SPEAK UNTO ALL THE CONGREGATION OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL. Our Rabbis have already said¹. Quoted also in Rashi. that this section was addressed to the full assembly [of all Israel] because most of the fundamental principles of the Torah are dependent on it,² this being the reason for the expression, speak unto all the congregation of the children of Israel. This section, however, was mentioned here in [the book of] Torath Kohanim³ because it contains laws concerning the thanks-offering,⁴ and also because it states the punishments⁵ He commanded us to execute on those who do the abominable deeds mentioned [in the preceding sections], as well as [those for] the forbidden sexual relationships. These subjects have been included in this book [of Torath Kohanim] for the reason that we have written at the beginning of this book.⁶

footnotes: ¹ Torath Kohanim at beginning of Seder Kedoshim ² Mizrachi on Rashi offers two explanations of this text: (a) Since the laws of this chapter are so fundamental, it was necessary for all the congregation to be present, so that if a doubt arises in anyone’s mind as to precisely what Moses said, the other people can easily clarify it to him, which would not have been the case if the laws of this section were not declared to the full assembly. (b) Since these laws are so fundamental, men, women, and children were all present when Moses addressed them, whereas in the other sections of the Torah only the elders and the men were present. ³ Literally: “the Law of the Priests,” which is another name for the Book of Vayikra, or Leviticus. In other words, since the laws of this section are so fundamental to the entire congregation of Israel, why were they placed in the book which is essentially devoted to the laws of the priests and the offerings? The answer follows in the text. ⁴ The Tur, quoting the language of Ramban, writes: “peace-offerings.” That is correct, since the following verses [5-8] refer only to the peace-offerings, and not the thanks-offering. There are important differences between them. A thanks-offering may be eaten only on the same day that it was slaughtered until midnight, whilst a peace-offering could be eaten for two days and the intervening night. Therefore Verses 6 and 7, speaking of permission to eat the offering for two days, could not possibly refer to the thanks-offering. ⁵ Further, Chapter 20. ⁶ See Ramban’s introduction to this book where he writes: “As a result of mentioning these laws, He warned afterwards about forbidden sexual relationships etc.”

YE SHALL BE HOLY. “Abstain from the forbidden sexual relationships [mentioned in the preceding section] and from [other] sin,⁷ because wherever you find [in the Torah] a warning to guard against immorality, you find the mention of ‘holiness.’” This is Rashi’s language. But in the Torath Kohanim I have seen it mentioned without any qualification [i.e., without any particular reference to immorality, as Rashi expressed it], saying:⁸. “Be self-restraining.” Similarly, the Rabbis taught there:⁹ 12:4. “And ye shall sanctify yourselves, and be ye holy, for I am Holy.¹⁰ Just as I am Holy, so be you holy. Just as I am Pure, so be you pure.” And in my opinion, this abstinence does not refer only to restraint from acts of immorality, as the Rabbi [Rashi] wrote, but it is rather the self-control mentioned throughout the Talmud, which confers upon those who practice it the name of P’rushim (Pharisees), [literally: “those who are separated” from self-indulgence, as will be explained, or those who practice self-restraint]. The meaning thereof is as follows: The Torah has admonished us against immorality and forbidden foods, but permitted sexual intercourse between man and his wife, and the eating of [certain] meat and wine. If so, a man of desire could consider this to be a permission to be passionately addicted to sexual intercourse with his wife or many wives, and be among winebibbers, among gluttonous eaters of flesh,¹¹ and speak freely all profanities, since this prohibition has not been [expressly] mentioned in the Torah, and thus he will become a sordid person within the permissible realm of the Torah! Therefore, after having listed the matters which He prohibited altogether, Scripture followed them up by a general command that we practice moderation even in matters which are permitted, [such as in the following]: One should minimize sexual intercourse, similar to that which the Rabbis have said,¹² “So that the disciples of the Sages should not be found together with their wives as often as the hens,” and he should not engage in it except as required in fulfillment of the commandment thereof. He should also sanctify himself [to self-restraint] by using wine in small amounts, just as Scripture calls a Nazirite “holy” [for abstaining from wine and strong drink],¹³ and he should remember the evils which the Torah mentioned as following from [drinking wine] in the cases of Noah¹⁴ and Lot.¹⁵, 19:33. Similarly, he should keep himself away from impurity [in his ordinary daily activity], even though we have not been admonished against it in the Torah, similar to that which the Rabbis have said:¹⁶ “For the P’rushim (Pharisees), the clothes of the unlearned are considered as if trodden upon by a zav” [or zavah — a man or woman having suffered a flux], and just as the Nazirite is called “holy” because of guarding himself from the impurity of the dead.¹⁷ Likewise he should guard his mouth and tongue from being defiled by excessive food and by lewd talk, similar to what Scripture states, and every mouth speaketh wantonness,¹⁸ and he should purify himself in this respect until he reaches the degree known as [complete] “self-restraint,” as the Rabbis said concerning Rabbi Chiya,¹⁹ that never in his life did he engage in unnecessary talk. It is with reference to these and similar matters that this general commandment [Ye shall be holy] is concerned, after He had enumerated all individual deeds which are strictly forbidden, so that cleanliness of hands and body, are also included in this precept, just like the Rabbis have said:²⁰ “And ye shall sanctify yourselves.¹⁰ This refers to the washing of hands before meals. And be ye holy.¹⁰ This refers to the washing of hands after meals [before the reciting of grace]. For I am holy — this alludes to the spiced oil” [with which they used to rub their hands after a meal]. For although these [washings and perfuming of the hands] are commandments of Rabbinic origin, yet Scripture’s main intention is to warn us of such matters, that we should be [physically] clean and [ritually] pure, and separated from the common people who soil themselves with luxuries and unseemly things. And such is the way of the Torah, that after it lists certain specific prohibitions, it includes them all in a general precept. Thus after warning with detailed laws regarding all business dealings between people, such as not to steal or rob or to wrong²¹ one another, and other similar prohibitions, He said in general, And thou shalt do that which is right and good,²² thus including under a positive commandment the duty of doing that which is right and of agreeing to a compromise [when not to do so would be inequitable]; as well as all requirements to act “beyond” the line of justice [i.e., to be generous in not insisting upon one’s rights as defined by the strict letter of the law, but to agree to act “beyond” that line of the strict law] for the sake of pleasing one’s fellowman, as I will explain when I reach there [that verse], with the will of the Holy One, blessed be He. Similarly in the case of the Sabbath, He prohibited doing certain classes of work by means of a negative commandment,²³ and painstaking labors [not categorized as “work,” such as transferring heavy loads in one’s yard from one place to another, etc.] He included under a general positive commandment, as it is said, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest.²⁴, 23:12. I will yet explain this²⁵ with the help of G-d.

footnotes: ⁷ So explained in Gur Aryeh on Rashi. ⁸ Torath Kohanim, at beginning of Seder Kedoshim ⁹ Ibid., Shemini ¹⁰ Above, 11:44. ¹¹ Proverbs 23:20 ¹² Berachoth 22 a. ¹³ Numbers 6:8. ¹⁴ Genesis 9:21. ¹⁵ Ibid. ¹⁶ Chagigah 18 b. ¹⁷ Numbers 6:6-7. ¹⁸ Isaiah 9:16. ¹⁹ See my Hebrew commentary p. 116, for different personalities to whom this character trait has been ascribed in Rabbinic sources. I have not found a clear source for Ramban’s version here. ²⁰ Berachoth 53 b. ¹⁰ Above, 11:44. ¹⁰ Above, 11:44. ²¹ Further, 25:17. ²² Deuteronomy 6:18. ²³ Exodus 20:10. ²⁴ Ibid. ²⁵ See further, 23:24.

FOR I THE ETERNAL YOUR G-D AM HOLY. This means to say that we will merit to cleave unto Him by being holy. This expression [I the Eternal your G-d] is similar to that of the first commandment in the Ten Commandments [which begins, I am the Eternal thy G-d].²⁶ He commanded here, Ye shall fear every man his mother, and his father,²⁷ for there [in the Ten Commandments] He commanded that we honor them,²⁸ and here it is about fearing them. And he states here, and ye shall keep My Sabbaths,²⁷ for there [in the Ten Commandments] He commanded concerning remembering it,²⁹, Verse 8 (Vol. II, pp. 306-311). and here about keeping it. We have already explained the meaning of both terms.²⁹, Verse 8 (Vol. II, pp. 306-311).

footnotes: ²⁶ Exodus 20:2. ²⁷ Verse 3. ²⁸ Exodus 20:12. ²⁷ Verse 3. ²⁹ Ibid. ²⁹ Ibid.

He states, ‘Al tiphnu’ (Turn ye not) unto the idols,³⁰ the term tiphnu (turn ye) being of the expressions: and if thy heart ‘yiphneh’ (turn away);³¹ whose heart ‘poneh’ (turneth away) this day.³², 29:17. The verse [here] is thus stating that one’s heart should not turn away to the idols, to believe that there is some benefit in [worshipping] them, or that the events that they foretell will really transpire; rather, they and all their activities should appear to him as things of nought, and vanity,³³ and future events occur only by decree of the Most High. And so also have our Rabbis said:³⁴ “It is forbidden to look at the statues [of the idols] themselves, because it says, ‘Turn ye not’ unto the idols.” Thus the Rabbis included within this prohibition even looking at the statues, so that one should not allow one’s thoughts to dwell on their matters at all. He states, nor make to yourselves molten gods,³⁰ thus prohibiting them from the very moment that they are made. Admonitions against idolatry are stated in the Torah in many places. In the Midrash of Vayikra Rabbah the Rabbis mentioned concerning this section [of the Torah the following text]:³⁵ “Rabbi Levi says: Because the Ten Commandments are included in this section [therefore it was proclaimed to the full assembly]. I am the Eternal thy G-d,²⁶ and here it is written, I am the Eternal your G-d. Thou shalt have no other gods,³⁶ and here it is written, nor make to yourselves molten gods.³⁰ Thou shalt not take the Name of the Eternal thy G-d in vain,³⁷, Verse 7. and here it is written, And ye shall not swear by My Name falsely.³⁸ Remember the Sabbath day,²⁹, Verse 8 (Vol. II, pp. 306-311). and here it is written, and ye shall keep My Sabbaths.²⁷ Honor thy father and thy mother,²⁸ and here it is written, Ye shall fear every man his mother and his father.²⁷ Thou shalt not murder,³⁹ and here it is written, Neither shalt thou stand idly by the blood of thy neighbor.⁴⁰ Thou shalt not commit adultery,³⁹ and here it is written, Profane not thy daughter, to make her a harlot.⁴¹, Verse 29. Thou shalt not steal,³⁹ and here it is written, Ye shall not steal.⁴², Verse 11. Thou shalt not bear false witness,³⁹ and here it is written, Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people.⁴⁰ Thou shalt not covet,⁴³ and here it is written, and thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.”⁴⁴ Thus far is the text of the Midrash.

footnotes: ³⁰ Verse 4. ³¹ Deuteronomy 30:17. ³² Ibid. ³³ Isaiah 40:17. ³⁴ Shabbath 149 a. ³⁰ Verse 4. ³⁵ Vayikra Rabbah 24:5. ²⁶ Exodus 20:2. ³⁶ Exodus 20:3. ³⁰ Verse 4. ³⁷ Ibid. ³⁸ Further, Verse 12. ²⁹ Ibid. ²⁷ Verse 3. ²⁸ Exodus 20:12. ²⁷ Verse 3. ³⁹ Exodus 20:13. ⁴⁰ Further, Verse 16. ³⁹ Exodus 20:13. ⁴¹ Ibid. ³⁹ Exodus 20:13. ⁴² Ibid. ³⁹ Exodus 20:13. ⁴⁰ Further, Verse 16. ⁴³ Exodus 20:14. ⁴⁴ Further, Verse 18. For if you love him as yourself you will not covet that which is his, since that which is hateful to yourself, you should not do to others (Etz Yoseiph in the name of Rabbi David Luria).

He states, And when ye offer an offering of peace-offerings unto the Eternal etc.,⁴⁵ for after He prohibited the slaughtering of sacrifices, and all manner of worship to idols and to molten gods, and ordered that all Services be devoted to the Proper Name [i.e., the Tetragrammaton] exclusively, He stated here that when you shall bring an offering to the Eternal, it shall be lirtzonchem [“of your desire”], in order that your worship should be acceptable to Him and that He should be pleased with you,⁴⁶ even as a servant reconciles himself to his master⁴⁷ by doing all that he commands him to do, the expression [lirtzonchem] being similar to: ‘v’nirtzah’ (and it shall be accepted) *for him to make atonement for him;*⁴⁸ but by the light of Thy countenance, because ‘retzitham’ (Thou wast favorable unto them).⁴⁹ … And the meaning of the verse is to state that you are not to think that there is any benefit in idol worship, neither are you to do the service of the Glorious Name⁵⁰ in order to receive a reward, but only to do His Will, for it is His simple Will⁵¹ that is proper and incumbent upon us [to do]. He states this with reference to the peace-offerings because they are of the lesser degree of holy offerings, which are eaten by the owners themselves [unlike the most holy offerings, such as the sin-offering, which may be eaten only by the priests, the verse thus saying] that the owners are to guard their thoughts, so that the offerings be brought with the proper intention, and this applies all the more so to the most holy offerings. Or it may be that [the verse here mentions peace-offerings] because peace-offerings are the [unique] attribute of Israel, just as our Rabbis have said:⁵² “Noachides did not offer peace-offerings.” The student learned [in the mysteries of the Cabala] will understand. And our Rabbis have said:⁵³ “Lirtzonchem [literally: ‘to your intent’] slaughter the offering, meaning that you are to have the intention to slaughter it,” for if he merely “handles” an offering [i.e., if he does the act of slaughtering without the intention of so doing], he invalidates [the offering].

footnotes: ⁴⁵ Verse 5. ⁴⁶ See Malachi 1:8. ⁴⁷ See I Samuel 29:4. ⁴⁸ Above, 1:4. ⁴⁹ Psalms 44:4. For not by their own sword did they get the Land in possession … but by Thy right hand, and Thine arm, and the light of Thy countenance ⁵⁰ Deuteronomy 28:58. ⁵¹ For just as the Creator is a perfect Unity and in no way a composite of many elements, so when the Creator wills something, the Will is also simple as is His essence. Hence Ramban’s expression “His simple Will.” ⁵² Zebachim 116 a. See in Vol. I, pp. 542-543. ⁵³ Chullin 13 a.

AND YE SHALL NOT SWEAR BY MY NAME FALSELY. “Why is this stated [when it has already been mentioned in the Ten Commandments]? Since it is said, Thou shalt not take the Name of the Eternal thy G-d in vain,³⁷, Verse 7. I might think that one is liable only if he swore by the Proper Name of G-d. Whence do I know to include all ‘substitute’ Names of G-d [such as Merciful, etc.]? Scripture therefore says, And ye shall not swear ‘bishmi’ (by My Name) falsely — by any Name I have.” This is Rashi’s language from the Torath Kohanim.⁵⁴ 2:6. The Sifra is another name for Torath Kohanim. By way of the Truth, [the mystic teachings of the Cabala], And ye shall not swear by My Name refers to the Proper Name [i.e., the Tetragrammaton]. And thereby thou wilt profane the Name of thy G-d refers to the Name Elokim (G-d), from which Name all other “substitute” Names of G-d are derived. And there [in the Ten Commandments] it says at first the Name of the Eternal thy G-d,³⁷, Verse 7. and similarly, the Eternal will not hold him guiltless,³⁷, Verse 7. meaning, by His Great Proper Name. And this is the meaning of the expression [here in the verse before us], and thou wilt profane, meaning that he who swears falsely by the Proper Name, will thereby be profaning the Name of Elokim [as all Divine Names are united in perfect Unity].⁵⁵

footnotes: ³⁷ Ibid. ⁵⁴ Sifra, Kedoshim ³⁷ Ibid. ³⁷ Ibid. ⁵⁵ See my Hebrew commentary p. 117.

THOU SHALT NOT CURSE THE DEAF. “From this verse I know only [that one may not curse] the deaf. Whence do I know that one may not curse anybody? From the words of Scripture: Of thy people thou shalt not curse.⁵⁶ If so, why does it state [here] ‘the deaf’? It is to teach us that ‘the deaf’ has been singled out by Scripture [here] because [although he is unable to hear and feel hurt], he has the characteristic of being alive, thus exluding [from the scope of this prohibition] the dead [who, though they are like the deaf in their inability to hear and feel hurt], are unlike them in being no longer alive.” This is Rashi’s language, and so it is taught in the Torath Kohanim.⁵⁷ 2:13. But the interpretation of the Gemara⁵⁸ is not so. Rather, Scripture first warned against [cursing] the dignitaries of the people, the judge or ruler, saying, Thou shalt not curse ‘elohim’ (the judges) nor curse a ruler of thy people.⁵⁶ Then it gave another admonition [here] against cursing the unfortunate ones of the people, like the deaf, and from them [i.e., from both classes of people, the distinguished and the unfortunate] we learn by a general proposition that we must not curse anyone of the rest of the people, since from beginning to end [from “the ruler” to “the deaf”] they are all included in this prohibition.⁵⁹, but is rather based on the two prohibitions against cursing a ruler and the deaf, which include the highest stratum of the people as well as the unfortunate ones, and everyone else is naturally included in between these two categories. And the word b’amcha (of thy people — a ruler ‘of thy people’) is interpreted [by the Gemara] to mean⁶⁰ only those who conduct themselves in the manner of thy people, thus excluding the wicked. According to the plain meaning of Scripture, the verse mentions cursing the deaf [in order that we may deduce] that if in the case of one who cannot hear and will not become incensed by the curse, the Torah nonetheless admonished against cursing him, how much more so [is it prohibited to curse] one who hears and feels the insult, and will become hot-tempered because of it! Moreover, Scripture always admonishes against doing that which is frequent, for a person is inclined to curse the deaf and put a stumbling-block before the blind since he does not fear them, because they know not, neither do they understand.⁶¹ Therefore [it states here], and thou shalt fear thy G-d, Who sees the secret things. And He added another prohibition against cursing rulers, the prince and the judge,⁵⁶ because it is usual for people to curse them in their bed-chamber⁶² when in judging him he lets him go forth condemned,⁶³ and there are many harms that are caused by cursing a prince or a judge, for the masses of people in their foolishness will hate them and will thus be stirred to rise up against them, while in truth the prince and judge establish the land by their justice.⁶⁴.

footnotes: ⁵⁶ Exodus 22:27. ⁵⁷ Torath Kohanim, Kedoshim ⁵⁸ Sanhedrin 66 a. ⁵⁶ Exodus 22:27. ⁵⁹ Thus the prohibition against cursing anybody is not, as Rashi stated, derived from the phrase of thy people thou shalt not curse ⁶⁰ Sanhedrin 85 a. ⁶¹ Psalms 82:5. ⁵⁶ Exodus 22:27. ⁶² See Ecclesiastes 10:20. ⁶³ Psalms 109:7. ⁶⁴ See Proverbs 29:4: The king by justice establisheth the land

THOU SHALT NOT ‘THEILEICH RACHIL’ (GO UP AND DOWN AS A TALEBEARER) AMONG THY PEOPLE. “I say that because all those who sow discord [among brethren]⁶⁵ and speak slander go into their friends’ houses in order to spy out what evil they can see or hear, so that they may tell it in the street — therefore they are called holchei rachil or holchei regilah (‘those who go about spying’) etc. And so did Onkelos translate [the verse before us]: lo theichul kurtzin [literally: ‘thou shalt not eat kurtzin’, which has the same meaning as], ‘va’achalu kartzeihon’ (and they brought accusation against) *the Jews;*⁶⁶ ‘achlu kurtza (they slandered him) to the king.’⁶⁷ It appears to me that it was their custom to eat something in the house of him who accepted their slanderous words, this being a sort of final confirmation that the slanderer’s words are well-founded, and that he would stand by them. It was this snack that was called ‘the eating of kurtzin,’ [the word being associated with] the [Hebrew] expression, ‘koreitz’ (he that winketh) with his eyes,⁶⁸ for such is the manner of all who go about slandering, to wink with their eyes, and to insinuate slanderous matters in order that [others who happen to] hear them should not understand them.” All this is the language of the Rabbi [Rashi]. But his explanation of this rendition of Onkelos has neither rhyme nor reason.⁶⁹ For one who listens to a slanderer does not swear to him that he will believe his words, and [therefore the slanderer] need not give him a sign or token [to believe him]! Even when one slanders a servant to his master,⁷⁰. Ramban’s intention is therefore as follows: Even in slandering a slave, where the slanderer runs the risk of incurring his curse, the master nonetheless gives the slanderer no assurance that he will listen to him, and so what sense is there to this “eating” on the part of the slanderer which Rashi mentioned? the master does not assure him that he will listen to him, and so what sense is there to this “eating” [by the slanderer, as Rashi mentioned]? And Nebuchadnezzar did what he decided to do on the basis of his own decision about the righteous ones,⁷¹, and it is told that certain slanderers came and informed Nebuchadnezzar that Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, were not bowing to his image of gold. As a result he called them and asked them if it was true. When they told him that they had no intention ever of bowing to his image of gold, he had them thrown into a burning furnace. But when they were saved by an act of G-d from the fiery furnace, the king had it proclaimed that no one must henceforth speak against the G-d of these righteous ones. — Ramban now points out that when accepting the words of the slanderers, we find no reference to the king’s offering them any food, a custom which Rashi mentioned as having been the basis for this expression va’achalu kartzeihon. Furthermore, as is evidenced from the story, he did not even believe them at first, for he called Hananiah etc. and asked about it. And yet Scripture says ‘va’achalu kartzeihon’ of the Jews, which shows that this whole interpretation of Rashi in Onkelos’ translation of the verse is not borne out by Scripture. and He did not offer food to the slanderers [to establish the veracity of their report], neither did he swear to them [that he would believe them], nor did he in fact believe them. Instead, he asked [of the righteous ones], Is it true, O Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego etc.,⁷², 1:7). and he commanded that if henceforth they were to bow to the image of gold that he had made, he would forgive them for their transgressions in the past! [All this shows that va’achalu kartzeihon does not refer to a meal eaten by the slanderers, to serve as the final confirmation that their slander was well-grounded, since in the case of Nebuchadnezzar, where this expression occurs, the king did not accept their report!] Nor did King Darius offer food to the slanderers of Daniel,⁷³, 6:12-14. except for the wormwood and the gall,⁷⁴ and yet it is written of them, *those men that ‘achalu kartzohi’ of Daniel!⁷⁵,) it refers to them as those men that ‘achalu kartzohi’ of Daniel, which shows that it was not a meal that the king offered them, but quite the contrary. And even if it is true that it was so done in those [later] times, but since Scripture states thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people, why should Onkelos have mentioned this foolish custom [of the slanderer eating a little snack in the house of him who listened to his slanderous words], when it does not affect the admonition itself? Instead, the essential meaning of the Aramaic expression here [i.e., lo theichul kurtzin, is not a prohibition against “eating kurtzin,” but] is only a term for the act of making a sound, this usage being common in the language of the Sages:⁷⁶ “And even if it were but goats, would they not achluyei michlulei (have to be shouted at)? And would you not have [to hire] a person l’achluyei (to shout) at them?” Jonathan [ben Uziel] translated: Cry aloud⁷⁷ — ‘achlei;’ and ‘He will hiss’ unto them from the end of the earth⁷⁸, 5:26. — ‘v’yachlilei;’ ‘and they shall roar’ against them like the roaring of the sea⁷⁹, 5:30. — ‘v’yachlei’ against them. Similarly [Jonathan has translated] in many places. Thus the term achal [in Aramaic] denotes every form of making sound, whereby one makes his wish known without uttering words. Therefore this term was used [by the Sages, as mentioned above] to describe one who shouts at goats that enter a field, and [Jonathan used the same term in translating the Hebrew for] hissing,⁷⁸, 5:26. roaring⁷⁹, 5:30. and crying aloud.⁷⁷ Now the way of talebearers is to come amongst a multitude of people, or before a ruler, and utter sounds in a guttural manner, and wink with their eyes, in order to hint that they have heard certain important matters until they press upon them that they tell them. This is why [talebearers in Aramaic] are called ochlei kurtzin, meaning “those who roar with hints.” And Onkelos who translated [the Hebrew] rechiluth (talebearing) [as theichul kurtzin — muttering hints], rendered into Aramaic the idea of the Hebrew, and was not particular to explain the precise meaning of the Scriptural expression. Such is always his style, since his intention is to make the subject understandable [and not necessarily to translate literally]. But in the Sacred Language talebearers are called holchei rachil, from the expressions, all powders of the ‘rachil’ (merchant);*⁸⁰ ‘rechulatheich’ (thy merchandise).⁸¹ For the rocheil (peddler) goes about the whole day, buying merchandise in various other places, just as the Sages mention,⁸² “peddlers that go around from town to town,” [and similarly the holchei rachil carry tales as if they were merchandise, from place to place]. And this is the sense of the word b’amecha (among thy people) — Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer ‘among thy people’ — since the talebearer walks among many people. To differentiate between the two [the talebearer and the peddler], the talebearer was called rocheil, in a verbal form, [as the term rocheil can also signify the act of talebearing], while the peddler was called rachil, which is an adjectival noun denoting the person himself, just like saris (chief), nazir (a Nazirite), the name rachil thus hinting that peddling is of his essence, and is an act which reflects upon his person.

footnotes: ⁶⁵ See Proverbs 6:19. ⁶⁶ Daniel 3:8. ⁶⁷ Berachoth 58 a. ⁶⁸ Proverbs 6:13. ⁶⁹ See in Volume I, p. 100, for a similar remark. ⁷⁰ See Proverbs 30:10: Slander not a servant unto his master, lest he curse thee, and thou be found guilty ⁷¹ This refers back to the proof Rashi mentioned above from the Book of Daniel 3:8, where it is said ‘va’achalu kartzeihon’ of the Jews ⁷² Daniel 3:14. Shadrach, Meshach, etc. were the Babylonian names that the chief of officers gave to Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah (ibid. ⁷³ Ibid. ⁷⁴ Lamentations 3:19. In other words, he had the slanderers thrown into the lions’ den (Daniel 6:25.). ⁷⁵ In other words, in the same verse where their punishment is mentioned (ibid. ⁷⁶ Baba Bathra 5 a. The story there is told that Ravina had land on all four sides of a field belonging to a man called Runya. When Ravina put up a fence on all four sides separating his fields from that of Runya, the latter refused to pay his share of the expense. Thereupon Ravina at the time of the harvest said to his field laborer, “Bring me a cluster of grapes from Runya’s field when he is present there.” When he was about to do it Runya rebuked him, shouting, “Put it back.” Ravina then said to Runya: “Now you have shown that you are satisfied with the fence I have made. Even if only goats came into your field, would you not need to shout at them? Would you not need to hire a person to shout at them? [Hence you must share in the expense of the fence].” ⁷⁷ Isaiah 58:1. ⁷⁸ Ibid. ⁷⁹ Ibid. ⁷⁸ Ibid. ⁷⁹ Ibid. ⁷⁷ Isaiah 58:1. ⁸⁰ Song of Songs 3:6. ⁸¹ Ezekiel 26:12. ⁸² Maasroth 2:3.

THOU SHALT NOT HATE THY BROTHER IN THY HEART. Because it is the way of those who hate a person to cover up their hatred in their hearts, just as it is said, He that hateth dissembleth with his lips, but he layeth up deceit within him,⁸³ therefore Scripture speaks of the usual events, [mentioning, thou shalt not hate thy brother ‘in thy heart,’ but the law forbids all hating, even if done openly]. THOU SHALT SURELY REBUKE THY NEIGHBOR, This constitutes another commandment, that we must teach him reproof of instruction.⁸⁴. See “The Commandments,” Vol. I, pp. 219-220. THOU SHALT NOT BEAR SIN BECAUSE OF HIM, for you will bear sin because of his transgression if you do not rebuke him. Onkelos’ rendition tends towards this explanation, for he translated, “and do not receive guilt because of him,” meaning that you should not be punished by his sin. Following these commandments He then said [in the following verse] that you are to love your neighbor. Thus he who hates his neighbor violates a negative commandment, and he who loves him, fulfills a positive commandment. The correct interpretation appears to me to be that the expression ‘hochei’ach tochiach’ (thou shalt surely rebuke), is similar to ‘V’hochiach Avraham’ (And Abraham reproved) Abimelech.⁸⁵ The verse here is thus stating: “do not hate your brother in your heart when he does something to you against your will, but instead you are to reprove him, saying, ‘Why did you do thus to me?’ and you will not bear sin because of him by covering up your hatred of him in your heart and not telling him, for when you will reprove him, he will justify himself before you [so that you will have no cause to hate him], or he will regret his action and admit his sin, and you will forgive him.” After that He admonishes [in the following verse] that you are not to take vengeance of him, nor bear a grudge in your heart against him because of what he has done to you, for it is possible that he will not hate him, but yet he will remember in his heart his neighbor’s sin against him; therefore He admonished him that he is to erase his brother’s sin and transgression against him from his heart. Following that admonition, He commanded that he love him as himself.

footnotes: ⁸³ Proverbs 26:24. ⁸⁴ Proverbs 6:23. For the commandment is a lamp, and the teaching is light, and reproofs of instruction are a way of life ⁸⁵ Genesis 21:25.

AND THOU SHALT LOVE THY NEIGHBOR AS THYSELF. This is an expression by way of overstatement, for a human heart is not able to accept a command to love one’s neighbor as oneself. Moreover, Rabbi Akiba has already come and taught,⁸⁶ (further, 25:36), thy life takes precedence over the life of thy brother.” “Your life takes precedence over the life of your fellow-being.” Rather, the commandment of the Torah means that one is to love one’s fellow-being in all matters, as one loves all good for oneself.⁸⁷, 6:3). It is possible that since it does not say “and thou shalt love *‘eth rei’acha’*⁸⁸ of one’s neighbor as much as one loves one’s own self. But instead the verse says l’rei’acha, which means “to [or ‘for’] your neighbor,” thus teaching that that which is good “for” your neighbor you should love as if it were good for youself. as thyself,” but instead it likened them in the word ‘l’rei’acha’ [which literally means “to” thy neighbor], and similarly it states with reference to a proselyte, and thou shalt love ‘lo’ (him) [but literally: “to” him] as thyself,⁸⁹ that the meaning thereof is to equate the love of both [himself and his neighbor, or himself and the proselyte] in his mind. For sometimes a person will love his neighbor in certain matters, such as doing good to him in material wealth but not with wisdom and similar matters. But if he loves him completely, he will want his beloved friend to gain riches, properties, honor, knowledge and wisdom. However [because of human nature] he will still not want him to be his equal, for there will always be a desire in his heart that he should have more of these good things than his neighbor. Therefore Scripture commanded that this degrading jealousy should not exist in his heart, but instead a person should love to do abundance of good for his fellow-being as he does for himself, and he should place no limitations upon his love for him. It is for this reason that it is said of Jonathan’s [love for David], for he loved him as he loved his own soul,⁹⁰ because Jonathan had removed [altogether] the attribute of jealousy from his heart, and he said [to David], and thou shalt be king over Israel,⁹¹, 23:17. etc. Our Rabbis have already explained⁹² 4:10-11. the matters of taking vengeance and guarding a grudge [which are here forbidden], that they apply to cases where there is no monetary obligation, such as, “Lend me your sickle, lend me your hatchet.”⁹³ For in a case where his friend owes him money, such as because of damage that he caused him or for similar reasons, one is not obliged to let his friend go free. On the contrary, he should sue him before the court and receive payment from him, on the basis of the verse which states, as he hath done, so shall it be done to him,⁹⁴ and he [who caused the damage] is himself obliged to pay just as he must pay back that which he borrowed or robbed; and how much more so in matters of life, [the next of kin] should take vengeance and guard the grudge against the murderer, until the blood of his brother be redeemed by a court that will render judgment according to the laws of the Torah.

footnotes: ⁸⁶ Baba Metzia 62 a. This teaching applies to a case where “two people are together on a journey and one has a pitcher of water; if they both drink from it they will die, because there is not enough for both, but if only one will drink he will survive. Ben Petura taught that it is better that both should drink and die, rather than that one should see the death of the other. [This was held to be the law] until Rabbi Akiba came and taught: that thy brother may live with thee ⁸⁷ Thus: “he is to speak in praise of his neighbor, and be as careful of his neighbor’s property as he is careful of his own property, and be as solicitous of his neighbor’s honor as he is of his own” (Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilchoth Mada ⁸⁸ In that case the command would have been to love the person ⁸⁹ Further, Verse 34. Here too the thought conveyed is: “that which is good for the proselyte you should love, as if it were good for your own self.” ⁹⁰ I Samuel 20:17. ⁹¹ Ibid. ⁹² Sifra, Kedoshim ⁹³ If he answers, “I will not lend it to you, just as you refused to lend it to me,” that is vengeance. But if he answers, “yHere it is; I am not like you, who would not lend it to me,” that is bearing a grudge. ⁹⁴ Further, 24:19.

YE SHALL KEEP ‘CHUKOTHAI’ (MY STATUTES). “And these are they: thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind, etc. Chukim (statutes) are the decrees of the King for which there is no reason [given].” This is Rashi’s language. But our Rabbis have not mentioned that the reasons for the commandments [mentioned in this verse] are hidden from us, and that the evil inclination and the idolaters raise objections against them, except in [the case of the prohibition against] wearing a garment made of wool and linen, but not in the case of mating of animals of diverse kinds [for which there is a reason, as will be explained later on].⁹⁵ And the intention of the Rabbis [in defining “statutes” as the laws of the King for which there is no reason] was not that these are decrees of the King of kings for which there are no reasons whatever, for every word of G-d is tried.⁹⁶ [They meant] only that “statutes” are like the enactments which a king promulgates for his kingdom, without revealing their benefits to the people, and the people, not sensing these reasons, entertain questions about them in their hearts but they accept them nonetheless out of fear of the government. Similarly, “the statutes” of the Holy One, blessed be He, are His secrets in the Torah, which the people by means of their thinking do not grasp as they do in the case of mishpatim [“ordinances” — laws which conform to the human conception of justice], but yet they all have a proper reason and perfect benefit. Now the reason for [the prohibitions against] kilayim [“mixed kinds,” as will be explained further on], is that G-d has created in the world various species among all living things, both plants and moving creatures, and He gave them a power of reproduction enabling them to exist forever as long, as He blessed be He, will desire the existence of the world, and He further endowed them with a power to bring forth [only] after their kind, and that they should never be changed, as it is said with reference to all of them [at the time of Creation], after its kind.⁹⁷ This driving force in the normal mating of animals is for the sake of preserving the species, even as human beings engage in sexual activity for the sake of having children. Thus one who combines two different species, thereby changes and defies the work of Creation, as if he is thinking that the Holy One, blessed be He, has not completely perfected the world and he desires to help along in the creation of the world by adding to it new kinds of creatures. Moreover, the mating of diverse species of animals does not produce offspring, and even in the case of those that are by nature close to each other [such as the horse and the ass], from which offspring are born, such as mules, their seed is cut off, for they themselves [the mules] cannot produce offspring. Thus from the point of view of these two matters [i.e., the changing in the order of Creation and the sterility of the product, we see that] the act of combining different species is despicable and futile. Even when diverse species of vegetation are grafted together, their fruits do not reproduce afterwards, and they too are prohibited because of the two above-mentioned reasons [for the prohibition of mixing different species together]. This is the meaning of the prohibition [stated here in the verse], thou shalt not sow thy field with two kinds of seed, which in the opinion of our Rabbis⁹⁸ constitutes a prohibition against grafting [diverse kinds of trees, or trees and vegetables, and is not a prohibition against merely sowing together diverse kinds of seed].⁹⁹. By placing these two prohibitions together, Scripture is teaching that just as in the case of cattle, the verse refers to well-definable objects [cattle], so in the case of sowing the field, Scripture refers to well-definable objects — trees, vegetables, etc., — and is not a mere prohibition against sowing diverse kinds of seed [although that too is forbidden], since these are not yet distinguishable. But He has prohibited also the mere sowing together of diverse kinds of seed, because their nature and form change when they derive nutrition from each other, and thus each kernel of it is as if it were grafted together from two kinds. Similarly, He has forbidden to plow with an ox and an ass together,¹⁰⁰ because it is customary among tillers of the soil to bring their working animals into one cattle-shed, and there they might come to mate with a diverse kind.¹⁰¹ And one of our colleagues¹⁰² (our colleague) indicates the closeness with which the group kept together, so that anyone who was part of them was called a chaveir (a colleague). The expression “one of our colleagues” may perhaps also indicate that Rabbi Ezra and Ramban were regarded as equals, for otherwise he would have referred to him as a teacher or master. adds to the reason for the prohibition against mixing seeds, that it is in order not to throw into disorder the primary forces which bring about the growth of the plants, when they derive nutrition from each other,¹⁰³ as is indicated in the saying of our Rabbis in Bereshith Rabbah:¹⁰⁴ “Said Rabbi Simon: There is not a single kind of herb that does not have a constellation in heaven which smites it and says to it, ‘Grow.’ It is with reference to this that Scripture says, Knowest thou ‘chukoth shamayim’ (the statutes of heavens)? Canst thou establish ‘mishtaro’ (the dominion thereof) *in the earth?*¹⁰⁵ — [mishtaro being derived from the root shoter (executive officer)].” Now he who grafts diverse kinds of plants or sows seeds of diverse kinds with the intention that they derive nutrition from each other, thereby destroys ‘chukoth shamayim’ (the statutes of heavens). This is why He has said, Ye shall keep ‘chukothai’ (My statutes), as they are the statutes of the heavens. And so did Rabbi Chanina in the name of Rabbi Pinchas say,¹⁰⁶ that [the statutes mentioned here in the verse] are because of “the statutes with which I formed My world.” I have already written in the section of Bereshith¹⁰⁷ that all plants have their foundations in higher [forces], and it is from there that the Eternal commanded them the blessing, even life forever.¹⁰⁸ Thus he who mixes different kinds of seeds, denies and throws into disorder the work of Creation.

footnotes: ⁹⁵ And so why did Rashi mention this prohibition of mating diverse kinds of cattle, as an example of a “statute.” when the Rabbis never mentioned it as such? ⁹⁶ Proverbs 30:5. ⁹⁷ Genesis 1:11, 21, 24. ⁹⁸ Kiddushin 39 a. ⁹⁹ This interpretation is based upon the fact that Scripture states, thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind; thou shalt not sow thy field with two kinds of seed ¹⁰⁰ Deuteronomy 22:10. ¹⁰¹ This reason is also stated by Maimonides in the Guide of the Perplexed, III, 49 (p. 267 in Friedlander’s translation). ¹⁰² This thought which appears in the following text is expressly mentioned in the commentary on the Songs of Songs ascribed to Ramban but actually authored by Rabbi Ezra, one of the chief Cabalists of the period (see my introduction to this book in Kithvei Haramban, Vol. II, p. 474). Ramban’s expression here “and one of our colleagues etc.” thus clearly indicates that there was a group of scholars in Gerona who were dedicated to the study of the Cabala; and Ramban was one of that group. — Several points worthy of note are to be made with this expression “one of our colleagues.” It indicates the reticence with which the study of Cabala was regarded at that time. For even when crediting the thought to another scholar Ramban avoids identifying him by name. The role of Rabbi Ezra as one of the leading Cabalists at that period is indeed an undefined one, although it is known for a certainty that his influence was far-reaching. Additionally, the term chaveireinu ¹⁰³ A sense of the importance of ecology, of maintaining a proper well-ordered relationship between the primary forces of nature, is clearly discerned here. ¹⁰⁴ Bereshith Rabbah 10:7. See Vol. I, pp. 40, 70-71, where the same text is quoted. ¹⁰⁵ Job 38:33. ¹⁰⁶ Vayikra Rabbah 35:4. ¹⁰⁷ Genesis 2:8. Vol. I, p. 70. ¹⁰⁸ Psalms 133:3.

NEITHER SHALL THERE COME UPON THEE A GARMENT ‘KILAYIM SHA’ATNEIZ’¹⁰⁹ (MIXED OF LINEN AND WOOL). “Why is this stated [here, since in Deuteronomy 22:11 quoted further on it is more explicitly stated]? But because it is said [there in Deuteronomy], Thou shalt not wear ‘sha’atneiz’ (a mingled stuff), wool and linen together,¹¹⁰ I might think that one is not to wear [loose pieces of] wool-shearings and stalks of flax; Scripture therefore states, a garment, [thus excluding from the terms of the prohibition the wearing of loose pieces of wool and flax which have not been woven together into a garment]. Whence do I know to include felted stuff [of linen and wool, which, though not spun and woven, are pressed into one material and worn as a garment]? Scripture therefore says, sha’atneiz — that which is shu’a (combed), tavui (spun) and nuz (twisted) together. And I say that the word nuz is an expression for materials which are compressed and twined one with the other to be joined [into a coherent web].” This is Rashi’s language. But it does not appear to me to be correct, for felted stuff [of linen and wool] is not forbidden by law of the Torah, but only by enactment of the Rabbis, since it is only combed [but not spun and twisted, so why then did Rashi include it under the term sha’atneiz,] since that word implies all three actions — combing, spinning and twisting? And so we have been taught in a Mishnah:¹¹¹ “Felted stuff [of wool and linen] is forbidden because it is combed,” [which clearly indicates that it is not spun and twisted]. And in the Gemara the Rabbis have said:¹¹² “Perhaps I might say [that Scripture prohibited wool and linen if they were] only combed, or spun, or twisted!” And the Gemara came to the conclusion: “The final law is as Mar Zutra [who said that this Scriptural prohibition applies only if all three acts were done], since the Merciful One expressed them all in one term” [sha’atneiz, which as mentioned above is a combination of three words: shu’a (combed), tavui (spun) and nuz (twisted)]. But the Beraitha taught in the Torath Kohanim, stating:¹¹³ 4:18. “I know only that a garment [must not be worn if made of wool and linen together]. But whence do I know to include felted stuff? From that which the verse states, sha’atneiz” — that Beraitha intends to include things which are not “a garment,” on the basis of the verse Thou shalt not wear a mingled stuff,¹¹⁰ since the word “garment” is not mentioned there, [but it does not intend to teach, as Rashi interpreted it, that wool and linen even if only combed but not spun and twisted, are already forbidden as sha’atneiz]. This interpretation [of the Torath Kohanim] is a basic principle, since even an article which is not “a garment” [if worn as a vestment] is also forbidden by law of the Torah to be made of wool and linen, such as where one plaits threads [of wool and linen] and makes of them a belt, or anything similar, providing only that the threads were combed, spun and twisted. The Torath Kohanim mentioned “felted stuffs” merely as a Biblical support for a Rabbinical enactment, since these are forbidden only by the law of the Rabbis, as they are not “a garment” [because the two diverse materials are only combed, but not spun and twisted]. Similarly, in respect of that which the Rabbi [Rashi] wrote with reference to combing, that [the wool and linen] must also be compressed and twisted together, and in a similar manner he also wrote in his commentaries to the Gemara,¹¹⁴ other scholars,¹¹⁵ have already commented that Rashi’s interpretation is not in accord with what the Rabbis have said [in the following text of the Talmud]:¹¹⁶ (Fringes) consists of making for each of the four corners of the garment four threads specially woven for that purpose. They are then passed through a hole situated a few thumbs’ breadth away from each of the four corners, the threads are doubled, and two knots are then formed at the lower edge of the garment, followed by a series of windings and other double knots (see “The Commandments,” Vol. I, p. 22, for precise details). (b) A cardinal principle in Torah law is that, subject to certain general exceptions, any duty of fulfilling a positive commandment overrides a negative commandment (see Ramban on Exodus 20:8 — Vol. II, pp. 309-310). This is derived from the juxtaposition of these two verses: Thou shalt not wear a mingled stuff, wool and linen together. Thou shalt make twisted cords upon the four corners of thy covering, wherewith thou coverest thyself (Deuteronomy 22:11-12). The closeness of the two verses intimates that the commandment of Fringes overrides the prohibition of sha’atneiz, so that the Fringes may be made with threads of wool even if the garment itself is of linen. — The Gemara now argues on the basis of the second principle mentioned, that we must say that the upper knots [formed at the lower edge of the garment] after the four threads are passed through the opening and doubled, are obligatory by law of the Torah, “for should you think etc.” “You must deduce from this¹¹⁷ (see Note 116 (b)). that the upper knots¹¹⁸ — “knot” in the singular. But Ramban himself further on refers to “two knots” which are made at the lower edge of the garment. Basically, however, it is the first knot with which we are concerned, since if the threads are of wool and the garment of linen, and they are joined together with only one knot, which holds them together, nonetheless the prohibition of sha’atneiz would be incurred by wearing them afterwards, were it not for the fact that in that case the Torah especially permitted it. in the Fringes are required by Scriptural law. For if you should think that they are not required by Scriptural law, why then did the Merciful One have to state a [special] permission for using mingled stuff of wool and linen in Fringes! Do we not hold the law to be established that if one fastens two pieces together with only one stitch, it is not considered joined!”¹¹⁹ in Fringes, since the woolen threads and linen garment would not be considered “joined together.” But if, on the other hand, after the threads are passed through the opening and are doubled they must then be tied with a knot, that constitutes already an act of joining the woolen Fringes and the linen garment together, which ordinarily would render it forbidden to be worn, and then we would understand that in the case of the Fringes, the Torah had to intimate a special permission. — Thus far is the reasoning of the Talmud. Ramban now deduces from it, that in order to be included in the prohibition of sha’atneiz it is not necessary that the wool and linen themselves be combed, spun and twisted together, as Rashi had written. Thus the Rabbis [of the Talmud] have revealed to us that a garment made of linen, in which woolen fringes have been tied with two knots, constitutes diverse kinds by law of the Torah, even though they have not been compressed and twined together! Rather, the matter is as follows: Scripture here stated, Neither shall there come upon thee a garment ‘kilayim sha’atneiz,’ meaning to say that every garment that is made of a thread which has been combed, spun and twisted, we should not wear if it is kilayim, that is, of mingled stuff. And in the Book of Deuteronomy He explained in addition that we should not wear anything which was combed, spun and twisted of wool and linen if they be together, that is to say, if the wool and linen are joined together with [at least] two stitches. This means to say that [even] if the wool and linen were each combed, spun and twisted separately, they may not be attached together, for when they are joined they constitute kilayim (mingled stuff); just as He said [in the preceding verse there], Thou shalt not plow with an ox and an ass together,¹²⁰ which follows, the prohibition applies only where the thread of wool was treated to all three actions separately, and so also the thread of linen, and then they were both joined together. that is to say, if they are tied and joined to each other. And in the case of garments, fastening with two stitches already constitutes “joining” them, it being derived by the Rabbis from the word together [wool and linen ‘together’] that two stitches constitute a joining together. From there [i.e., from the verse in Deuteronomy where the word “garment” is not mentioned, as it is here in the verse before us], the Rabbis have learned that mingled stuff is forbidden although they are not in a garment, but even if one plaited threads of thick material, and made of them belts, although they were not woven [for a vestment], similar to what we are taught in a Mishnah:¹²¹ “One may not tie a cord of wool on to one made of linen, in order to bind up the loins.” And the expression nuz [in the word sha’atneiz] is a shortened word¹²² (he preverses) umeiliez (and turns) his Father in heaven against him” (ibid., 9:8). “The word nuz is thus an expression of perverseness and crookedness, similar to the twisting of threads with each other. It is for this reason that the Merciful One had to permit expressly kilayim in Fringes, since in the case of the Fringes the threads must be twisted” (Ramban in his commentary to Tractate Niddah, 61b). See further in the text before us. in this composite term, just like the word tavui (spun), of which there is only the letter teth [in the word sha’atneiz]. And the meaning thereof [i.e., of the word nuz] is in my opinion like the word naloz (perversing), of the expressions: an abomination to the Eternal is ‘naloz’ (the perverse),¹²³ meaning he who turns aside and perverses his paths; ‘unelozim’ (and perverse) in their paths,¹²⁴, 2:15. meaning those who are crooked and turn aside [unto their crooked ways],¹²⁵ for anything which is spun [like a thread] is turned and crooked. This is similar to what we are taught in a Mishnah:¹²⁶ “Rabbi Shimon¹²⁷ says: [The meaning of the word sha’atneiz is that he who disregards this law] is perverse and turns his Father in heaven against him,” meaning to say that the Glorious Name turns away His merciful ways from him, similar to what is said, and with the crooked Thou dost show Thyself subtle.¹²⁸ And in the language of the Sages, this word [naloz] is used in a shortened form, thus:¹²⁹ “This can be compared to a king’s son sh’noz¹³⁰ — “whose mind was charged with haughtiness upon him.” Ramban will later on explain the text before us as meaning: “who turned [or perverted] his heart into an evil path.” his heart upon him, and he took a digging tool to undermine his father’s house,” [the word sh’noz meaning] that “he turned his heart to an evil path.” It is of the same root [as the word naloz, in its shortened form nuz], that the Sages have said in the Talmud [in Tractate] Sanhedrin:¹³¹ “Minizyathei¹³², which Rashi explains as meaning: “if you had wanted ‘to rail at us’ we could not have answered you at all. But as you spoke kindly, we will tell you many things that we have said about it.” Ramban will explain the text before us [which conforms to the reading of the Munich Talmud manuscript] as meaning: “if you had wanted to turn away the matter from the right course etc.” of the master, we could not have answered him at all,” that is to say, if you had wanted to insist and turn away the matter [from the right course], we would not have known how to answer you at all. Nizyathei is thus like nilzyathei, that is to say, “his turning away” from the correct path. This is the true and correct interpretation in this matter [of sha’atneiz]. It was for this reason that it was necessary for the Torah to grant permission for kilayim (mingled stuff) in Fringes,¹³³ are not plaited or woven together with the cloth of the four-cornered garment, to which they are later attached, nonetheless since the Fringes are themselves combed, spun and twisted, and then attached to the cloth which was likewise combed, spun and twisted, as explained above, that is a sufficient “mingling of stuffs” to constitute sha’atneiz. Hence it was necessary for the Torah to grant permission etc., although the Fringes are not plaited and do not constitute a garment. This then is the law of the Torah [i.e., if the linen garment was made of threads which were combed, spun and twisted, and the woolen threads were likewise combed, spun and twisted, then these two kinds of threads must not be joined together]. However, the Sages prohibited it even if the threads were only made in one way — either combed, or spun, or twisted. It is for this reason that we have been taught in a Mishnah:¹¹¹ “Felted stuff [of wool and linen] is forbidden because it is combed. An edging of wool on a linen garment¹³⁴ is forbidden since it interlaces the web of the garment.” All these are prohibited by law of the Rabbis.¹³⁵ (a) According to Rashi the Scriptural prohibition applies where the wool and linen were either combed, or spun, or twisted. Hence felted stuff which is only combed, is forbidden by law of the Torah. According to Ramban, the Scriptural prohibition applies only where the wool and linen went through the process of all three acts mentioned, and therefore felted stuff which is only combed, is forbidden only by enactment of the Rabbis. (b) According to Rashi the prohibition of sha’atneiz applies where the wool and linen were combed [or spun or twisted] together. According to Ramban, the prohibition applies where the threads of wool were separately combed, spun and twisted, and likewise the threads of linen were combed, spun and twisted, and then they were both attached to each other with a minimum of two stitches, or tied with a knot. — Rambam’s presentation of this law follows that of Rashi, while the Rashba follows that of Ramban. Now the reason for the prohibition of mingled stuff in garments is in order to keep far away from the mixing together of different species, and He therefore prohibited [the threads, i.e., of wool and linen] from which garments are usually made. But the Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] had said in the Moreh Nebuchim¹³⁶ that the reason for the prohibition of wearing a garment made of wool and linen, is because at that time this kind of garment was used by the priests and magicians to adorn themselves when performing their activities, and he [Maimonides] says that he found it so written in their books. And since this was for them a matter of great importance, and very much desired by them in order that they should do their activities [in honor of] the idols and demons, therefore the Torah removed it from being worn by all people, since the Torah intends to blot out their deeds and efface their memory.

footnotes: ¹⁰⁹ Literally: “mixed of two kinds of stuff.” ¹¹⁰ Deuteronomy 22:11. ¹¹¹ Kilayim 9:9. ¹¹² Niddah 61 b. ¹¹³ Torath Kohanim, Kedoshim ¹¹⁰ Deuteronomy 22:11. ¹¹⁴ Yebamoth 5 b; Niddah 61 b. See my Hebrew commentary p. 122. ¹¹⁵ Tosafoth, Yebamoth 5 b. ¹¹⁶ Menachoth 39 a. To understand the following text it is necessary to clarify these two points: (a) The commandment of Tzitzith ¹¹⁷ I.e., from the fact that the Torah intimated a special permission showing that the commandment of the Fringes overrides the prohibition of wearing sha’atneiz ¹¹⁸ “Knots.” The Hebrew is kesher ¹¹⁹ Hence if the commandment of the Fringes required merely the passing of the four threads through the hole, and then doubling them, without tying them with a knot, there would have been no need for the Torah to intimate a special permission for sha’atneiz ¹²⁰ Deuteronomy 22:10. Now just as in this case the prohibition applies to joining together in work an ox and an ass, which are two separate creatures, even so in the verse on sha’atneiz ¹²¹ Kilayim 9:9. ¹²² Meaning: “naloz ¹²³ Proverbs 3:32. ¹²⁴ Ibid. ¹²⁵ See Psalms 125:5. ¹²⁶ Kilayim 9:8. ¹²⁷ In our text of the Mishnah: “Rabbi Shimon the son of Elazar.” Ramban’s version, however, suggests that it is Rabbi Shimon the son of Yochai, who is always referred to as “Rabbi Shimon” without further qualification. ¹²⁸ II Samuel 22:27. ¹²⁹ Shemoth Rabbah 37:2. ¹³⁰ In our text of the Shemoth Rabbah the word is sh’zachah da’ato alav ¹³¹ Sanhedrin 41 b. ¹³² In our text of the Gemara: minezihuthei ¹³³ See above, Note 116 (b). Ramban’s intention is that although the woolen Fringes ¹¹¹ Kilayim 9:9. ¹³⁴ Even though the woolen edging is not woven together with the linen garment, but is merely attached to it by some artificial means (Tifereth Yisrael, Kilayim 9:9, Note 46). ¹³⁵ In summary then, two major differences of opinion have appeared between Rashi and Ramban on the law of sha’atneiz: ¹³⁶ Guide of the Perplexed III, 37.

AND WHOSOEVER LIETH CARNALLY WITH A WOMAN THAT IS A BONDMAID, ‘NECHEREPHETH’ FOR A MAN — “‘Destined’ for a man. I know not of a similar usage of this root [choraph] in Scripture.” This is Rashi’s language. It appears to me that it is associated with the expression, *as I was in the days of ‘chorpi,’*¹³⁷ meaning, in the days of my youth. Similarly, my heart shall not ‘yecheraph’ me so long as I live,¹³⁸, 27:6. meaning that I will not have the heart of a youth [who has not yet matured in wisdom]. The days of youth are called “the days of choreph” [a term which means “winter”], since the winter is at the beginning of the year, while the days of old age correspond to the summer which are the days of gathering in. Scripture, then, is stating here that she is a bondmaid, a young girl designated for a certain man, for a concubine who ministers to a man and with whom she has sexual relations, is called “his maiden,” just as every ministering person is also called [the master’s] lad. It is very common in the language of the Sages to say of a woman who has sexual relations with a man, that she is “an attendant to him.” And it is this [relationship that is here called] necherepheth, meaning that she has become a maiden [— attendant] to a man, and is known to him, called in the vernacular [i.e., in Spanish] mancipada (designated to a man). In the language of the Sages likewise we find the expression:¹³⁹ “that slave’s girl” [assigned to him by his master]. Thus the meaning thereof is that she is not completely as his wife, but he has betrothed her and she is to him a maiden-attendant.

footnotes: ¹³⁷ Job 29:4. ¹³⁸ Ibid. ¹³⁹ Sanhedrin 58 b.

BIKORETH’ (AN INVESTIGATION) SHALL BE MADE. “It is for the court to investigate the matter in order not to make him liable to death [that is to say, if she were a free woman betrothed to a man, and she had committed adultery, the punishment would be death, but this is not the case in this instance]. BECAUSE SHE WAS NOT FREE, and her betrothal was not complete.” This is Rashi’s language, and so did all the commentators¹⁴⁰. interpret the verse. And if so, Scripture then is warning the court to make this investigation because she is like a married woman, and they might [easily] make a mistake [in deciding his punishment]. But their interpretation does not please me, for it is a fact that is self-understood that the matter will be investigated, and that the court will not kill a person in vain. For they do such an investigation in all cases involving the death penalty! Now it is my opinion that this [word bikoreth] is a unique one in Scripture, but it is a common term in the Aramaic language and in the expressions of our Rabbis, namely, the word hefkeir [“ownerless” — with the letter beth in bikoreth and the letter fei in hefkeir interchanging]. For the word is essentially hevkeir [with the letter veth, which is equivalent to the beth in bikoreth], just as the Rabbis have said [in a Mishnah]:¹⁴¹ “The School of Shammai say: Hevkeir [produce that is proclaimed ownerless] for the benefit of the poor [only], is deemed hevkeir [and therefore the produce is free from the obligation to give tithes, since ownerless produce is exempt from tithes].¹⁴² [with the letter veth] instead of hefkeir [with the letter fei]. And the School of Hillel say: [It is not valid] unless the owner makes it equally free for the rich, just as in the Sabbatical year” [when the produce of the field is free for poor and rich alike, and is exempt from tithes]. And again we have been taught [in a Mishnah]:¹⁴³ “One may eat [produce of the Sabbatical year] which has been brought into the house al hamuvkar¹⁴⁴ instead of hamufkar. In our text of the Mishnah the latter usage is found. [only as long as similar produce is still found ‘free’ in the field as food for the animals], but not as long as it is still found watched over in private ownership.” Yonathan ben Uziel also translated, vain and light fellows¹⁴⁵ as “idlers uvakrin,” — “and ‘free’ men” [i.e., men defying the law]. *By their lies and ‘by their wantonness’*¹⁴⁶ [Yonathan ben Uziel translated] uvakrithon¹⁴⁷ [uvakrithon] instead of the fei [ufakrithon — “and their irreverence”]. (“and by their irresponsibility”). They also say¹⁴⁸ that the expression, and the seventh year thou shalt let it rest ‘u’n'tashta’,¹⁴⁹ the Jerusalem Targum¹⁵⁰ renders as uthevakarno [“and thou shalt renounce ownership thereof,” thus also using the root hefkeir in the form of hevkeir]. Similarly throughout the Mishnah [the term hefkeir] is written with a veth [i.e., hevkeir]. But in the Gemara they became used to saying hefkeir [with a fei], as these letters [the veth and the fei] were used interchangeably by them, just as from the expression the grains ‘ovshu’ (shrivel),¹⁵¹ they used the word ‘ofshu’ (musty). This is likewise found in many places in the Scriptures, as I have mentioned on the verse Thou didst blow with Thy wind.¹⁵² And the interpretation of this verse [before us] is as follows: He says concerning this bondmaid that “although she is ‘attending’ this man, she is not considered his wife because she is to him bikoreth, that is to say, she is treated by him as a loose person, and therefore they are not to be put to death as is the law of the adulterer and the adulteress when the woman is [properly] married; for freedom has not been given to her [from her status as a bondmaid] to be his real wife [and therefore he who lies carnally with her is not to be put to death], but instead he is to bring a guilt-offering because she is designated for a man.” And Onkelos who translated ‘bikoreth’ shall be made as “bikurto shall be made,” uses a language similar to that of Yonathan ben Uziel, in his rendition [of the Hebrew ufochazim¹⁴⁵ (and light follows)] as uvakrin (men defying the Law).¹⁵³ as bikurto is thus similar to Yonathan’s rendition of the Hebrew ufochazim as uvakrin, which is of the root hevkeir, or in its later form hefkeir, which denotes something ownerless, loose, etc. It thus corroborates Ramban’s interpretation that the word bikoreth in the verse before us is of the term hefkeir, as explained in the text.

footnotes: ¹⁴⁰ Ibn Ezra, R’dak in his Sefer Hashorashim, root bakeir ¹⁴¹ Peah 6:1. ¹⁴² Thus we find the Mishnah using the word hevkeir ¹⁴³ Shevi’ith 9:4. ¹⁴⁴ Here too, the Mishnah uses the term hamuvkar ¹⁴⁵ Judges 9:4. See my Hebrew commentary p. 124, Note 55, about a different version in our text of Yonathan. ¹⁴⁶ Jeremiah 23:32. ¹⁴⁷ Here too Yonathan uses the veth ¹⁴⁸ It would seem that the Targum Yerushalmi quoted here was not before Ramban. Hence he quotes it by hearsay: “They also say …” ¹⁴⁹ Exodus 23:11. ¹⁵⁰ See in Vol. I, p. 371, Note 128. ¹⁵¹ Joel 1:17. ¹⁵² Exodus 15:10. ¹⁴⁵ Judges 9:4. See my Hebrew commentary p. 124, Note 55, about a different version in our text of Yonathan. ¹⁵³ Ramban’s intention is to point out that Onkelos’ rendition here of the Hebrew bikoreth

VA’ARALTEM ORLATHO’ THE FRUIT THEREOF. “[This means literally]: ‘ye shall close its closing,’ meaning that it shall be closed up and hidden so as not to have any benefit from it.” This is Rashi’s language, and he has explained it well. And if so, ‘erel’ of heart¹⁵⁴ means “closed of heart,”¹⁵⁵. just as it is said, and I will rend the enclosure of their heart.¹⁵⁶ Similarly, ‘areila’ is their ear¹⁵⁷ means “their ear is closed and dulled so that no sound enters therein.” And ‘aral’ of the lips¹⁵⁸ means “closed of lips,” for defective speech is a result of an impediment and obstruction in the veins of the tongue, or sometimes in those of the lips, which have not been properly opened. Speech is referred to in Scripture by the term “opening,” thus: Open thy mouth for the dumb¹⁵⁹ [which means, “speak up in the cause of the dumb”]*; Job opened his mouth;*¹⁶⁰ *and the opening of my lips shall be right things;*¹⁶¹ keep the doors [literally: “openings”] of thy mouth from her that lieth in thy bosom.¹⁶² Now Scripture uses the expression “closing up” with reference to the fruit of the first three years, so as to prohibit the deriving of any benefit from it, although it does not express it in this way with reference to other things from which we are also forbidden to derive any benefit [e.g., diverse kinds in a vineyard].¹⁶³ This is because the appearance of the fruit in its earliest stage is called “opening,” just as it is said, the vine-blossom has opened.¹⁶⁴ Therefore He said, three years shall it be ‘areilim’ unto you, as if the fruits are closed up in the trees, and have not put forth buds nor opened blossoms. The reason for this commandment is to honor the Eternal with the first of all our produce of the fruits of the tree and the increase of the vineyard, and that we are not to eat of them until we bring all the fruit of one year [i.e., the fourth year after the planting] for giving praise unto the Eternal.¹⁶⁵ Now the fruit of the first three years is not fit to be brought before the Glorious Name¹⁶⁶ because it is small; neither does the tree in its first three years impart good taste or flavor into its fruit. Besides, most trees do not bring forth fruit at all until the fourth year. Therefore we are to wait with all of them [an equal period of time], and are not to taste of their fruit until we have brought of the planting which we have done, all its first good fruit to be holy before G-d, and there [in Jerusalem] we are to eat it and praise the Name of the Eternal. Thus this commandment is like that of the first-fruits.¹⁶⁷, 26:1-11. It is furthermore true that the fruit which comes forth from the tree when it is first planted, contains an abundance of moisture which attaches to and is harmful to the body and it is not good to eat it, just like a fish which has no scales and all food, forbidden by the Torah, which are harmful also¹⁶⁸ to the body. The Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] also gave in the Moreh Nebuchim the same type of reason for this commandment as he gave for most of these commandments, namely, that the magicians and sorcerers of those days used to practice certain deeds of witchcraft at the time of the planting of the trees, thinking that by so doing they would accelerate the coming out of the fruits before their natural time, and when the fruits appeared, they would offer them to the idol in the name of which that witchcraft was performed. Therefore the Torah commanded that the fruits which come out before three years [after the planting of the tree] should be forbidden [to derive any benefit from], in order that people should not come to practice these evil deeds, for most trees bring forth fruits in the fourth year, and that we are then to eat them before G-d [in Jerusalem], contrary to their eating of them before the idols.

footnotes: ¹⁵⁴ Ezekiel 44:9. ¹⁵⁵ It is generally translated: uncircumcised in heart ¹⁵⁶ Hosea 13:8. ¹⁵⁷ Jeremiah 6:10. ¹⁵⁸ Exodus 6:12. ¹⁵⁹ Proverbs 31:8. ¹⁶⁰ Job 3:1. ¹⁶¹ Proverbs 8:6. ¹⁶² Micah 7:5. ¹⁶³ Deuteronomy 22:9. ¹⁶⁴ Song of Songs 7:13. ¹⁶⁵ Verse 24. ¹⁶⁶ Deuteronomy 28:58. ¹⁶⁷ Ibid. ¹⁶⁸ See Ramban above, 11:13, and 17:11, that the harm is chiefly to the soul of the person. This is the intention of Ramban’s expression here that the forbidden foods are “also” harmful to the body.

YE SHALL NOT EAT WITH THE BLOOD. “This passage has been explained in many different ways in Tractate Sanhedrin.”¹⁶⁹ This is the language of Rashi. Now the conclusion of that discussion in the Talmud is that all those interpretations [of the verse before us] are Torah-ordained, since Scripture included all manner of “eating with the blood” in one negative commandment. And if so, that which Scripture states in the case of Saul, Behold, the people sin against the Eternal, in that they eat with the blood,¹⁷⁰ means that they transgressed one of the prohibitions included in this negative commandment, since they were eating of an animal [slaughtered properly] before its life had entirely left it. It is with reference to this that Scripture states there, And the people flew upon the spoil,¹⁷¹, Verse 32. like a bird of prey that tears its victim and eats it, and they took sheep, and oxen, and calves, and slew them on the ground; and the people did eat them with the blood.¹⁷¹, Verse 32. Because of the abundance of spoil of cattle [that they had taken from the Philistines], as soon as [they were slaughtered properly and] their blood was spilled on the ground, they tore off their limbs and ate them before life had entirely left the animals. In line with the plain meaning of Scripture, this seems to have been a kind of witchcraft or divination, since [the meaning of this passage] may be deduced from its context; [i.e., from the second half of this verse which states, neither shall ye practice divination nor soothsaying, we may deduce that the first half of the verse, Ye shall not eat with the blood also refers to some form of witchcraft, as will be explained]. Thus they used to spill the blood [of the cattle] and gather it in a hollow, which was then attended, according to their opinion, by the satyrs, and they¹⁷² would eat at their tables to tell them future events. Now when the Israelites were at that time camping with Saul, they were very much afraid of the Philistines, and Saul did nothing except for inquiring of the Urim and Thummim,¹⁷³ as it is said, Let us draw near hither unto G-d,¹⁷⁴ while the people were inquiring of the satyrs or of witchcraft to know their way and what to do, and they were eating with the blood in order to perform that craft [mentioned above]. It is for this reason that Scripture there states, *Then they told Saul, saying: ‘Behold, the people sin against the Eternal, in that they eat with the blood.’ And he said: ‘Ye have dealt treacherously,’*¹⁷⁵, Verse 33. meaning to say: “Behold, G-d has wrought for you this day this great salvation, and you inquire of no-gods! It is treachery!” I will yet explain the prohibition against soothsaying and enchanting.¹⁷⁶

footnotes: ¹⁶⁹ Sanhedrin 63 a. See “The Commandments,” Vol. II pp. 401-2, where all these various interpretations are listed. ¹⁷⁰ I Samuel 14:33. ¹⁷¹ Ibid. ¹⁷¹ Ibid. ¹⁷² I.e., the satyrs. Having assembled around the blood, the satyrs would then be present at the meal, at which time they would inform the people of future events. All this was part of this particular kind of witchcraft. ¹⁷³ Exodus 28:30. See Ramban there (Vol. II, pp. 480-484). ¹⁷⁴ I Samuel 14:36. ¹⁷⁵ Ibid. ¹⁷⁶ Deuteronomy 18:9.

PROFANE NOT THY DAUGHTER, TO MAKE HER A HARLOT. “This refers to one who gives his unmarried daughter [to a man] without the intention of betrothal. LEST THE LAND FALL INTO HARLOTRY. If you do so, the soil too will be unfaithful to you and it will produce its fruits in another place and not in your Land. And so does Scripture state, Therefore the showers have been withheld, and there hath been no latter rain, and thou hadst a harlot’s forehead etc.”¹⁷⁷ This is Rashi’s language. But I have not understood his opinion, for the term “harlotry” in the Torah nowhere applies to an unmarried woman, since it is the accepted decision of the law¹⁷⁸ that if an unmarried man has sexual relations with an unmarried woman, without the intention of thereby making her his wife, he has [nonetheless] not rendered her thereby “a harlot.” And in Tractate Sanhedrin the Sages have clearly stated this principle:¹⁷⁹ “And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by becoming a harlot etc.¹⁸⁰ I might think that this applies even if she be unmarried.” Thereupon the Rabbis asked:¹⁸¹ “[But how could one think this to be the case?] Is it not written by becoming a harlot [and the term ‘harlot’ applies only to a married woman who commits adultery]?” To this question the Rabbis answered, that [the above supposition was] “in accordance with the [unaccepted] opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who said that if an unmarried man has sexual relations with an unmarried woman, without the intention of thereby making her his wife, he does render her ‘a harlot.’” [From this text it is obvious that the accepted opinion of the Sages is that if she was unmarried, he does not render her “a harlot.”] Similarly the Rabbis have said that the verse They [i.e., the priests] shall not take a woman that is a harlot, or profaned,¹⁸² does not apply to an unmarried woman, but only to a proselytess and a freed bondwoman, or to one who had intercourse with a man in the nature of fornication, such as with a man whose betrothal to her would not be valid, as is explained in Yebamoth¹⁷⁸ and in the Sifra:¹⁸³ 1:7. “A woman that is a harlot.¹⁸² Rabbi Yehudah says that this refers to a sterile woman. But the Sages say: The word ‘harlot’ refers only to a proselytess, a freed bondwoman, or to one who had intercourse with a man in the nature of fornication. Rabbi Eliezer says: Even if an unmarried man has sexual relations with an unmarried woman, without the intention of thereby making her his wife, this too [is a case of the ‘harlot’].” Similarly the Rabbis have said¹⁸⁴ with reference to the prohibition, Thou shalt not bring the hire of a harlot … into the House of the Eternal,¹⁸⁵ that this has no application whatever to an unmarried woman. But the Beraitha taught in the Torath Kohanim¹⁸⁶ 7:1. [which is the source for Rashi’s interpretation] and which is also mentioned in Tractate Sanhedrin¹⁸⁷ [namely, that the verse before us refers to one who gives his unmarried daughter for immorality], may either be in accordance with the teaching of Rabbi Eliezer [mentioned above] and is not the final decision of the law, or it may be a case of one who gives his [unmarried] daughter for immorality with a person with whom she can contract no marital status, such as with a Cuthean or a slave, or any of those persons [with whom sexual relations are forbidden] by punishment of excision or death by the hands of the court, which is “harlotry” in the opinion of the Sages. It is this which they intended in saying, “[this verse refers to] one who gives his unmarried daughter to a man without the intention of marriage,” that is to say, to a man with whom it is impossible that there be a marital status. Similarly, that which the Rabbi taught there in the Sifra¹⁸⁸ 7:3. This was mentioned here by Rashi. with reference to the expression lest the Land fall into harlotry, that the fruits of the Land will turn faithless [and grow in other places and not in your Land], is a homiletic exposition derived from the word ha’aretz (the Land), since it is not written “lest the people of the Land fall into harlotry.” But the main intention of this expression is [to establish] a second negative commandment, which the author of the “Hilchoth Gedoloth”¹⁸⁹ has already counted in his enumeration of the [three hundred and sixty-five] negative commandments, it being an admonition directed to the man who commits the immoral act and to the daughter herself, that she should not give herself over to immoral relationships. And it is on the basis of this [interpretation of the verse] that the Rabbis have said there in that Beraitha [in Torath Kohanim]: “And similarly she who gives herself over to immoral relationships [transgresses a negative commandment].” And the meaning of the verse is [as follows]: Since a daughter is in the control of her father, and he is permitted “in her youth” [i.e., when she is not yet twelve and a half years old] to betroth her to a man, and to cause her to enter the bridal-canopy, and one who violates or seduces her must pay the fine to the father [thus accordingly we might think that the father is at liberty to allow a man to have an immoral relationship with his unmarried daughter], therefore Scripture explained that he is not permitted to give her to anyone for immoral purposes, admonishing [first] the father [against doing it] by means of a negative commandment. After having admonished the father, He warned also those engaged in the harlotry, the man and the woman. Now Rashi wrote in the section of *Emor El Hakohanim:*¹⁹⁰ “A harlot. This is a woman who has had sexual intercourse with a man who is forbidden to her [as a husband], such as those [whom she may not marry] under the penalty of excision, or a Nathin [a descendant of the Gibeonites¹⁹¹ [literally: givers] derived from the verse in Joshua 9:27 stating that Joshua “gave” the Gibeonites as hewers of wood etc.] or a mamzer” [i.e., a person born from a union which is itself prohibited under the penalty of excision]. Now this comment constitutes an admission on the part of Rashi that the term “harlotry” does not apply where marriage between them would be possible, except that he does include under this term [of “harlotry”] also those that are forbidden by means of a negative commandment [the punishment for which being whipping, such as marriage to a mamzer]. This is also Rashi’s opinion in his commentaries on the Gemara¹⁹² [i.e., that “harlotry” applies to all cases where he is forbidden to her — even if only under the penalty of whipping]. But this too is not correct, for it is only [by means of intercourse with] those whom she may not marry under the penalty of excision, or a Cuthean or a bondman with whom she can contract no marital status, that she is rendered a “harlot” so that a priest who takes her as his wife is liable to whipping because of [marrying] a harlot; but [as a result of intercourse] with those whom she is prohibited [to marry] by means of a [mere] negative commandment — such as a mamzer, or an Ammonite or Moabite proselyte — she is not rendered a “harlot,” and a priest who takes her as his wife is not liable to whipping. However, [as a result of that forbidden relationship], she becomes disqualified from eating the heave-offering and from marrying a priest.¹⁹³ etc., if she be a priest’s daughter who ordinarily is permitted to eat of the heave-offering [and the priest’s share the thigh and the breast he receives from an Israelite’s peace-offering] she is now forbidden to eat. Similarly, if she was a priest’s daughter, or a Levites or an Israelite’s, she is henceforth forbidden to marry a priest. For it is written, *And if a priest’s daughter be married unto an ‘ish zar’*¹⁹⁴. she shall not eat of that which is set apart from the holy things,¹⁹⁵ [which the Sages interpreted¹⁹⁶]: as soon as she has intercourse with a man she may not marry, he disqualifies her [from eating the holy food].¹⁹⁷ And [if she has intercourse with a man who is] guilty of transgressing a prohibition affecting only the priesthood [for which he is liable to whipping, such as a High Priest who had intercourse with a widow], she becomes a chalalah [a woman of impaired priestly status, and therefore she may not marry even a common priest, who is ordinarily allowed to marry a widow].¹⁹⁸, p. 150, Note 1.

footnotes: ¹⁷⁷ Jeremiah 3:3. ¹⁷⁸ Yebamoth 61 b. ¹⁷⁹ Sanhedrin 50 b. ¹⁸⁰ Further, 21:9. ¹⁸¹ Sanhedrin 51 a. ¹⁸² Further, 21:7. ¹⁷⁸ Yebamoth 61 b. ¹⁸³ Sifra, Emor ¹⁸² Further, 21:7. ¹⁸⁴ Terumah 29 b. ¹⁸⁵ Deuteronomy 23:19. ¹⁸⁶ Sifra, Kedoshim ¹⁸⁷ Sanhedrin 76 a. ¹⁸⁸ Sifra, Kedoshim ¹⁸⁹ See Vol. II, p. 350, Note 70. ¹⁹⁰ Further, 21:7. ¹⁹¹ The word ‘Nathin’ ¹⁹² Yebamoth 61 a. ¹⁹³ Thus, because of her forbidden relationship with a mamzer ¹⁹⁴ Literally: “a stranger,” a common man, a Levite or lay-Israelite. But here in the text before us it is understood as “a disqualified man,” such as a mamzer ¹⁹⁵ Further, 22:12. ¹⁹⁶ Yebamoth 68 a. ¹⁹⁷ See “The Commandments,” Vol. II, pp. 128-9. ¹⁹⁸ See ibid.

YE SHALL KEEP MY SABBATHS. There are many warnings in the Torah regarding [the observance of] the Sabbath, just as in the case of idolatry, because the law of the Sabbath too, is equal to all the commandments, for one who does not observe it, denies the [Divine] Creation and has no Torah at all.¹⁹⁹ Our Rabbis have an interpretation on this verse. Thus they said here in the Torath Kohanim:²⁰⁰ 7:7. “I might think that the building of the Sanctuary overrides the Sabbath; Scripture therefore states, Ye shall keep My Sabbaths, and reverence My Sanctuary: I am the Eternal” [meaning: “not even the erection of the Sanctuary can override the keeping of the Sabbath”]. And by way of the Truth, [the mystic teachings of the Cabala], He commands here concerning the Great Sabbath²⁰¹ and the Sabbath which is His Sanctuary [on high], that it be both guarded and reverenced. For this reason the work on the erection of the Sanctuary [on earth] does not override the Sabbath and the Sanctuary [on high]. The student learned in the mysteries of the Cabala will understand.

footnotes: ¹⁹⁹ See Genesis, Vol. I, p. 17, Note 4. ²⁰⁰ Torath Kohanim, Kedoshim ²⁰¹ A Cabalistic term referring to one of the emanations (Beiur Ha’lvush in his commentary to Ricanti who interprets the words of Ramban here).

THOU SHALT RISE UP BEFORE THE HOARY HEAD. “I might think that one is to rise before an uncultured old man; Scripture therefore states, and thou shalt honor the face of ‘zakein’ (the old man). Zakein [from the root kanah, acquire] means only one who has ‘acquired’ wisdom.” This is Rashi’s language. And the text of the Torath Kohanim,²⁰² 7:12. as it is taught in the Gemara of Tractate Kiddushin²⁰³ [is as follows: “I might think that one is to rise before an uncultured old man;] Scripture therefore states zakein, the word zakein meaning only one who is wise, as it is said, Gather unto Me seventy men ‘miziknei’ (of the elders) of Israel.²⁰⁴ means “of the wise men” of Israel. And Rabbi Yosei the Galilean says: The word zakein means only one who has ‘acquired’ wisdom, as it is said, The Eternal ‘kanani’ (made me) [literally: acquired me, i.e., wisdom] at the beginning of His way.”²⁰⁵ Now according to the words of both of them [i.e., the First Sage in this Beraitha and Rabbi Yosei the Galilean], this commandment [of honoring the aged] applies only if he is a scholar. And Onkelos who rendered the verse before us: “thou shalt rise up before him who understands [the knowledge of] the Torah, and honor the face of the aged,” would also seem to agree with this opinion [that zakein is one who “acquired” wisdom]. Yet despite all this, the concluding opinion of the Gemara in accordance with the final decision of the law is not so, for the Rabbis have said [in the Gemara]:²⁰³ “Isi the son of Yehudah says: Any hoary head is included [under the terms of this commandment], and Rabbi Yochanan said: The final decision of the law is as Isi the son of Yehudah interpreted it.” Thus Scripture is commanding [in the first half of the verse] to honor any old man, even the uncultured, that is, the unlearned, and then [in the second half of the verse] it gives another commandment concerning the zakein, that is one who has acquired wisdom, even if he be young and learned. It is possible that this is also the opinion of Onkelos, except that he translated the hoary head as “young and learned” [and hence the first half of his translation reads, “thou shalt rise up before him who understands — the knowledge of the Torah,” meaning even if he is young and learned], since the term zakein [in the second half of the verse, which clearly means “one who has acquired wisdom”] came and indicated that the term hoary head includes all kinds of old age, whether old in the knowledge of the Torah or old in days.²⁰⁶ (the hoary head) and zakein (the old man)? Onkelos thus reasoned that since zakein definitely means “he who has acquired wisdom,” it shows that seiva must mean all kinds of old people, whether learned or not learned. Hence in translating the verse he rendered zakein first and then seiva, although in the Hebrew text the order of the terms is the opposite. In short, then, it may be that Onkelos also agrees with the opinion of Isi the son of Yehudah that one must show honor to all kinds of old people, whether aged in the knowledge of the Torah or just aged in years.

footnotes: ²⁰² Torath Kohanim, Kedoshim ²⁰³ Kiddushin 32 b. ²⁰⁴ Numbers 11:16. And since these seventy elders were to constitute together with Moses the members of the Sanhedrin, it is clear that miziknei ²⁰⁵ Proverbs 8:22. The sense conveyed is: “G-d created me [i.e., wisdom] to be His acquisition at the beginning of Creation.” ²⁰³ Kiddushin 32 b. ²⁰⁶ For otherwise why did the Torah use two different terms: seiva