come back to my father’s house in peace, then shall the Eternal be my G-d,⁴¹³ and it is further said, to give you the land of Canaan, to be your G-d.⁴¹⁰ When you are in the land of Canaan I am your G-d. When you are not in the land of Canaan, I am not your G-d if it were at all possible to say so [for He is our G-d under all circumstances and in all places]. Similarly it is said, about forty thousand ready armed for war passed on in the presence of the Eternal unto battle,⁴¹⁴ and it is further said, and the Land is subdued before the Eternal, and before His people.⁴¹⁵ But how could it enter one’s mind that Israel subdued the Land before the Eternal [as if to say that they captured it for His sake]? But [this teaches that] as long as they are upon the Land, it is as if it were subdued [before Him, since He is their G-d, as explained above], but when they are not upon it, it is not subdued.” It is on the basis of this matter that the Rabbis have said in the Sifre:⁴¹⁶, 43. “And ye perish quickly from off the good Land.⁴¹⁷ etc. This clearly indicates even as the Sifre teaches, that after banishment from the Land they are to continue the observance of the commandments. Although I banish you from the Land to outside the Land, make yourselves distinctive by the commandments, so that when you return they shall not be novelties to you. This can be compared to a master who was angry with his wife, and sent her back to her father’s house and told her, ‘Adorn yourself with precious things, so that when you come back they will not be novelties to you.’ And so did the prophet Jeremiah say [to the people in exile in Babylon], Set thee up waymarks.⁴¹⁸ These are the commandments, by which Israel is made distinctive.” Now the verses which state, and ye perish quickly … and ye shall lay up these My words etc.⁴¹⁹ only make obligatory in the exile [the observance of those commandments] affecting personal conduct, such as the [wearing of] phylacteries and [placing of] Mezuzoth⁴²⁰ [these being specifically mentioned there in the following words of Scripture], and concerning them the Rabbis [in the above text of the Sifre] explained [that we must observe them] so that they shall not be novelties to us when we return to the Land, for the main [fulfillment] of the commandments is [to be kept] when dwelling in the Land of G-d. Therefore the Rabbis have said in the Sifre:⁴²¹, 80. “And ye shall possess it, and dwell therein. And ye shall observe to do all the statutes etc.⁴²² Dwelling in the Land of Israel is of equal importance to all the commandments of the Torah.” A similar statement is also found in the Tosephta of Tractate Abodah Zarah.⁴²³ This in fact was the thought of the wicked ones who [misusing the intention of the above statement], said to the prophet Ezekiel [whose prophetic activity was in the Babylonian exile]:⁴²⁴ “Our master Ezekiel, if a servant is sold by his master, does the master still have any claim to him?”⁴²⁵). The answer was that they were never “sold” since the exile was merely a form of temporary punishment for their sins, and therefore, and that which cometh into your mind etc. (see text). For it is said, and that which cometh into your mind shall not be at all; in that ye say: We will be as the nations, as the families of the countries, to serve wood and stone.⁴²⁶ And this was the command of our patriarch Jacob to his household, and to all that were with him, at the time that they came into the Land, Put away the strange gods that are among you, and purify yourselves.⁴²⁷ And G-d, by Whom alone actions are weighed,⁴²⁸ [brought it about] that Rachel died on the way when they started coming into the Land,⁴²⁹ for on account of her own merit she did not die outside the Land, and for Jacob’s merit, he could not dwell in the Land with two sisters [in their lifetime, since this is forbidden in the Torah, and the laws of the Torah were observed by our ancestors in the Land of Israel even before the Torah was given on Sinai], and she [Rachel] was the one by whose marriage the prohibition against two sisters took effect [since Jacob was already married to Leah]. It would appear that Rachel became pregnant with Benjamin before they came to Shechem, and while in the Land Jacob did not touch her at all, for the reason that we have mentioned. And the prophet states, And first I will recompense their iniquity and their sin double; because they have profaned My Land; they have filled Mine inheritance with the carcasses of their detestable things and their abominations.⁴³⁰ This matter [i.e., that the Land of Israel is the inheritance of the Eternal and thus cannot tolerate sinners] is found in many places in the Scriptures, and you will see it clearly after I have opened your eyes to it. Now Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra commented in the section of *Vayeilech:*⁴³¹ “We know that G-d is One, and changes arise because of those who receive [His beneficent deeds], but G-d does not change His deeds, as they are all done in wisdom. And included in the worship of G-d is to guard the ability to receive [His beneficence] according to the place [so that if a particular place is holier than others, one must observe there more strictly the laws of holiness]. Therefore it is written [of the Cutheans, that they did not know] the manner of the G-d of the Land,⁴³² and of Jacob it is said [when he came into the Land he told his household], put away the strange gods,⁴²⁷ and the extreme opposite of [the sanctity of] the place [i.e., the Land of Israel] is indulging in forbidden sexual relationships, as they are [sins of the] flesh. The student versed [in the mysteries of the Torah] will understand.” Thus are the words [of Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra] of blessed memory. Now do not refute me [in what I have written above, that Israel is under the direct guidance of G-d alone, and no celestial power determines their fate], by citing the verse, Michael your prince,⁴³³ for he is only a ministering angel who implores mercy for Israel, but is in no way a prince exercising any royalty or power. So was also the captain of the host⁴³⁴ who appeared to Joshua at Jericho, showing him that G-d had sent him to fight their battles, similar to [that which happened in the days of] Hezekiah.⁴³⁵ etc. Besides, this matter [of Michael imploring mercy for Israel] was when we were already outside the Land of Israel. Now I do not have permission to explain on the subject of ha’aretz (“the earth” or “the Land”) more than this.⁴³⁶, which is mentioned here repeatedly: vatitma ha’aretz … vataki ha’aretz (literally: “and the earth was defiled … and the earth vomited out”). This hints at the first ha’aretz, mentioned in the first verse of Creation, which Ramban has already explained in many places as referring to “the higher earth,” to which the souls finally return after their sojourn on the lower earth. But if you will merit to understand the first “earth” mentioned in the verse of Bereshith (In the beginning G-d created the heaven and the earth), and also the one mentioned in the section of Im Bechukothai,⁴³⁷ (literally: “and the earth I will remember”). you will know a profound and sublime secret, and you will further understand what our Rabbis have said:⁴³⁸ 7. “The Sanctuary on high is exactly opposite the Sanctuary below.” I have already alluded to this on the verse, for all the earth is Mine.⁴³⁹ Now Scripture mentions that the people of the land of Canaan were punished on account of their immoral [sexual] deeds. And our Rabbis have said that they were warned about these matters from the time of creation, when these laws were declared to Adam⁴⁴⁰ 9:1, puts it as follows: “The first man was commanded concerning six matters: idolatry, blasphemy, bloodshed, incest, robbery, etc.” and to Noah,⁴⁴¹ for He does not punish unless He admonishes first. Scripture, however, did not state the admonition, but instead said that the Land would vomit them out, for the Land abhors all these abominations.⁴⁴² Now the Canaanites were not the only ones who were admonished about these matters [for since these laws were declared to Adam and Noah, they applied to all mankind], and the Scriptural section mentions specifically, After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do,⁴⁴³ which proves that the Egyptians also did all these abominations, and yet the land of Egypt did not vomit them out, nor did the lands of other nations vomit them out! Rather, this whole subject shows the distinction of the Land [of Israel] and its holiness [so that it alone is unable to retain sinners]. Scripture states, and the Land vomited out [using a past tense, although the Canaanites were still living there], for from the time that He was to punish [them] for the sins committed upon her [i.e. the Land], having decreed destruction upon the Canaanites, it is as if the Land had already vomited them out. Or it may be that the expression, and the Land vomited out is a reference to above, similar to what is said, their defense is removed from over them.⁴⁴⁴

footnotes: ³⁸⁰ Deuteronomy 32:8-9. ³⁸¹ Ibid. ³⁸² Genesis 10:31. ³⁸³ Deuteronomy 4:19. ³⁸⁴ Daniel 10:13. ³⁸⁵ Ibid. ³⁸⁴ Daniel 10:13. ³⁸¹ Ibid. ³⁸⁶ Deuteronomy 10:17. ³⁸⁷ Aware of the fact that the earth is spherical [and not flat, as believed by most people in the Medieval Ages], Jewish sources being mindful of this fact speak of the Land of Israel as being in the middle of the “inhabited” earth, and not just “of the earth,” as there is no middle point in a spherical body. ³⁸⁸ Proverbs 6:7. ³⁸⁹ Exodus 19:5. ³⁹⁰ Jeremiah 11:4. ³⁹¹ Further, 20:22. ³⁹² Ibid. ³⁹³ Above, Verse 21. ³⁹⁴ Verse 24. ³⁹⁵ In Verse 25 before us. ³⁹⁶ Further, 20:26. ³⁹² Ibid. ³⁸¹ Ibid. ³⁹⁷ Isaiah 54:5. ³⁹⁸ Ibid. ³⁹⁸ Ibid. ³⁹⁹ Daniel 4:14. ⁴⁰⁰ Ibid. ³⁹⁹ Daniel 4:14. ⁴⁰¹ Ibid. ³⁸¹ Ibid. ³⁸⁶ Deuteronomy 10:17. ⁴⁰² I Samuel 26:19. ⁴⁰³ Deuteronomy 31:16. ⁴⁰⁴ II Kings 17:26. The verse is thus stating that they did not live in the Land in a way befitting its special characteristic as G-d’s inheritance — hence the phrase “the G-d of the Land.” ⁴⁰⁵ Sifra Kedoshim ⁴⁰⁶ Verse 28. ⁴⁰⁷ Sifre Ha’azinu ⁴⁰⁸ Deuteronomy 32:12. ³⁸⁵ Ibid. ⁴⁰⁹ Kethuboth 110 b. ⁴¹⁰ Further, 25:38. ⁴¹¹ I Samuel 26:19. “And who told David, ‘Go, serve other gods?’ ⁴¹² Tosephta, Abodah Zarah 5:5. On the name Tosephta, see in Seder Tazria ⁴¹³ Genesis 28:21. ⁴¹⁰ Further, 25:38. ⁴¹⁴ Joshua 4:13. ⁴¹⁵ I Chronicles 22:18. ⁴¹⁶ Sifre Eikev ⁴¹⁷ Deuteronomy 11:17. The following verse continues: And ye shall lay up these My words in your heart and in your soul ⁴¹⁸ Jeremiah 31:20. ⁴¹⁹ Deuteronomy 11:17-18. ⁴²⁰ A parchment on which is written Deuteronomy 6:4-9, and 11:13-21, and which is fastened to the right door-post. See further in Vol. II, p. 173. ⁴²¹ Sifre R’eih ⁴²² Deuteronomy 11:31-32. ⁴²³ Tosephta, Abodah Zarah 5:3. ⁴²⁴ Sanhedrin 105 a. ⁴²⁵ In other words, “since G-d sold them to Nebuchadnezzar and banished them from before Him, does He still have any claim upon them?” (Rashi ibid. ⁴²⁶ Ezekiel 20:32. ⁴²⁷ Genesis 35:2. ⁴²⁸ See I Samuel 2:3. ⁴²⁹ Genesis 35:16-19. See in Vol. I, pp. 330-332, where Ramban refers briefly to this problem, namely why Jacob married two sisters in their lifetime, and then concludes that “he married them only outside the Land.” Here Ramban completes the thought, by explaining that G-d, by Whom events are decided, therefore brought about the death of one of the sisters as soon as they came into the Land. The reason why Rachel had to die and not Leah, is explained in the text. ⁴³⁰ Jeremiah 16:18. ⁴³¹ Deuteronomy 31:16. ⁴³² II Kings 17:26. The Cutheans were thus punished for not being heedful of the holiness of the Land of Israel which is unable to retain worshippers of idols. ⁴²⁷ Genesis 35:2. ⁴³³ Daniel 10:21. ⁴³⁴ Joshua 5:14. ⁴³⁵ II Kings 19:35: And it came to pass at that night, that the angel of the Eternal went forth, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians ⁴³⁶ Ramban is alluding to the word ha’aretz ⁴³⁷ Further, 26:42. v’ha’aretz ezkor ⁴³⁸ Tanchuma, Vayakheil ⁴³⁹ Exodus 19:5. ⁴⁴⁰ Sanhedrin 56 b. Rambam in the Mishneh Torah, Hilchoth Melachim ⁴⁴¹ Incest is counted among the Seven Laws of the Noachides (see Vol. I, p. 417, Note 148). ⁴⁴² Verse 27. ⁴⁴³ Above, Verse 3. ⁴⁴⁴ Numbers 14:9. See Ramban there.

AND THE SOULS THAT DO THEM SHALL BE CUT OFF FROM AMONG THEIR PEOPLE. “His offspring is cut off, and his [own] days are shortened.” This is Rashi’s language.⁴⁴⁵ Now in the matters of excision mentioned in the Torah there are three different expressions. One is that which states, *that man shall be cut off;*⁴⁴⁶, Verses 4 and 9. This form of expression is found in connection with slaughtering or bringing offerings outside the Sanctuary Court. a second one is that which says, and the souls which do them shall be cut off,⁴⁴⁷ or that soul shall be cut off from before Me;⁴⁴⁸, 17:10) etc. and a third form of expression is that which states, that soul shall utterly be cut off, his iniquity shall be upon him.⁴⁴⁹ Now of a [a person doing work on] the Day of Atonement Scripture states, that soul will I destroy from among his people,⁴⁵⁰ and on this the Rabbis commented in the Sifra:⁴⁵¹ 14:4. “Excision is mentioned in many places in Scripture. But I do not know what it is. Now that it says, and I will destroy,⁴⁵⁰ it teaches that excision means ‘destruction’ [of the soul].” The explanation of the subject is as follows. If someone eats forbidden fat or blood and he is [still] a righteous person whose merits outweigh [his sins], but he could not control his desire for it, and thus stumbled in this sin, his days will be shortened and he will die in his youth before reaching old age, which is sixty years,⁴⁵² but his soul is not destined for destruction;⁴⁵³ (see Note 448 above), yet since the merits of this man outweigh his sins, his soul will not be destroyed. In other words, the punishment of destruction of the soul applies only if his sins outweigh his merits, as a result of his having eaten forbidden fat or blood, as explained further on in the text. rather, its portion will be in the World of Souls⁴⁵⁴ in accordance with the person’s good deeds, since he was a righteous man, and he will also have a portion in the World to Come, which is the world after the resurrection. Of this case it is said, that man shall be cut off.⁴⁴⁶, Verses 4 and 9. This form of expression is found in connection with slaughtering or bringing offerings outside the Sanctuary Court. But [in the case of] one who, as a result of this grave sin, now has more sins [in gravity] than his merits, the punishment of excision for this weighty transgression affects the soul that sins after it is separated from the body, and it is cut off from life in the World of Souls.⁴⁵⁴ It is with reference to those liable to this form of excision that Scripture alludes, in saying, that soul shall be cut off from before Me.⁴⁴⁸, 17:10) etc. And it is further written [in this connection], that soul will I destroy from among his people.⁴⁵⁰ These sinners do not suffer bodily excision [as is the case in the first type mentioned above], but may sometimes live to reach many days, even old age and hoary heads, as it is written, and there is a wicked man that prolongeth his life in his evil-doing.⁴⁵⁵ It is this which our Rabbis have said:⁴⁵⁶ “But he whose sins outweigh his merits, including a non-Jew⁴⁵⁷ who sins with his body” is also mentioned there in the Talmud in this connection. But that is defined there as “the head (of him) that puts on no Tefilin (phylactery).” It may be that Ramban omitted mentioning this here, since his essential intention is to explain the types of excision mentioned in Scripture, which fit in with the example mentioned further on in the text, since the punishment for immorality is expressly stated even for the Canaanites. who sins with his body — and Rav Papa said that this refers to a particular sin, that is to say, one who commits incest with one of the forbidden relations — these descend to Gehenna and they are punished for twelve months; after twelve months their bodies are destroyed, and their souls burnt, and the winds scatter [their ashes] under the soles of the feet of the righteous etc.” And there is a still more stringent form of excision, where both the body is cut off [from life in this world] and the soul [even from life in the World to Come]. It is of this [third kind of excision mentioned above] that it is said, Because he hath despised the word of the Eternal, and hath broken His commandment, that soul ‘hikareith tikareith’ (shall be utterly cut off), his iniquity shall be upon him.⁴⁴⁹ And the Rabbis interpreted it:⁴⁵⁸ “‘Hikareith’ (he shall be cut off) in this world; ‘tikareith’ (he shall be cut off) in the World to Come,” meaning to say that he shall die in his youth, and his life shall be as that of the depraved⁴⁵⁹ in that his soul will not share in the life after the resurrection and he will have no portion in the World to Come. This double expression of excision is not stated in the Torah except in matters of idolatry and blasphemy. Our Rabbis have further interpreted in Tractate Shebuoth:⁴⁵⁸ “Because he hath despised the word of the Eternal.⁴⁴⁹ This refers to one who throws off the yoke, [i.e., he denies the essential principle of the religion], and perverts the sense of the Torah. And he hath broken His commandment. This is one who breaks the covenant of the flesh” [i.e., circumcision]. But this does not apply to all cases where excision is mentioned, it being explained there in the Gemara⁴⁵⁸ that the double expression of ‘hikareith tikareith’ (he shall utterly be cut off)⁴⁴⁹ does not apply to all other people who are liable to excision by law of the Torah, except for those derived by interpretation of this verse; since this verse refers to a blasphemer and a worshipper of idols, and the Rabbis added by interpretations, those who deny the essential principle [of G-d’s existence], and those hardened wicked ones [mentioned above]. This is similar to that which is said of them in the tradition,⁴⁶⁰, and it is here used as a term referring to the books of the Scriptures which come after the Five Books of Moses, because they are words of “tradition” received from the prophets. for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched.⁴⁶¹ These are the ones who are enumerated in the Mishnah⁴⁶² and in the Beraitha:⁴⁶³ “And these are they that have no share in the World to Come.” And so also it appears, that not all those liable to excision are punishable by the death of their offspring, except for those where the word aririm (childless) is mentioned.⁴⁶⁴ And it is possible that all forbidden [sexual] relationships have been likened to each other [in this respect of the punishment, namely death of the offspring], but in the case of other sins for which excision is incurred, such as for eating forbidden fat and blood, we do not have [this aspect of punishment]. Now Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra commented:⁴⁶⁵, 23:30. “There is a difference between ‘v’ha’avad’ti’ (and I will destroy)⁴⁵⁰ and ‘v’nichr’thah’ (it shall be cut off),⁴⁴⁸, 17:10) etc. and I could not explain.” The learned scholar [Rabbi Abraham] thought that the soul that is “destroyed” is destroyed for ever, and the one that is “cut off” is denied life for a time, and yet doth G-d not take away life.⁴⁶⁶ Know and understand that the forms of excision mentioned with reference to the soul, constitute a great [source for] trust in the existence of souls after death, and the granting of reward in the World of Souls.⁴⁵⁴ For in His saying, blessed be He, and that soul shall be cut off from among his people,⁴⁶⁷ or that soul shall be cut off from before Me⁴⁴⁸, 17:10) etc. it denotes that the soul that sinneth⁴⁶⁸ shall be cut off in its iniquity, but other souls that did not sin, will exist before Him in the splendor on high. It is for this reason that He explains, that soul … its iniquity shall be upon it,⁴⁶⁹ for it is the sin that is in it which will cause it to be cut off. And the meaning of the matter is that the soul of man is the lamp of the Eternal,⁴⁷⁰ which has been breathed into our nostrils⁴⁷¹ out of the mouth of the Most High,⁴⁷² and the spirit of G-d,⁴⁷³ as it is said, *And He breathed into his nostrils the breath of life;*⁴⁷¹ and so it remains in its [original] state and does not die [with the death of the body], for it is not a composite [of the four elements] so that it be subject to the law of existence and decomposition, as are all components. But the existence of the soul is fitting [for all time], living forever as do the Separate Intelligences.⁴⁷⁴ Therefore Scripture did not need to state that as a reward for [fulfillment of] the commandments the soul will exist [after the death of the body, for it is self-understood that it will exist from a knowledge of the nature of the soul], but instead it states that as a punishment for sins, the soul will be desecrated and defiled, and become cut off from its proper existence. This is the sense of the expression kareth (cutting off) which the Torah uses, intimating that it is like a branch cut off from the tree, from the roots of which it derives its nourishment. It is this which our Rabbis have said:⁴⁷⁵, 112. “From among his people⁴⁵⁰ — but his people are in peace.” For the cutting off of the soul that sinneth,⁴⁶⁸ proves the existence of all other souls that do not sin, these being his people [mentioned in the verse] which are in peace. And we have already explained⁴⁷⁶. that all assurances of the Torah, whether for reward or punishment, are all miraculous in nature, and are of the type of hidden miracles,⁴⁷⁷ the Torah always promising [certain blessings] in a non-natural manner [which result not from the processes of nature, but because of the observance of the law], and warning against [consequences which result not from the processes of nature, but as punishment for our violation of the law]. Therefore He warned here of kareth which is of a miraculous nature [since in the natural order of things the soul should exist forever], and did not promise the eternal existence of the soul [as a reward for observance of the commandments], since that is its natural state. Now there are thirty-six sins⁴⁷⁸ for which the Torah prescribed excision as a punishment, many of them being in connection with prohibitions of forbidden sexual relationships, that is to say, forbidden sexual intercourse. Similarly, punishments of death imposed by the court for forbidden sexual intercourse, are sixteen.⁴⁷⁹ 15:10-11. But there is no death penalty at all for eating forbidden foods. The reason why these great punishments, such as death by the court and excision [by Heaven] are [imposed] for forbidden sexual relationships, is because immorality is something very abhorrent to the Torah, as is mentioned in this section and in many places of Scripture. The Sages always mention⁴⁸⁰ “idolatry, immorality, and bloodshed” [as being the three gravest sins], mentioning immorality after idolatry and before bloodshed [thus showing the greatness of the sin, in that it is mentioned immediately after idolatry]. This is like that which the Rabbis have said:⁴⁸¹ “The G-d of these people [i.e., the Israelites] abhors lewdness.” There is also one of the great secrets of creation in this matter.⁴⁸² And the Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] wrote in the Moreh Nebuchim:⁴⁸³ “Because man’s temptation to sexual intercourse is great, and because of the strong [natural] desire for it, which can cause many stumblings, a great punishment was needed in order to discipline people.” This also is true. Kedoshim

footnotes: ⁴⁴⁵ Above, 17:9. ⁴⁴⁶ Ibid. ⁴⁴⁷ In Verse 29 before us, in connection with forbidden sexual relationships. ⁴⁴⁸ Further, 23:3 in connection with eating of the holy offerings in a state of impurity. It is also found as a punishment for eating forbidden fat (above, 7:25), blood (ibid. ⁴⁴⁹ Numbers 15:31. In connection with idol worship and blasphemy. ⁴⁵⁰ Further, 23:30. ⁴⁵¹ Sifra. Emor ⁴⁵⁰ Further, 23:30. ⁴⁵² “At sixty a man attains old age” (Aboth 5:24). ⁴⁵³ For although in the case of eating forbidden fat or blood Scripture does state that soul shall be cut off ⁴⁵⁴ See in Vol. II, p. 65, Note 12. ⁴⁴⁶ Ibid. ⁴⁵⁴ See in Vol. II, p. 65, Note 12. ⁴⁴⁸ Further, 23:3 in connection with eating of the holy offerings in a state of impurity. It is also found as a punishment for eating forbidden fat (above, 7:25), blood (ibid. ⁴⁵⁰ Further, 23:30. ⁴⁵⁵ Ecclesiastes 7:15. ⁴⁵⁶ Rosh Hashanah 17 a. ⁴⁵⁷ “A Jew ⁴⁴⁹ Numbers 15:31. In connection with idol worship and blasphemy. ⁴⁵⁸ Shebuoth 13 a. ⁴⁵⁹ Job 36:14. ⁴⁵⁸ Shebuoth 13 a. ⁴⁴⁹ Numbers 15:31. In connection with idol worship and blasphemy. ⁴⁵⁸ Shebuoth 13 a. ⁴⁴⁹ Numbers 15:31. In connection with idol worship and blasphemy. ⁴⁶⁰ The Hebrew word is kabalah ⁴⁶¹ Isaiah 66:24. ⁴⁶² Sanhedrin 90 a. ⁴⁶³ Tosephta, Sanhedrin Chapter 13. ⁴⁶⁴ Further, 20:20-21. ⁴⁶⁵ Ibid. ⁴⁵⁰ Further, 23:30. ⁴⁴⁸ Further, 23:3 in connection with eating of the holy offerings in a state of impurity. It is also found as a punishment for eating forbidden fat (above, 7:25), blood (ibid. ⁴⁶⁶ II Samuel 14:14. ⁴⁵⁴ See in Vol. II, p. 65, Note 12. ⁴⁶⁷ Numbers 15:30. ⁴⁴⁸ Further, 23:3 in connection with eating of the holy offerings in a state of impurity. It is also found as a punishment for eating forbidden fat (above, 7:25), blood (ibid. ⁴⁶⁸ Ezekiel 18:20. ⁴⁶⁹ Numbers 15:31. ⁴⁷⁰ Proverbs 20:27. ⁴⁷¹ See Genesis 2:7. ⁴⁷² Lamentations 3:38. ⁴⁷³ Job 33:4. ⁴⁷¹ See Genesis 2:7. ⁴⁷⁴ Another name for “the angels.” See in Vol. II, p. 292, Note 313. ⁴⁷⁵ Sifre Shelach ⁴⁵⁰ Further, 23:30. ⁴⁶⁸ Ezekiel 18:20. ⁴⁷⁶ At the beginning of Seder Va’eira ⁴⁷⁷ See Vol. I, p. 215, Note 372, and pp. 556-557. ⁴⁷⁸ Kerithoth 2 a. ⁴⁷⁹ These are listed by Rambam in his Mishneh Torah, Hilchoth Sanhedrin ⁴⁸⁰ As in Aboth 5:11, Sanhedrin 74 a, etc. ⁴⁸¹ Sanhedrin 106 a. ⁴⁸² See above, Verse 6. ⁴⁸³ Guide of the Perplexed III, 41. The quotation is not verbatim but expresses the gist of the thought.