BECAUSE HE HATH GIVEN OF HIS SEED UNTO MOLECH, TO DEFILE MY SANCTUARY — “The congregation of Israel which is sanctified unto Me.” This is Rashi’s language. I have already hinted at this,²⁰⁷ how on account of one man’s sin the congregation of Israel which is sanctified to His Great Name can become defiled. And the Sages have [also] already hinted at this in their homiletic interpretations when saying:²⁰⁸ “He who enjoys anything of this world without saying a benediction, is considered as if he had robbed the Holy One, blessed be He, and the congregation of Israel, as it is said, Whoso robbeth his father or his mother, and saith: ‘It is no transgression,’ the same is the companion of a destroyer.²⁰⁹ The expression his father refers only to the Holy One, blessed be He, and his mother refers only to the congregation of Israel. The same is the companion of the destroyer, he is a companion of Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, who caused Israel to sin, against their Father in heaven.”²¹⁰ For the purpose of Creation was that people should offer their benediction over [its bounties] to the Great Name, assuring thereby the existence of the world, but if that is not done, the Great Name is raised on high and the Divine Presence is removed from Israel, and surely this happens all the more so when a person offers his seed to the Molech, and thereby causes that He abhor the pride of Jacob²¹¹ and His dwelling place [i.e., the Sanctuary]. This is the meaning of the expression, the people of the Land shall stone him with stones,²¹² for He did not say: “he shall surely be put to death; they shall stone him with stones,” as is mentioned in all such cases,²¹³. Also ibid., 24:16. but instead mentions the people of the Land, meaning to say that all the people of the Land — all Israel — are obliged to precede to stone him, for [having given of his seed to Molech] he has harmed everybody, because he has caused that the Divine Presence be removed from Israel. It is for this reason that Onkelos translated [the expression, the people of the Land]: “the people of the house of Israel,” for the term the Land alludes to the whole Land of Israel, not merely the land wherein the worshipper [of the Molech] happens to reside, this being similar [to the expression], for all the earth is Mine.²¹⁴ The secret thereof you will also be able to understand from that which Scripture mentions with reference to [the punishment of] excision for worshipping the Molech, I also will set My face against that man,²¹⁵ and again, then will I set My face against that man,²¹⁶ meaning that My Great and Fearful Name will cut him off. The word “I” He did not mention in the case of excision for practicing the sorcery of the ov or the yide’oni,²¹⁷ nor in the case of any other such punishment. I have already stated the reason for all this to all who understand.²¹⁸

footnotes: ²⁰⁷ Above, 18:21. ²⁰⁸ Berachoth 35 b. ²⁰⁹ Proverbs 28:24. ²¹⁰ I Kings 12:28-33; 14:16. ²¹¹ Amos 6:8. ²¹² Verse 2. ²¹³ Further, Verse 27: they shall surely be put to death; they shall stone them with stones ²¹⁴ Exodus 19:5. See Ramban there (Vol. II, pp. 273-274). ²¹⁵ Verse 3 before us. ²¹⁶ Verse 5. ²¹⁷ Further, Verse 27. See “The Commandments,” Vol. II, pp. 9-11. ²¹⁸ See above, 18:21.

TO GO ASTRAY AFTER THE MOLECH. “This is intended to include any other idol that was worshipped in that way [i.e., by a person passing his children through the fire], even if that particular idol is ordinarily not worshipped that way.” This is Rashi’s language. Now Rashi has already written in the section of Acharei Moth²¹⁹ that the Molech is “an idol the name of which is ‘Molech,’ and this was the way in which it was worshipped: he would hand over his child to the priests etc.” But all this does not conform and agree properly with the Gemara’s conclusion²²⁰ as it appears after deliberation. For according to the opinion of the Sage who says that Molech is an idol [and not a name for a form of witchcraft], the worship thereof was not by passing children through the fire, for if so there was no need at all for Scripture to mention this, [i.e., the passing through fire] since it would be included in the admonition against worshipping the idols [in the manner in which they are usually worshipped], of which there are many general prohibitions in the Torah, and it is also included in the punishment stated in the section If there be found in the midst of thee … man or woman, that doeth that which is evil in the sight of the Eternal thy G-d, in transgressing His covenant, and hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them.²²¹ Rather, we must perforce interpret [if Molech is the name of a particular idol] that the essential purpose of Scripture in mentioning [this particular form of worship], was only to make one liable for passing one’s children [through fire] even if that particular idol is not ordinarily worshipped in that manner. And thus the Rabbis have said in the Gemara:²²⁰ “And according to the Sage who is of the opinion that Molech is an idol, why did Scripture state [the punishment of] excision in the case of Molech [when it is already included in the general punishment for all idol-worship]? It is to apply it in the case of one who passes his son [through the fire in honor of any idol, even if that idol is] not ordinarily worshipped in that manner.” And the same reasoning applies to the punishment and the admonition which Scripture mentioned with reference to it [this particular form of worship], that they were only necessary [if we hold that Molech is an idol] for the case of one who passed his son [through fire] to an idol which is not normally worshipped in that manner. It would appear that according to this opinion [that the Molech was idol-worship, and that the main reason why Scripture mentioned this particular form of worship was to prohibit and punish the practice thereof even as an abnormal manner of worship of all other idols], that the term “Molech” is not a name for a particular graven image or statute, but is a general name for anything that is worshipped, “anything which you accept as your king and take upon you as your god.” In accordance with this opinion, the children of Ammon called their abhorrence Molech,²²² because he was their king, the term Molech thus being a general name for all things honored [as deities], for it is derived from the term malchuth (royalty). It is thus not like the Rabbi [Rashi] said [in the preceding section of Acharei Moth], that Molech is “an idol the name of which is ‘Molech,’ and the manner of its worship” was as mentioned. Similarly, that which Rashi wrote here that the phrase to go astray after the Molech “is necessary to include any other idol that was worshipped in that way, even if that particular idol is ordinarily not worshipped in that way” — this interpretation too, is impossible [to accept] for the reason that we have mentioned, namely, that the essential basis for the punishment of excision mentioned specifically in the case of the Molech, is to make one liable for practicing before an idol even if the idol is not ordinarily worshipped in that manner, and this includes all idols! [Hence it is not necessary to include them on the basis of the phrase before us in Verse 5 — to go astray after the Molech — when this point is already established the overall statement of excision mentioned in Verse 3 which essentially prohibits that kind of worship to any idol, even if it is not normally worshipped in that way]! It is also impossible to say that Scripture made one liable to excision in the case of that idol the name of which is “Molech,” although passing a child through the fire before it was not its usual mode of worship, and that then it reverts [in the verse before us, stating to go astray after Molech, in order, as Rashi said] to include in the punishment of excision he [who passes through the fire of his seed] to Peor or Merkulis [which was also an abnormal mode of worshipping them]. For why was it necessary for Scripture to mention it [i.e., Molech] altogether? Why was that idol [called “Molech” or “Peor” or “Merkulis”] different from all other idols [since the Torah has already prohibited passing one’s children through fire before any idol, under punishment of excision even if that particular idol is ordinarily not worshipped that way]? Moreover, if so you would need a special verse to include one who passes his child through the fire to Peor or Merkulis in the punishment of stoning [if there were witnesses to his act and he was given the proper warning], just as Scripture [according to Rashi] included him in the punishment of excision [when there were no witnesses]! Rather, [we must conclude] that Scripture only mentioned the admonition, and the punishments of excision and stoning, in the case of Molech, with reference to one who passes his child through the fire to any idol whatsoever, even if that is not its usual mode of worship. Thus whether you say that the term Molech is a name for all idols [since the name is derived from the word malchuth, (royalty)] as we have explained, or whether you say [as Rashi does] that Molech is the name of a particular idol that was so called, [we must say, as explained above] that Scripture mentioned it [in order to prohibit this practice even] if it be an abnormal mode of worship [of that idol, i.e., Molech]; the same law applying to all idols, for this stringency is on account of the frightfulness of this mode of worship. All this is made clear in the Gemara of Tractate Sanhedrin²²⁰ according to this opinion which the Rabbi [Rashi] wrote, that the Molech was an idol. But our Mishnah [which mentions first “the idolator” and then “he that offers of his seed to Molech,” thus indicating that Molech is not an idol, for otherwise this would have been included under the law of “the idolator”],²²³ is taught in accordance with the opinion of the Sage who says that Molech was not an idol, meaning to say, it was not worshipped in a manner of being accepted as a god, but instead it was like a practice of witchcraft, to seek on behalf of the living unto the dead,²²⁴ unto this dead dog.²²⁵ According to this opinion, one who passed his seed through the fire to Peor or Merkulis, is not liable [since that form of witchcraft was performed only before Molech, and the Torah specifically mentioned that this practice of witchcraft was done before Molech].²²⁶ (royalty), as the act of idol worship meant that the idolator accepted the idol as his god. But if Molech is held to have been a form of witchcraft [and not a mode of idol worship], then if one is to perform that practice before Peor or Merkulis, it would not come under that specific prohibition which the Torah singled out, and hence he would be free from the punishment of death, although — needless to state — he has committed a heinous sin. Rashi’s words in his commentaries to Tractate Sanhedrin²²⁷ are also as we have written. And the Beraitha taught in the Torath Kohanim²²⁸ 10:15. [which was the source for Rashi’s comment mentioned at the beginning of this verse]: “And I will cut him off, and all that go astray after him, to go astray after Molech. This is intended to include the case of any other idol [which was worshipped in that way, that the worshipper is liable to the punishment of] excision” — the interpretation of this Beraitha is not based upon the redundant expression to go astray after Molech, as appears from the words of the Rabbi [Rashi]. Rather, the Beraitha is stating that this whole [Scriptural passage laying down the law of] excision is redundant, and therefore we are to apply it to any other idol that was worshipped in that way. It is this which the Rabbis have stated in the Gemara:²²⁹ “Why is excision mentioned thrice [as the punishment] for idolatry?²³⁰ It is prescribed once for [worshipping an idol in] the customary manner; once for worshipping it in a non-customary manner,” that is, if he sacrifices, or burns incense, or pours a libation, or bows down before an idol,²³¹ which have been included under the punishment of death²³². And see “The Commandments,” Vol. II, p. 6. even if the idol is not ordinarily worshipped in that manner, and here [in the verse before us] they are made liable to excision [in the absence of witnesses]. “And once excision is mentioned for [the worship of] Molech” [for Molech is not an idol, but a form of witchcraft which the Torah prohibited by means of this strong form of punishment]. And according to the Sage who says that Molech is an idol [we must perforce say that the reason why the Torah singled out the Molech is in order to prohibit and punish] passing a child through the fire before any idol whatever, even if the idol is not ordinarily worshipped in that manner, as we have mentioned.

footnotes: ²¹⁹ Ibid. ²²⁰ Sanhedrin 64 a-b. ²²¹ Deuteronomy 17:2-3. ²²⁰ Sanhedrin 64 a-b. ²²² I Kings 11:7. The word “abhorrence” is the term of the Rabbis for idols, which we are to abhor. See Deuteronomy 7:26. ²²⁰ Sanhedrin 64 a-b. ²²³ This point is clearly made in the Gemara in Sanhedrin 64 a, in commenting on the Mishnah. ²²⁴ Isaiah 8:19. ²²⁵ II Samuel 16:9. ²²⁶ If Molech is held to have been an idol, then, as explained in Ramban above, there was no need for the Torah to prohibit and punish its practice specifically, since it was included in the many general prohibitions against idolatry. We were therefore forced to say that the reason why the Torah specifically mentioned Molech and its practice, was to prohibit that practice to any idol, even if that particular idol was not normally worshipped in that way. Also, the term “Molech” must be an expression not for a particular idol, but for any idol, the word being of the root malchuth ²²⁷ Rashi, Sanhedrin 64 a. See my Hebrew commentary p. 129, where this text of Rashi is quoted. ²²⁸ Torath Kohanim, Kedoshim ²²⁹ Sanhedrin 64 b. ²³⁰ Verses 3 and 5 here; Numbers 15:31. ²³¹ See “The Commandments,” Vol. II, pp. 4-6, that these four modes of worship are forbidden to be done before any idol, even if the idol is not ordinarily worshipped in that manner. ²³² Exodus 22:19: He that sacrificeth unto the gods shall be utterly destroyed

FOR WHATSOEVER MAN THERE BE THAT CURSETH HIS FATHER OR HIS MOTHER. The meaning thereof is that it refers back to the beginning of the section where He stated, Ye shall fear every man his mother, and his father,²³³ and He now states here, for whatsoever man there be that does not obey [this commandment] and curseth his father, or his mother, he shall surely be put to death, and by way of the Truth, [the mystic teachings of the Cabala], this verse is here stated because He had said [above], Sanctify yourselves therefore, and by ye holy; for I am the Eternal your G-d,²³⁴ and I am the Eternal Who sanctify you,²³⁵ meaning that it is the Glorious Name²³⁶ Who sanctifies us, for He is our Father, and our Redeemer from everlasting,²³⁷ and it is His Name; therefore he who curses those who participated in his formation, is liable to death. This is the reason for the law [of the punishment] of the adulterer and adulteress, [in the following verse], which He placed near here before [the law of] all forbidden relations [mentioned further on in this section].²³⁸ I have already alluded to this above.²³⁹ Now Scripture mentions here some of the forbidden relations in order to make [one who has intercourse with them] liable to death, these being a man’s wife,²⁴⁰ a father’s wife,²⁴¹ a daughter-in-law,²⁴² a male,²⁴³ a woman and her mother,²⁴⁴ and the same law applies to a woman and her daughter and her daughter’s daughter, for He mentioned here only some of the relations of a wife, but the same punishment applies to all those mentioned there²⁴⁵ in the admonition. And surely this applies all the more so to one’s own relatives, such as his son’s daughter and his daughter’s daughter mentioned there,²⁴⁶, Verse 10. and needless to say, his [own] daughter. On all these matters there are also Rabbinical interpretations to establish their punishment. Similarly He mentioned here the punishment of death for lying with a beast.²⁴⁷ He mentioned excision again in the case of a menstruant²⁴⁸ [although this has already been included in a general statement above, 18:29], in order to declare him liable for mere sexual contact without completion of the act, this being the sense of the expression, he hath bared her fountain.²⁴⁸ Similarly [He has stated] in the case of a mother’s sister and a father’s sister, for he hath bared his near kin.²⁴⁹ He mentioned an uncle’s wife²⁵⁰ and also a brother’s wife,²⁵¹ in order to declare them liable to [the punishment of] dying childless, whether he had no children at the time when he commits the sin, or he did have [in which case none will survive him]. But the excision mentioned in the case of one’s sister²⁵² is redundant [being included in the general statement above, 18:29], and has therefore been interpreted by our Rabbis:²⁵³ “Why was excision specified in the case of a sister etc.” In line with the plain meaning of Scripture [excision was specified in the case of a sister] in order that Scripture should add [that it will be done] in the sight of the children of their people,²⁵² meaning to state that their soul will perish in youth²⁵⁴ in such a way that people will see, understand and realize that the hand of the Eternal hath done this,²⁵⁵ and that the Holy One of Israel has decreed it. The meaning of the expression he shall bear his iniquity,²⁵² is that this sin will cleave to him from that time onwards, his deeds will not prosper, and the curse shall lie upon him,²⁵⁶ for G-d will strike him with sore sicknesses until He will destroy him with excision, something similar to what the Rabbis have said:²⁵⁷ “A sign of [this type of] sin is one affected with dropsy.” It was not necessary for Scripture to mention the other people who are liable to excision, such as one’s mother²⁵⁸ and a wife’s sister,²⁵⁹, Verse 18. because all that is needed to be stated about them we have already derived from those mentioned [here in this section].

footnotes: ²³³ Above, 19:3. ²³⁴ Verse 7. ²³⁵ Verse 8. ²³⁶ Deuteronomy 28:58. ²³⁷ Isaiah 63:16. ²³⁸ Ramban’s meaning, as clearly indicated by his commentary (see following note) is that as a result of committing adultery the children of the union may come to transgress the laws relating to parental honor, as they will not know who their fathers are. It is for this reason that the law of the adulterer and adulteress is identical to that of one who curses his parents [who is liable to death by the hand of the court], as the one leads to the other, and therefore too, it is mentioned in juxtaposition to that law. ²³⁹ Exodus 20:13 (Vol. II, p. 320). ²⁴⁰ Verse 10. ²⁴¹ Verse 11. ²⁴² Verse 12. ²⁴³ Verse 13. ²⁴⁴ Verse 14. ²⁴⁵ Above, 18:17. ²⁴⁶ Ibid. ²⁴⁷ Verse 15. ²⁴⁸ Verse 18. ²⁴⁸ Verse 18. ²⁴⁹ Verse 19. ²⁵⁰ Verse 20. ²⁵¹ Verse 21. ²⁵² Verse 17. ²⁵³ Makkoth 13 b. ²⁵² Verse 17. ²⁵⁴ Job 36:14. ²⁵⁵ Isaiah 41:20. ²⁵² Verse 17. ²⁵⁶ See Deuteronomy 29:19. ²⁵⁷ Shabbath 37 a. ²⁵⁸ Above, 18:7. ²⁵⁹ Ibid.

AND IF A MAN ‘YIKACH’ (SHALL TAKE) HIS SISTER. Scripture mentions the term kichah [“taking,” which generally denotes the taking of a woman as a wife] in the case of a sister, although betrothal to her is not valid, because a brother and sister sleep together in one house, and when his desire overpowers him, he takes her and draws her to himself, and he does not have to come to her as one does to a woman who is a harlot. Similarly it is the way of Scripture to use the term “taking” in the case of all those with whom one remains alone, for a wife and her mother,²⁴⁴ [a wife] and her son’s daughter and her daughter’s daughter,²⁴⁵ a wife and her sister,²⁵⁹, Verse 18. and a brother’s wife²⁶⁰ are all [found] with him in one house [hence Scripture uses the term “taking” in each of these cases]. For a similar reason Scripture uses this expression in the following verse, A man shall not ‘take’ his father’s wife.²⁶¹ The expression and he see her nakedness is an euphemism, since Scripture modifies its expression in speaking of forbidden relationships. Sometimes it calls sexual intercourse “uncovering of nakedness,” as it says in the case of most of the forbidden women, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness, for it is the way of those who commit fornication to uncover her skirts, similar to that which is said, *and I will uncover thy skirts upon thy face;*²⁶² and at times it calls it “entering,” thus: *If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her;*²⁶³ *to come in unto us;*²⁶⁴ and he came in unto her, and she conceived by him.²⁶⁵, 38:18. Many times Scripture calls it “lying,” and here it refers to it as “seeing,” since brother and sister lodge together and there is no need for uncovering of skirts. Similarly Scripture uses the euphemism “knowing,” as in the following expressions: *And the man knew Eve his wife;*²⁶⁶, 4:1. *and he knew her again no more;*²⁶⁷, 38:26. a virgin, neither had any man known her.²⁶⁸, 24:16. And Scripture states [here in the verse before us] and she see his nakedness, meaning to say that she too desired his nakedness in her heart and consented thereto. Now it mentions these expressions only in the case of a sister, because in all forbidden relations when a man approaches a woman for the purpose of uncovering her nakedness, it is generally with her consent, and otherwise she can remove herself from him and cry for help, but in the case of a brother [and sister] who lodge together, it may be that it was done without her knowledge, and therefore Scripture mentioned that she too “saw his nakedness.”

footnotes: ²⁴⁴ Verse 14. ²⁴⁵ Above, 18:17. ²⁵⁹ Ibid. ²⁶⁰ Further, Verse 21. ²⁶¹ Deuteronomy 23:1. ²⁶² Nahum 3:5. ²⁶³ Deuteronomy 22:13. ²⁶⁴ Genesis 19:31. ²⁶⁵ Ibid. ²⁶⁶ Ibid. ²⁶⁷ Ibid. ²⁶⁸ Ibid.

IT IS ‘CHESED.’ In the opinion of the commentators²⁶⁹). chesed here means “shame,” because all people will naturally be ashamed of this ugly sin, this being used here as in the Aramaic language, for Onkelos translated, for that were ‘a disgrace’ unto us,²⁷⁰ “for that were chisudo unto us.” Yonathan ben Uziel also translated and I will lay it for ‘a reproach,’²⁷¹ “[and I will lay it for] chisudo.” And in the language of the Sages [we find]:²⁷² “Because shechasdo (he shamed him) in public.” Similarly, lest he that heareth it ‘y’chasedcha’²⁷³ means “lest he cause you shame upon your revealing the secret of another.” And they shall be cut off in the sight of the children of their people. The intention thereof is as follows: “You have done this secretly, but G-d will reveal your sin by bringing upon you a punishment before all the children of your people.” He mentioned this with reference to a sin which is done in utmost secrecy, but it applies as well to all [sins punishable by] excision, as I have mentioned. He hath uncovered his sister’s nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity. This means that if he had uncovered his sister’s nakedness against her will, he alone shall bear his iniquity, as Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra commented. But in my opinion the expression he hath uncovered his sister’s nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity means that each one of those mentioned [will bear the iniquity], just like the expression for he hath made naked his near kin; they shall bear their iniquity.²⁷⁴ The correct interpretation of the word chesed [it is ‘chesed’] appears to me to be according to its plain sense [“goodness,” “kindness”]. So also is the opinion of our Rabbis.²⁷⁵ 11:9. “It is ‘chesed.’ And if you should say: ‘But Cain did marry his sister!’ It is for this reason that Scripture states, it is ‘chesed’ [an act of kindness — done by the Creator in order that the world be built up], for the world from its very start was created only by kindness, as it is said, The world was built up through kindness” (Psalms 89:3). The verse is thus stating that the brother’s kinship is kindness,²⁷⁶ and it is not proper for the uncovering of nakedness. Thus in the case of other relations Scripture mentions that the reason [for the prohibition of sexual intercourse] is because they are next of kin, but in the case of a brother [and sister] it mentions as the reason the kindness which should be among them. The word ish [and if ‘a man’ shall take his sister] thus draws along with it a similar word [so that the expression it is ‘chesed’ becomes “it is ish chesed,” meaning: “it is a man who should have acted kindly to her, but he did the contrary, and hence his punishment is severe”]. Or it may be that [the expression it is ‘chesed’] is like: and I am prayer²⁷⁷ [which means: “and I am ‘a man of’ prayer”; for thou art precious things²⁷⁸ [which means: “for thou art ‘a man of’ precious things”]; Behold, I am against thee, O arrogance²⁷⁹ [which means: “‘man of’ arrogance”], in all of which cases the word ish (man) is missing [and here too that word is omitted, as if it were to say: “it is ish chesed,” as explained above]. Or it may be that Scripture in these cases refers to these men by their qualities [as if to say, “kindness personifies the brother,” “I am all prayer,” “he is all preciousness,” or “arrogance personified”. Thus Scripture is stating, And if a man shall take his sister … and see her nakedness … he is [to have been] the man of kindness, and they shall be cut off, for he hath uncovered his sister’s nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity. Thus He mentioned that the brother should have been the merciful man who doeth good to his own soul, but he was cruel and troubled his own flesh.²⁸⁰ For he should have done the kindness to her that brothers do, to give her in marriage to a husband, but he blemished and troubled her. Scripture ascribes the fault in such cases to the male, just as it is said, he hath uncovered his brother’s [wife’s] nakedness; they shall be childless²⁸¹ [and likewise here too it states, ‘he’ hath uncovered his sister’s nakedness]. Similarly it is my opinion that the expression, *lest he that heareth it ‘y’chasedcha’²⁷³ means “lest he that hears it will remove from you all kindness, because you have not shown kindness to your friend who entrusted you with his secret.” [The word y’chasedcha here meaning “remove kindness”] is like: l’dashno²⁸² [the root of which deshen in its primary sense means “to cover with ashes,” but also has the opposite meaning of “removing the ashes”]; and all mine increase ‘t’shareish’*²⁸³ [which, in its ordinary form, would mean “to take root,” but also has the opposite meaning of “rooting out”], and similar cases. [Likewise, y’chasedcha which is of the root chesed, kindness, means in the verse quoted “remove kindness,” and does not mean “shame.”] For it appears to me unlikely that the word chesed in the Sacred Language should bear such opposite meanings [as “kindness” and “shame”], when Scriptural texts abound in the praise of chesed and use it in prayers. The term chisudo, however, in Aramaic is another matter. Even that language differentiates between the two usages; “kindness” is translated chisdo,²⁸⁴ Onkelos translates: “and He showed him [Joseph] chisdo” (mercy, kindness). and “shame” is translated chisudo.²⁸⁵ Now Rabbeinu Chananel²⁸⁶ wrote that ‘chesed’ to any people is sin²⁸⁷ means “reproach” [i.e., that sin is “a reproach” to any people]. But in my opinion this too is an expression of contrast [as will be explained]. For “righteousness” and chesed are mentioned in that verse [thus: Righteousness exalteth a nation, but ‘chesed’ to any people is sin], these being twin terms mentioned in all places, as for example: *he that followeth after righteousness and ‘chesed;’*²⁸⁸, 21:21. that I am the Eternal who exercises ‘chesed,’ justice, and righteousness in the earth.²⁸⁹ Rather, the meaning of the verse in my opinion is as follows: “Righteousness if practiced exalteth a nation, but ‘chesed’ (mercy, kindness) is a reproach to any people if it fails to practice it.” Thus the verse is stating that upon righteousness and mercy depends the elevation or the decline of any people. Or it may be [that the verse is] stating: “Righteousness exalts any individual nation that practices it, while many nations sin by their failure to do mercy.” A similar example of such a verse is the one immediately preceding it: In the heart of him that hath discernment, wisdom resteth; but in the inward part of fools it maketh itself known,²⁹⁰ the meaning of which is that “it makes itself known that [wisdom] is not there,” for all who see them recognize by their deeds that they are fools and there is no understanding in them.²⁹¹ These two verses [thus express their thoughts in their second half] in a negative manner.²⁹² if it does not practice it. In the inward part of fools it makes itself known that wisdom does not rest therein. Emor

footnotes: ²⁶⁹ Rashi and R’dak (in Sefer Hashorashim, root chesed ²⁷⁰ Genesis 34:14. ²⁷¹ I Samuel 11:2. ²⁷² Ruth Rabbah 7:11. ²⁷³ Proverbs 25:10. ²⁷⁴ Verse 19. ²⁷⁵ Torath Kohanim, Kedoshim ²⁷⁶ I.e., a brother’s kinship to his sister should express itself in kindness, as that is the essence of kinship, whereas he has acted to the contrary. ²⁷⁷ Psalms 109:4. ²⁷⁸ Daniel 9:23. ²⁷⁹ Jeremiah 50:31. ²⁸⁰ Proverbs 11:17. ²⁸¹ Verse 21. ²⁷³ Proverbs 25:10. ²⁸² Exodus 27:3. ²⁸³ Job 31:12. ²⁸⁴ Genesis 39:21: and He showed him ‘chased’ ²⁸⁵ As Onkelos translated in Genesis 34:14 [mentioned above]. ²⁸⁶ See Exodus, Vol. II, p. 106, Note 45, on Rabbeinu Chananel. It is of interest here to add that in view of the fact that Ramban quotes an interpretation of Rabbeinu Chananel on a verse in the Book of Proverbs, it would seem to indicate that Rabbeinu Chananel’s exegetic activity extended also to the Scriptural books in the division of the Writings, in addition to those on the Pentateuch and the Prophets. See my introduction to “Peirushei Rabbeinu Chananel al Ha’torah,” Mosad Harav Kook, 1972. ²⁸⁷ Proverbs 14:34. ²⁸⁸ Ibid. ²⁸⁹ Jeremiah 9:23. ²⁹⁰ Proverbs 14:33. ²⁹¹ Deuteronomy 32:28. ²⁹² Thus: Mercy is a reproach to any people