AND THE ETERNAL SPOKE UNTO MOSES, SAYING … WHEN A MAN SHALL CLEARLY UTTER A VOW. This section also is joined [to Chapter 25 above] as having been declared on Mount Sinai;¹⁸⁹ and it is attached to the exhortations [in the preceding section] because it is concerned with the ordinances of the Jubilee, [and the exhortations speak also of the failure to keep the Jubilee], as He mentions in the case of a person who dedicates a field he has bought¹⁹⁰ or a field of his inheritance;¹⁹¹ but He included here in one section the ordinances of all who vow [donations of any sort to the Sanctuary]. It is for this reason that He stated at the end, These are the commandments, which the Eternal commanded Moses for the children of Israel in Mount Sinai,¹⁹² [which refers to] all that has been said above, for from then on [i.e., in the Book of Numbers] He speaks of the commandments that were declared in the Tent of Meeting.

footnotes: ¹⁸⁹ See Ramban above, 25:1. ¹⁹⁰ Verses 22-24. ¹⁹¹ Verses 16-21. ¹⁹² Verse 34.

ONLY THE FIRSTBORN OF THE BEASTS … NO MAN SHALL SANCTIFY IT — “as a different offering, because it is not his.” Thus the language of Rashi. The correct interpretation is that He is saying: “there is no need to sanctify it [the firstling], for whether it be ox or sheep, it is the Eternal’s automatically.” The verse is thus [to be understood] as a negation.¹⁹³ And in the Book of Deuteronomy He stated, All the firstling males that are born of thy herd and of thy flock thou shalt sanctify unto the Eternal thy G-d,¹⁹⁴ meaning that it is holy and that you are to treat it with holiness, so that you are not to do work with it, nor shear it,¹⁹⁴ and that you are to eat it before the Eternal,¹⁹⁵, Verse 20. as He will explain.

footnotes: ¹⁹³ See in Exodus. Vol. II, p. 350, Note 71. ¹⁹⁴ Deuteronomy 15:19. This verse does not mean that the owner is to declare it “holy,” since it is automatically holy by virtue of being the firstborn, but, as Ramban continues, that we are to regard it as holy, etc. ¹⁹⁴ Deuteronomy 15:19. This verse does not mean that the owner is to declare it “holy,” since it is automatically holy by virtue of being the firstborn, but, as Ramban continues, that we are to regard it as holy, etc. ¹⁹⁵ Ibid.

AND IF IT BE AN ANIMAL FORBIDDEN TO BE EATEN [dedicated to the Temple], THEN HE SHALL RANSOM IT ACCORDING TO THY VALUATION. “This verse does not refer to the firstling [mentioned in the preceding verse], because one cannot state about the firstling of a forbidden animal, then he shall ransom it according to thy valuation [since among all forbidden animals, only the firstborn of an ass has to be redeemed]. It cannot refer to [the firstling of] an ass, since the [animal given in] redemption of an ass is only a lamb¹⁹⁶ [while here the animal is to be redeemed according to thy valuation, i.e., as you wish], and [moreover the lamb given in redemption of a firstling ass is a] gift to the priest, and is not given to the Temple treasury [as is stated here]. Rather, the verse refers to something dedicated to the Temple treasury [and is a continuation of Verse 11], for above [in Verse 11] He spoke about redeeming a [dedicated] animal which is fit to be eaten and which became blemished [thus disqualifying it as an offering], and here [in the verse before us] He speaks of a case where one dedicated for Temple repairs an animal which is not permitted to be eaten, [or offered up].” Thus far the language of Rashi. It is possible that we answer [Rashi’s argument as to why this verse cannot be referring to the redemption of this firstling of an ass, and that we do interpret it as referring to such a case, by saying] that because He stated [in the preceding verse], Only the firstborn of the beasts, which is born as a firstling to the Eternal, no man shall sanctify it, therefore He reverted [to this subject] and stated [in the verse before us] that if the firstling that he sanctified be of an animal that is forbidden to be eaten, then he shall ransom it according to thy valuation, explaining that [the law of] the firstling does not apply to forbidden animals, except for the firstling of an ass, the law of which has already been explained.¹⁹⁶ Thus He taught [here] that even if a person did dedicate it, its sanctity is not like that of the law of a [permitted] firstling [which can never be redeemed], but it is like anything else which is dedicated to the Temple treasury, and it may be redeemed. Therefore He stated [here] that he who dedicated it redeems it by adding one-fifth [to its actual value], whereas another person may redeem it according to thy valuation [without the additional one-fifth]. And the verse above [11] stating, And if it be any unclean beast, of which they may not bring an offering, refers, according to the plain meaning of Scripture, to an animal that may not be eaten [not to the firstling of an ass, which has been dedicated to the Temple treasury]. According to the interpretation of our Rabbis,¹⁹⁷ there is a redundant expression in that verse [11 above], since He repeated an unclean beast, of which they may not bring an offering to the Eternal [it being self-understood that an offering may not be brought from an animal that may not be eaten]. Therefore the Rabbis interpreted it as follows: “and if it be any unclean beast, or [if it be] of which they may not bring an offering unto the Eternal,” thus including [permitted] animals which have become permanently blemished, of which offerings may not be brought [and thus if they were dedicated to the Temple treasury, the law stated in the verse is to be applied].

footnotes: ¹⁹⁶ Exodus 13:13. ¹⁹⁶ Exodus 13:13. ¹⁹⁷ Temurah 32 b.

NONE DOOMED WHO SHALL BE DOOMED OF MAN, SHALL BE REDEEMED. “[This means that] if a person is about to be executed [by the court], and someone else says, ‘I take upon myself to pay his valuation [to the Temple treasury],’ his vow is of no effect.” HE SHALL SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH. “For you see he is going to die. Therefore he is not to be redeemed; he has neither a market-price nor a fixed valuation” [as fixed by the Torah on the basis of his age]. This is Rashi’s language. But our Rabbis have differed on this matter, some saying¹⁹⁸ that it constitutes an admonition in connection with those who are liable to the death-penalty, that one must not take a ransom from them in order to free them. It is possible that He mentions this admonition here in order to state that he [the condemned] cannot give money to [the Temple of] G-d as other devoted things [are given], and thereby go free of punishment. By way of the plain meaning of Scripture, the verse is stating that whatever a man devotes of his belongings, whether man or animal or field of his possession, it is holy unto the Eternal, meaning that they become devoted things of the priests, and there is no redemption for them. But if he devotes people who are not his, such as those who go to war against their enemies and utter a vow, If Thou wilt indeed deliver this people into my hand, then will I utterly destroy their cities,¹⁹⁹ then all the people found in them are to die. The reason for this is that the intention of those making such a vow is not that [the captives] be given to the priests, but rather that it be forbidden to derive any benefit from them, since their purpose is to utterly destroy the enemies. Thus we find in the case of the men of Jabesh-gilead who transgressed the oath of the assembly by not coming to Mitzpah [to take part in the battle against Gibeah for the outrage they had committed],²⁰⁰ that it is written, And the congregation sent thither ten thousand men of the valiantest, and commanded them saying: ‘Go and smite the inhabitants with the edge of the sword’.²⁰¹, 21:10. And common sense does not allow [us to say] that the whole congregation perpetrated such an evil deed, killing many people of Israel who were not guilty of death! And Phinehas was there,²⁰², 20:28. and by word of his mouth the whole affair was done! I have further found in the Agadah, in the [Midrash] Yelamdeinu:²⁰³ 76. On “Yelamdeinu” see in Seder Bo (Vol. II, p. 131, Note 196). “We have been taught: Rabbi Akiba says, Cheirem (‘doomed to destruction’) is an oath, and an oath is cheirem. The men of Jabesh transgressed the cheirem, and thus they became liable to the death penalty.” Therefore I say that it was from this verse [before us] that they deduced this law — that if any king of Israel, or the Great Sanhedrin [of seventy-one judges] in the presence of all Israel, who have the authority to institute ordinances [for the good of the people], if they declare a certain city cheirem, to be warred on, and likewise if they declare a certain matter cheirem, he who violates it is liable to the death-penalty. This indeed was the guilt of the men of Jabesh-gilead [as mentioned above], and of Jonathan, to whom his father [Saul] had said, *‘G-d do so and more also, thou shalt surely die, Jonathan.’*²⁰⁴ Now on the basis of what legal authority did these people deserve death, if not because of this source [in Scripture]? And this was the mistake that Jephthah made with his daughter.²⁰⁵, and it was his daughter who came out to meet him first. For he thought that just as a cheirem [“doomed” object] of the chief of Israel is valid and takes effect to put [certain] people to death, and [also] anyone who transgresses it is liable to the death-penalty, so [Jephthah thought] that if he uttered a vow at a time of war, to make an offering of a certain person or persons, the vow is valid; but he did not know that a cheirem declared by the king and Sanhedrin is valid [only] regarding the destruction of rebels, or against one who transgresses their decrees and ordinances. But that a vow should take effect to make a burnt-offering of something not appropriate for G-d, [as Jephthah thought] — Heaven forbid! Therefore the Rabbis have said in Bereshith Rabbah²⁰⁶ that [Jephthah] was not even obliged to pay the price of her market-value to the Temple treasury [as his vow was totally invalid], and he was punished for her [innocent] blood! Now do not let yourself be misled by Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra’s²⁰⁷ empty words, when he says that the meaning of the expression and I will offer it up for a burnt-offering²⁰⁸ is “or I will offer it up,” as if to say: “if that which comes forth of the doors of my house be a man or woman, that person shall be holy to G-d, inasmuch as he will abstain from the ways of the world, to stand to minister in the Name of the Eternal²⁰⁹ in prayer and thanksgiving to G-d; but if it be something fit for an offering, I will make it a burnt-offering.” Accordingly [Ibn Ezra’s interpretation continues, since Jephthah’s daughter was the first to come out to meet her father], he built her a house outside the city where she resided in seclusion, and he provided her with sustenance all her days, and no man knew her,²¹⁰ so that his daughter remained shut away [from the world all her life]. All this are words of emptiness. For if he vowed that [whatsoever comes forth of the door of his house] shall be the Eternal’s,²⁰⁸ this does not mean that he should be a recluse [from the world], but instead he is to be like Samuel, of whom his mother said, and I shall give him unto the Eternal,²¹¹ and he was a servant in the House of G-d, not a recluse. And according to the ordinances of the Torah, no man can utter a vow which will bind the persons who come out of the door of his house to live thereafter in seclusion, just as he cannot bring them as an offering. And if the matter be so [as Ibn Ezra put it] then Jephthah’s daughter would be bewailing her virginity with her companions with her,²¹² like harlots enhancing their hire!²¹³ Heaven forbid that this be a custom in Israel, to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in a year²¹⁴ because she did not marry and she worshipped G-d in purity! Rather, this whole subject is to be understood in its plain meaning [that Jephthah actually brought her as an offering], and his mistake was as I have explained. And according to the opinion of our Rabbis, of blessed memory, it is possible that this verse [before us] includes many [different] subjects, similar to the verse, *Ye shall not eat with the blood;*²¹⁵ and like the verse, The fathers shall not be put to death for the children²¹⁶ which the Rabbis interpret²¹⁷ as invalidating the testimony of relatives, and Scripture further states concerning it: But the children of the murderers he [King Amaziah of Judah] *put not to death, according to that which is written in the book of the law of Moses, as the Eternal commanded, saying, ‘The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children be put to death for the fathers.’*²¹⁸ Similarly this verse [before us] includes the law of one who vows to give to the Temple treasury the valuation of a person who is liable to the death-penalty [as explained above], the law of those against whom a cheirem is declared at a time of conquest, as we have said, and the law of one who transgresses the cheirem of the Great Court or of the king of Israel, as was the case in the incident of Saul [and Jonathan mentioned above]. It is with reference to that that it is said there, So the people rescued Jonathan, that he die not,²¹⁹ for since the Torah states, he shall not be ransomed; he shall surely be put to death,²²⁰ it says there, *So the people rescued Jonathan, that he die not;*²¹⁹ [meaning] that since a miracle happened through him [i.e., that the Philistines suffered a great defeat on that day], they knew that it was in error that Jonathan had acted [contrary to the cheirem of his father]. And this is the sense of the expression [of the people in speaking on behalf of Jonathan], who hath wrought this great salvation in Israel.²¹⁹ And so likewise did Yonathan ben Uziel translate this expression: “For before the Eternal it is revealed that he [Jonathan] acted in error on that day, and so the people rescued Jonathan.”

footnotes: ¹⁹⁸ Arakhin 6 b. The name of the Sage holding this opinion is Rabbi Yishmael. ¹⁹⁹ Numbers 21:2. ²⁰⁰ See Judges Chapter 19. ²⁰¹ Ibid. ²⁰² Ibid. ²⁰³ I have found this in the Yalkut Shimoni, Shoftim ²⁰⁴ I Samuel 14:44. ²⁰⁵ See Judges 11:30-34, where it is related that Jephthah vowed that whosoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, it shall be the Eternal’s, and I will offer it up as a burnt-offering ²⁰⁶ Bereshith Rabbah 60:3. ²⁰⁷ The source is unknown to me since we have no commentary of Ibn Ezra on the Book of Judges. This interpretation, however, is found in the commentary of Ralbag. ²⁰⁸ Judges 11:31. ²⁰⁹ Deuteronomy 18:5. ²¹⁰ Genesis 24:16. ²⁰⁸ Judges 11:31. ²¹¹ I Samuel 1:11. ²¹² Judges 11:38. ²¹³ See Ezekiel 16:31. ²¹⁴ Judges 11:39-40. Ramban’s comment here is typical of Jewish teaching which abhors celibacy. ²¹⁵ Above, 19:26. See Ramban there. ²¹⁶ Deuteronomy 24:16. ²¹⁷ Sanhedrin 27 b. The meaning of the verse is thus: a parent cannot be condemned on the evidence of his children. ²¹⁸ II Kings 14:6. Here it is obvious that the Rabbis also understood the verse in its literal sense — that children are not to be put to death for the sins of their parents, and vice versa. ²¹⁹ I Samuel 14:45. ²²⁰ In Verse 29 before us. ²¹⁹ I Samuel 14:45. ²¹⁹ I Samuel 14:45.

Thus is completed the Book of the Law of the Priests [i.e., the Book of Leviticus], their offerings and their commandments. May G-d the Most High restore matters to their [former] condition, the Levites to their song, the priests to their ministry, and Israel to their mighty habitation. And may our eyes behold Jerusalem, the garden of the Palace;²²¹ And the Palace upon its wonted place,²²² The Temple and the Innermost Sanctuary upon their firm foundation, and the daughters of Judah²²³ in their security. Then will the offering of Judah be pleasant unto the Eternal as in the days of old,²²⁴ and as in their ancient years. And acceptable upon His altar will be the Daily Whole-offerings in their order and the Additional Offerings according to their law.

footnotes: ²²¹ The Sanctuary is “the Palace” and Jerusalem “the garden of the Palace.” The expression is taken from Esther 1:5. See, however, at end of his Sermon on the New Year (Kithvei Haramban, Vol. I, p. 289) where Ramban refers to the whole Land of Israel as “the Palace of the King.” ²²² Jeremiah 30:18. ²²³ Psalms 97:8. This is a reference to the cities of Judah surrounding Jerusalem. ²²⁴ Malachi 3:4.

Finished and completed is the Book of Leviticus with the help of G-d.