The main thrust of this portion is to urge us to sanctify ourselves by abstaining from indulgences which are permissible. Whereas the previous פרשה concerned itself mostly with the סור מרע "depart from evil" aspect of Judaism, this portion is concerned with the עשה טוב, "do what is good" aspect of our faith. Since I have already written on many subjects mentioned here, I prefer to copy here a sermon which I delivered in my youth.

Rabbi Chiyah taught in Vayikra Rabbah 24,5 that this portion was read out during the הקהל ceremony because so many basic elements of the Torah are contained therein. Yalkut Shimoni at the beginning of פרשת ויקהל states that the teachers of aggadic material concurred that there is no other portion of the Torah which starts with a report of the Jewish people all being assembled. G–d asked Moses to arrange for many mass meetings at which the laws of Sabbath observance would be taught. Subsequent generations were meant to learn from Moses how to teach Torah in public gatherings with the objective to glorify the name of G–d among the people. This is why Rabbi Chiyah was convinced that the portion of קדושים was read on the occasion of הקהל [a public gathering of the entire nation including women and children as per Deut. 31,12 at which the people were to hear and learn to fear the Lord. Ed.] Rabbi Chiyah further supports this by the opening verse in our פרשה.

It is difficult to see why the Torah writes קדושים תהיו in the future tense; it should have said: !קדושים היו with an imperative. Furthermore, why does the Torah once more conclude at the end of this portion (20,26) with והייתם לי קדושים? The Midrash comments that this latter verse is a directive to be holy in public. This entire Midrash (24,8) requires analysis. Rabbi Avin describes what the Torah means as twofold. "Imagine a king who owned a wine cellar and who appointed guards to watch that cellar. Some of the guards were teetotalers whereas others were in the habit of imbibing. When the time arrived to be paid, the king paid the teetotalers only half the salary that he paid to the other guards. The teetotalers complained stating they had put in just as much time doing their work. The king countered that since they had not felt an urge to drink of the wine they had not had to overcome as much temptation as had the other group of guards who were in the habit of drinking alcoholic beverages." This parable is applicable to the difference between the angels and the Jewish people as regards the observance of G–d's commandments. The angels' task is easy, for they do not have to fight off the evil urge; G–d wishes only that the Jewish people -who do have to fight an evil urge- would resist its lure in their awareness that their reward will be twice that of the angels. G–d expressed the wish that the two levels of sanctity granted to human beings would be sufficient to ensure that they could achieve their spiritual objectives.This is why the Torah describes in 20,7: והתקדשתם, והייתם קדושים כי אני ה' אלוקיכם. A further parable by the same Rabbi Avin goes as follows: "Another parable: Consider the inhabitants of a country who constructed three crowns for their king. What did the king do [seeing he could wear but one crown at a time? Ed.] He placed one of the crowns on His own head, whereas He placed the other two crowns on the heads of his two sons. We may understand the angels as crowning G–d daily with three crowns. What does G–d do? He places one crown on His own head whereas He places the other two crowns on the head of Israel." This is why the Torah repeats: דבר אל כל עדת בני ישראל קדושים תהיו … והתקדשתם והייתם קדושים.

The syntax used by the editor of the Midrash above is strange. Normally, the editor would refer to an alternate explanation as דבר אחר, "an alternative interpretation." Why does he say that Rabbi Avin said תרתין, i.e. a "twofold explanation" in this case? An even more serious problem with the Midrash is that Rabbi Avin's second parable almost contradicts his first parable. What kind of קדושות, "sanctities," does he refer to? Further, in the first half of the first version he speaks about the amount of the reward; in the second half of that same version there appears to be great doubt if Israel would qualify for any reward at all!

The author of these two parables dealt with a difficult question which I have already raised, namely that the angels possess one sanctity while Israel possesses two sanctities; this is derived from Psalms 103,20: ברכו ה' מלאכי, גבורי כח עשי דברי לשמוע בקול דברו, "Bless the Lord, O His angels, mighty creatures who do His bidding, ever obedient to His bidding." Based on this verse the angels are perceived as possessing one level of sanctity whereas Israel is perceived of possessing two levels of sanctity. Israel's first level of sanctity is acquired by "being obedient and doing G–d's bidding," whereas the second level is achieved through observing Rabbinic "fences" erected around basic Sinaitic laws to make it more difficult for the individual Jew to transgress such Biblical injunctions (cf. Avot 1,1). The reason for all this is alluded to in the parable about the wine cellar. We know about the יין המשומר, the wine preserved in its grapes since the time of גן עדן. There is some wine which does not contain any sediment apt to cause the wine to go sour under certain conditions. The wine, i.e. grapes of the tree of knowledge which Eve squeezed out and drank and gave Adam to drink, had not been guarded by a fence around the prohibition not to eat from the tree of knowledge. It thus was able to form sediments, which clouded its appearance, thereby preventing the detection of the pollutant emanating from the original serpent which was concealed therein. When Rabbi Avin speaks about guarding the wine cellar, he refers to the unpolluted remnant of the wine from גן עדן. Another word for such sediment or dross is סיג, and this is why the "fence" around Biblical laws is called סייג. This is also the deeper meaning of 18,30: ושמרתם את משמרתי, which is interpreted in Moed Katan 5 as עשו משמרת למשמרת, "construct a strainer for the strainer!" The Torah suggests that extra precautions should be taken to ensure against violations of its commandments. The function of the second strainer is similar to what is discussed in Shabbat 137 where the question is debated whether it is permissible to suspend such a strainer above the cup on a festival.

The words קדושים תהיו are a reference to these "fences" which the Rabbis have erected in order to achieve our maximum separation from spiritually injurious materials, thus enabling us to achieve two levels of sanctity. If we practice והתקדשתם, we will achieve והייתם קדושים. The author of the parable in the Midrash speaks about a double amount of remuneration received by the guards who were used to drink alcoholic beverages. Rabbi Avin explains in the second parable that the challenge to the Jewish people [or mankind in general who are all subject to the evil urge Ed.] is so great that even with the help of the two "crowns" i.e. משמרת למשמרת, with which G–d adorned the Jewish people, He can only hope that Israel will achieve sanctity. If we only had the first parable of Rabbi Avin we would immediately question the premise that the teetotalers should receive a reward at all. Why should creatures who have no free will such as angels be paid for their services? Since the Torah links the demand for us to achieve sanctity to the statement כי אני ה', what does all this have to do with reward for performance of Torah commandments?

In order to answer this difficulty Rabbi Avin quoted his second parable, i.e. a postscript, not an alternative explanation. Rabbi Avin goes on record in his first parable that even though the angels are recompensed for their service to G–d, this is not related to their having overcome an evil urge. The reason they receive a reward at all, says G–d, is כי אני ה', "I G–d am gracious," I do something over and beyond what anyone has the right to expect of Me. The nature of the reward received by the angels is spiritual, similar to the concept of שכר מצוה מצוה, that the reward for performing a מצוה is the continued ability to perform מצות (Avot 4,2). Israel, whose מצוה performance is the result of overcoming great handicaps, receives two kinds of reward.

This is the meaning of the Rabbinic statement (Berachot 17a) that in the future the righteous will sit in Heaven and wear their crowns on their heads. The term used in that statement is עטרותיהן "their very own crowns" instead of simply עטרות על ראשם, "crowns on their heads." It is a reference to the choices the righteous had to make before attaining their status. To sum up, the Israelites receive both the reward the angels receive and also their very own reward. The former is perceived as part of G–d Himself. Both these sanctities are not within the province of G–d to control, as we know from: חוץ מיראת שמים, "Everything is within the power of Heaven, except instilling fear of Heaven in a person" (Berachot 33). The sum total of rewards received by Israel is threefold then. There is the קדושה which is part of G–d, and there are two further קדושות, sanctities, earned by Israel's performance.

This solves all the problems in the Midrash we have quoted. Before addressing other parts of the פרשה, allow me some remarks about the פרשה in general, after which I will deal with specific matters raised in this portion. We shall be guided by the approach in Midrash Tanchuma which commences its commentary on our פרשה with the verse: ויגבה ה' צבאות במשפט, והאל הקדוש נקדש בצדקה, "The Lord of Hosts is exalted by judgment, the Holy G–d proved holy by righteousness" (Isaiah 5,16). The Midrash says: "When is G–d perceived as exalted in His world? When He performs justice with the Gentile nations." The Midrash, at the end of the paragraph, cites Isaiah 49,3: "He (G–d) said to me: 'You are My servant, Israel in whom I glory.'"

This is a very profound comment, and I will not address every detail of it as is my usual practice. A general difficulty in this Midrash is the apparent exclusion of converts as people G–d glories in. How can we reconcile this with the statement by the Talmud in Chagigah 3 that G–d is called אלוקי אברהם in recognition of the fact that Abraham was the first of a string of converts to monotheism? The Talmud there quotes Psalms 47,10: "The great of the people are gathered together, the retinue of Abraham's G–d." To the obvious question why G–d is not also called the "G–d of Isaac and the G–d of Jacob," the answer given is that Abraham was the first convert and as such all future converts are called by his name. Another difficulty is the fact that in the Psalm mentioned, G–d is first referred to as the גאון יעקב, "the pride of Jacob." How can we reconcile this with the reason the Talmud gives for calling G–d the G–d of Abraham? Before G–d became the G–d of Israel (when Jacob's name was changed), He had already been the G–d of Jacob!

It is erroneous to believe that the name יעקב preceded the name ישראל. The concept ישראל preceded the creation of the universe. We know from the ספר יצירה that G–d created 310 worlds for every צדיק, each equipped with 231 gates, [the word יש-ראל=310+231]. The very first revelation of G–d's spirit in the world occurred when He created the first נקודה, point. This was called the יש מאין. The emanation חכמה, the means by which this creative process developed, as per כולם בחכמה עשית, "You have made all of them using חכמה" (Psalms 104,24) is a reference to ישראל. The חכמה employed in creating the universe served as a guideline. This is why our sources in the various Midrashim all agree that the idea of "Israel" in the Celestial Regions preceded the process of Creation. The "Israel" we are familiar with is simply the terrestrial counterpart of this concept which G–d employed while creating the universe.

The deeper meaning of the word is that it is an instrument ready and willing to be fashioned by G–d. Acceptance of Divine input from the Celestial Regions results in a spiritual awakening in our regions. Our sages who stated that the sacrificial service is something needed in the Celestial Regions meant that the concept of Israel in the Celestial Regions depends on this input from us through our sacrifices for the furtherance of its own perfection. This is the meaning of Psalms 20,3: ישלח עזרך מקדש "May He send you help from the Sanctuary." It is a reference to sanctity in the "higher" regions helping to establish sanctity in our "lower" regions. The meaning of the word מקודש is also that "for the sake of the sanctity which will emanate from our regions G–d sends His help from above." Jacob merited this level of sanctity because he, as the first of the patriarchs, succeeded to sire children all of whom were loyal to G–d and His teachings. As a result he qualified for the name corresponding to all that the name ישראל in the Celestial Regions in connection with מעשה בראשית stands for. This is the mystical dimension of Genesis 47,31: וישתחו ישראל על ראש המטה, "Israel bowed at the head of the bed." This is also the mystical dimension of Midrash Tanchuma Kedoshim 1 אתם מתקדשים בי ואני מתקדש בכם, "You will become sanctified through Me, and I will become sanctified through you." Whichever way you look at this, it all expresses צדקה, "righteousness," as it shows G–d's desire to help those who wish to sanctify themselves.

Let us now explain some of the aspects of קדושה, holiness or sanctity. There are three different kinds of holiness, five if we include sub-categories. The three basic categories are: 1) The sanctity of the body as discussed in the earlier portions of the Book of Leviticus concerning which the Torah said – והתקדשתם: 2. The sanctity of space as mentioned in the Torah in Exodus 3,5: כי המקום … קדש הוא (this has to do with התבודדות, physical separation from others; 3) The sanctity of time, such as when the Sabbath is called מקרא קודש, "a holy convocation."

The sanctity of the body is divided into three levels. They are the three levels which our sages have listed and which are dealt with in Reshit Chochmah. Our sages in Berachot 57b have spoken about them in terms of דירה נאה, אשה נאה, כלים נאים, מרחיבים דעתו של אדם, "a beautiful residence, a beautiful wife, and beautiful furnishings develop a man's mind." The word דירה, residence, is a metaphor for the heart, the seat of life itself. The word כלים, furnishings is a metaphor for one's tools. The word אשה, wife is a metaphor for the holy soul. The Arizal gave these three items a סימן by relating them to Psalms 90,3: תשב אדם עד דכא, "You return man to "dust." The word ד"כא he understood as an acronym for דירה, אשה, כלים.

The meaning of all this is that it is the task of man's various limbs, i.e. the tools, כלים, with which he performs G–d's laws to keep the owner away from potentially dangerous situations which might lead him to defile himself. These "tools" must be employed to ensure that man performs the positive commandments as well as to see to it that he refrains from transgressing the negative commandments. The duty of the heart, the דירה, is in the sphere of thought and contemplation. The heart must be the instrument which enables man to achieve the קודש קדשים, the spiritual elevation he is capable of. There are so many things which the heart has been entrusted with that it is impossible to list them. They include such headings as: "לא תשנא, לא תקום ולא תטור, ואהבת לרעך כמוך, "do not hate, do not take revenge, do not bear a grudge, love your neighbor, to name but a few. There are also innumerable virtues that the Torah tries to teach us. Most of them and their sources in our Torah are listed in the book Chovot HaLevavot.

The sanctity of the soul which is part of G–d is to cleave to every mystical aspect of Torah one is capable of. One may then merit to become privy to hidden aspects of the process of Creation, and even to part of what is commonly termed מעשה מרכבה, speculations about procedures in the Heavenly Regions, esoterics.

Achievement of higher levels of sanctity in the three areas mentioned is all included in the directive to sanctify the body, והתקדשתם. This directive encompasses the entire domain called קומת האדם, "the stature of Man," both its visible and its invisible aspects. The sanctity of space is a mystical dimension of כבוד. The Torah alludes to this when it legislates that most sacrifices have to be offered on the northern side of the altar. Whenever that term is used in the Torah, it is associated with the words: לפני ה', "in the presence of the Lord." In other words, G–d is perceived as being צפונה. [The deeper meaning of the word is clearly related to the word צפון, "hidden." Ed.] I have dealt with this concept at length when I wrote about the statement in Shir Hashirim Rabbah 7,6 that "as long as an embryo is within its mother's womb it receives all its sustenance through its navel."

I have also dealt elsewhere at length with קדושת הזמן, the sanctity of time. The reason why our sages call the week שבת [not שבוע Ed.] is that they wish to exhort us to conduct ourselves every day of the week in such a way that from a spiritual point of view each day represents the essence of the idea of the Sabbath. Once we do this we cleave to a world which is totally under the aegis of the Sabbath spirit, and every one of our mundane activities thereby assumes a sacred character. It is this thought that dominates the benediction we recite at the end of the Sabbath when we refer to "G–d who makes a distinction between the holy and the profane, between light and darkness, between Israel and the Gentile nations and between the seventh day and the six days allocated to work." The Gentile nations are the epitome of what is mundane or profane, as explained by Rabbenu Chananel in connection with Pessachim 103-104.I have discussed this in connection with Proverbs 10,27: יראת ה' תוסיף ימים, "The fear of the Lord prolongs one's days."

The above named three types of קדושה, which are really 5, are alluded to in the statement that G–d gave Israel three gifts, תורה, ארץ ישראל, ועולם הבא. The gift of תורה consists of the three branches of achievement the heart is capable of. The study of all aspects of the Torah leads to the performance of its commandments. The gift of ארץ ישראל represents the sanctity of space, whereas the gift of the World to Come represents the sanctity of time, i..e. a world which is identical with the Sabbath concept.

Berachot 10 asks whom David had in mind when he repeated the words ברכי נפשי five times in Psalm 103. The answer given is that David addressed himself to the relationship between G–d and the soul. The Talmud lists five aspects in which the soul is like G–d. Just as G–d fills the universe, so the soul fills the body. Just as G–d sees without being seen, so the soul sees without being seen. Just as G–d sustains the whole universe, so the soul sustains the whole body. Just as G–d is pure, so the soul is pure. Just as G–d resides within an inner sanctum, so the soul resides within the most hidden area of the body. David said that the soul, because it possesses these five features, is suitable to bless the Lord who excels in these five areas. The soul judges the body because of the five aspects in which it is similar to G–d. The author cites proof how the five attributes of G–d possessed by the soul affect man.

Adam sinned with the word דכ"א (as mentioned earlier). He stole by eating from the tree of knowledge. He also "stole" by trying to mislead G–d. He also pulled on his foreskin, [i.e. he tried to cover up the fact that he lacked a foreskin. Ed.] Philosophically speaking, his sin consisted of giving additional weight to the physical part of his personality.

Noach sinned in a similar fashion by getting drunk on wine which contained sediments, i.e. pollutants introduced by the original serpent when Eve first drank from the grapes of the tree of knowledge. This led to the fact that man would henceforth be born with a foreskin.

Abraham suffered spiritually from having a foreskin. The foreskin may be perceived as an obstacle to receptivity of higher degrees of sanctity by the body. Only after Abraham became circumcised was he able to resume his spiritual ascent towards higher insights and a higher level of sanctity. His descendants after him achieved some permanent sanctity in space. Some of his descendants were not fit however, and, until Jacob, whose children were all loyal, no permanent site of holiness was established. When the Talmud Berachot 6b said that כל הקובע מקום לתפלתו אלוקי אברהם בעזרו, "Anyone who prays from a site permanently assigned for that purpose will enjoy the assistance of the G–d of Abraham," this is an allusion to the fact that Abraham was the first to establish sanctity of space on earth.

Isaac erred by loving Esau and not paying attention to the separation between the holy and the profane, and the Gentile nations respectively, as outlined above, i.e. the sanctity of time as represented by the Sabbath. Jacob was למעלה מן הזמן, "above the limitations imposed by time." His stature is symbolized by: ואתם הדבקים בה' אלוקיכם חיים. Jacob was replete with all kinds of sanctities; he represented the root of the tree that is Israel. All of these concepts are alluded to in this portion.

לא תגנובו, "Do not steal," alludes to Adam who was a thief. נטע רבעי, the legislation of sanctifying the fruit of a tree in its fourth year, alludes to Noach who was drunk on a Wednesday. When a stranger (convert to Judaism) takes up residence among you, etc.," is an allusion to the first convert, Abraham. The prohibition of offering one's children as a sacrifice to the Moloch (20,2) is not part of the general prohibition to worship idols, but concerns itself specifically with the worship of fire. There are two kinds of fire. There is the fire described by the prophet Ovadiah 1,18 in the words: והיה בית יעקב אש, "The house of Jacob will turn into fire." This is a sacred fire, because the Lord your G–d is also called "fire." Also the fire in the Temple (Deut. 4,24) was sacred fire. However, there is another kind of fire, the fire of Esau, the fire of purgatory, a destructive fire emanating from the קליפה. When discussing the Moloch, the Torah adds (20,3) למען טמא את מקדשי ולחלל את שם קדשי, "and he so defiled My Temple and profaned My holy Name." How does the Temple feature in this paragraph? What does a fire-offering to the Moloch have to do with the Temple? The Torah wishes to point out that though fire-offerings to the Moloch are an abomination, there are fire- offerings such as the ones brought by Jacob which reflect the highest level of sanctity. When the Torah writes: והתקדשתם והייתם קדושים, it is an instruction to sanctify את קדוש יעקב, the G–d considered as the personification of holiness by Jacob. This is merely another way of saying: קודש ישראל לה', or that His name is called ישראל, the concept known as ישראל סבא, the first manifestation of G–d when He commenced creating the universe as a יש מאין by means of the first נקודה, as we explained above.

The beginning of our portion deals with קדושת הגוף, attaining sanctity of one's body. Nachmanides (Chavel edition page 115) – as distinct from the Midrash Rabbah quoted by Rashi – does not see in this a directive to be separate, to refrain from incest, etc., but understands it to mean that people who qualify for the description קדושים, holy, are the ones who have sanctified themselves not by abstaining from what is forbidden, but by abstaining from what is permitted, each person according to his individual urges. Our sages (Yevamot 20a) have called this process קדש עצמך במותר לך, "sanctify yourself by denying yourself something you are entitled to!" From the above we learn that to a certain extent every single person has his own Torah. Assuming that every person had the same natural tendencies, and that every day or hour of the year would be identical to each other [that there would not be a predisposition to seek warmth in the winter and a cooling breeze in the summer, for instance. Ed.], the Torah, when legislating what may or may not be eaten would simply write that: "a certain quantity of certain foods may be consumed, everything else is prohibited." The Torah would express itself in similar terms concerning with whom and how frequently one is allowed to have sexual intercourse. The Torah would find a way to phrase prohibitions of permitted speech and thought in a similar way. As it is impossible to state these prohibitions in such a detailed manner, the Torah has to allow for the differences in the nature of different people. It therefore contents itself with a general directive: "Strive to become holy!" The meaning of the directive of the Talmud to sanctify oneself by means of denying oneself enjoyment of things which are permitted in principle, is that a person must be mature enough to know what is permissible in accordance with his particular station in life and his particular natural tendencies. When a person feels himself to have attained a particular spiritual level he considers certain matters as forbidden to him though they may formerly have been perfectly permissible, and though they may still be perfectly permissible for others not on his spiritual level.

The Talmud illustrates this point by various examples. In Baba Kama 99b we are told that a woman came to Rabbi Chiyah asking him to determine if a certain coin was sound. He told her that it was. The next day the same woman came back to him complaining that others had refused to accept the coin at full value. Thereupon Rabbi Chiyah instructed Rav, the keeper of his money, to give this woman a coin of his own to compensate her for what he perceived to be an error of judgment on his part. He asked Rav to record this transaction as a loss. The Talmud questions why this instance was different from the previously mentioned example of a professional money-changer who erred in his judgment and who had given his opinion without charging. Such a money-changer does not have to compensate the enquirer. The Talmud answers that Rabbi Chiyah did not have to make restitution, but that he acted לפנים משורת הדין, beyond what was demanded of him legally. He took his cue from Rav Yossi who interpreted Exodus 18,20: "You will inform them of the path they should take and the practices they are to follow" to mean that one should go beyond the demands of the law in dealings with fellow human beings.

We have another even more astounding example of how this principle is applied to men of outstanding caliber. In Baba Metzia 83a, we are told about workers who had broken [apparently deliberately, Ed.] a cask of wine they were transporting on behalf of Rabbi bar Chanah. The Rabbi took some of their clothing as compensation. When the workers turned to Rav complaining, the latter ordered Rabbi bar Chanah to return it. To Rabbi bar Chanah's query whether this ruling was in accordance with the law, Rav replied in the affirmative. He quoted Proverbs 2,22: למען תלך בדרך טובים, "so that you may walk in the way of the good ones" as his source. When the carriers complained to Rav that in view of their poverty they could not afford to forego their wages for the transport of the caskets of wine, Rav ordered Rabbi bar Chanah to pay these workers full wages. When Rabbi bar Chanah again questioned whether his ruling was legal, Rav quoted the second half of Proverbs 2,20 וארחות צדיקים תשמור "keep to the paths of the righteous" as the source for his ruling. It is interesting that Rav did not justify his ruling by citing the need to apply more stringent yardsticks to oneself than the law requires of one, but he made it plain that as far as Rabbi bar Chanah was concerned his ruling was the requirement of the law itself. Tosaphot in Baba Kama 99 deal with the difference between Rav's ruling against Rabbi bar Chanah and that of the incident involving his nephew Rabbi Chiyah in the case of the woman's coin. Tosaphot's answer that the concept of לפנים משורת הדין does not apply when the damage one has sustained has been caused willfully by the other litigant, is very forced. If we adopt my approach that Torah law applies to different people according to their spiritual level, Rav's ruling is simple. He viewed Rabbi bar Chanah as on an exceptionally high spiritual level; therefore he explained the law to Rabbi bar Chanah as it applied to him. Once the principle of לפנים משורת הדין has been derived from a verse in scripture, the way we adapt the slogan קדש עצמך במותר לך, "sanctify yourself through foregoing what is permissible to you" is applied on a very individual basis.

I believe that in the many instances when the Talmud justifies certain rulings by the statement אדם חשוב שאני, that we apply different yardsticks to morally high-ranking people, the Talmud wants to emphasize that the law is different when applied to such people. It is not merely a voluntary abrogation of one's rights. When the Talmud speaks of "doing one's duty in the eyes of Heaven," however, it is something else again. Such considerations apply where for one reason or another the human tribunal is unable to enforce a certain ruling.

In 19,3 the Torah, after commencing in the singular איש אמו ואביו תיראו, "you must each show respect to your mother and father," continues with the plural תיראו. Why did the Torah not write תירא, "You must show respect" in the singular? According to the plain meaning the answer is that the Torah at one and the same time addresses three different people: the man who is a son, the person who has already become a father or mother in his/her own right who is still duty-bound to show respect to their own parents, and in reverse, the parent who must not kick a grown up child lest he/she retaliate making the father guilty of לפני עור לא תתן מכשול, "do not place an obstacle in the path of the blind" (based on 19,14 cf. Moed Katan 17a).

One difficulty is the sequence of these various verses. How are the different subject matters related? Another difficulty is the connection of the injunction to respect mother and father to the laws of Sabbath observance. The answer that Sabbath observance overrides the commandment to respect mother and father is quite inadequate, since such a principle applies even if the parents ask one to violate a far less serious commandment of the Torah.

One might say that the Torah refers to the sanctity of the body of individual man. The meaning of the words קדושים תהיו, "you shall strive to become holy (plural)," is addressed to both partners of a marriage. The Torah speaks of three partners in the creation of a human being, i.e. father, mother, and G–d. G–d's share in this creation is already holy, i.e. כי קדוש אני ה' אלוקיכם. The sanctification of man and his wife is most easily achieved on Friday nights, i.e. the Sabbath, the preferred time for the union of man and his wife to produce children conceived in sanctity. In other words, the Sabbath, a sanctified point in time, is the reason that a child comes into being. In view of the foregoing, a son who hears his father order him to do something which violates the Sabbath may entertain the idea of fulfilling the father's bidding. The Torah tells the son not even to contemplate such a thought. The stress on the word איש underlines how inconceivable it is to give precedence to a command by man over a command by G–d.

The plural used by the Torah, i.e. תיראו, is connected to the soul. Sanctity may sometimes be inherited from father and mother and the spiritually pure thoughts they entertained at the time of marital union, whereas it can also be attained through one's own merits. These ideas have been expounded upon both in parts of the Zohar called רעיא מהימנא and in the Pardes Rimonim. They explain the plural in our verse as alluding to these two alternative ways of attaining sanctity, i.e. either through heredity or through personal achievement. Which ever might be the case, the Torah exhorts you to let the fear of G–d take precedence over all other demands that may be made upon you. When the Torah continues in 19,4: "Do not turn to idols, and do not construct for yourselves a graven image," this commandment is addressed to children who have not been sired by parents who have attained sanctity.

וכי תזבחו זבח (19:5) which speaks about the conditions when sacrifices or parts thereof may be eaten by the owner, legislates the need to sanctify one's foods. I have explained that, as long as the Israelites were in the desert, the consumption of meat was possible only after such meat had become the remains of a peace-offering, שלמים. After the Jewish people settled in their land, and most lived a considerable distance from Jerusalem, the site of the Temple, consumption of meat which had not first been offered on the altar was permitted (Deut. 12,21). The reason that the Torah (19,6) places a restriction on the time sacrificial meat may be consumed, i.e. the law of נותר, may be an allusion to teach us not to ask "what shall we eat tomorrow?" The Torah up to now had addressed itself to the sanctification of the body by its legislating on sexual relations and on permitted foods.

The Torah next addresses itself to the sanctification of one's money, one's possessions. We know that there are people who treasure their possessions more than they treasure their lives. The Torah wishes to teach such people a moral lesson when it demands that after having invested time and labor in producing a crop, they must allocate part of this crop to people who have neither invested time nor effort in producing it. Starting in 19,9 we have a whole string of such commandments. The Torah commences addressing a multitude, i.e. ובקצרכם את קציר ארצכם, "when you (pl) reap the harvest of your land," only, to switch immediately to the singular in the very same verse, i.e. לא תכלה פאת שדך לקצר, "do not reap all the way." This is the way of the Torah telling the farmer that the פאה, edge of the field that he must leave unharvested, never belonged to him in the first place, but always belonged to the poor by right. The same applies to לקט, the gleanings. Were this not the case, the Torah would have included these items under the heading of the מתנות, gifts, which the farmer has to give away. It would have been be quite inconceivable if the Torah had legislated that such "gifts" should constitute the most inferior produce such as the unripe grapes or prematurely fallen fruit mentioned in verse 10. Someone giving charity is certainly expected to give of the superior part of his produce. The Torah has already taught us that the gifts given to G–d must be the best of the type of animal one has offered as a sacrifice, i.e. כי חלב לה' (Leviticus 3,16).

When the Torah speaks about not stealing, (19,11) (compare negative commandment 155 according to the Semag,) this does not refer to the theft of something tangible, but to what our sages called גנבת דעת, false pretenses, trickery. Such false pretenses are prohibited even in one's dealings with a pagan. This is discussed in Tur Choshen Mishpat section 228. The basic prohibition of גנבת דעת is expressed in the words: לא תשקרו, "do not lie." A person is not permitted to deny his guilt by claiming he had merely made a mistake. This is why the Torah says: לא תכחשו, "do not deny." The Talmud in Shabbat 119a tells of a butcher who had become extremely wealthy and who attributed this fact to his having saved the very best part of his animals for the Sabbath [but for his own and his family's consumption. Ed.]. This does not contradict the statement that the best part of one's goods should be presented to G–d, or, failing this, to charitable causes. The Talmud merely mentions the incident to demonstrate how great is the merit of honoring the Sabbath and that he who honors the Sabbath for its own sake will be rewarded.

The Torah continues (19,12) with the prohibition to use the name of G–d when swearing a false oath. I believe that what is meant is that one must not swear an oath in order to promote something which is false, i.e. in order to acquire an unfair financial advantage. Money is not something אמיתי, a true value, i.e. enduring. When G–d adds the words אני ה', "I am the Lord," this is as if G–d said that only He Himself can swear a really true oath. Tur Yoreh Dey-ah section 203, discussing the laws of vows, etc., first draws attention to the fact that vows, i.e. a form of oaths, are unwelcome because they may not be fulfilled. Even someone who does fulfil his vow on time is called a רשע, a wicked person. The Alshich in his commentary on the sequence of these verses points out that they describe how one mistake leads to another, how from merely committing גנבת דעת, a false pretense such as inquiring about the price of goods one has no intention of buying at any price, one may end up by feeling embarrassed enough to deny one's motives, eventually swearing a false oath of denial.

The Torah (19,13) continues with: "Do not oppress your fellow, neighbor." Why does the Torah mention in this connection רעך, a term usually employed for someone who is a friend of yours? Why does the Torah add: "and do not commit robbery?" A report in Berachot 5b appears to allude to our problem. Rav Huna once sufferd the loss of four hundred barrels of wine which had all turned sour. Rav Yehudah, brother of Rav Salo the Pious, visited him together with other scholars. They suggested to him that he should examine his past deeds. He said to them: "Do you suspect me of wrongdoing?" They replied: "Do you perhaps imply that G–d is suspected of having caused you such a grievous loss without cause?" Thereupon Rav Huna challenged anyone who had heard something negative about him to say so. They told him that they heard that he did not give his land tenant certain shoots that the latter was entitled to. To this accusation Rav Huna retorted that since the land tenant in question had not given him any part of the harvest of that vineyard, how could there be a question of his stealing from the land tenant! In other words, at worst he had only reimbursed himself partially for what the land tenant had stolen from him! The Rabbis quoted a popular proverb to Rav Huna which states that if someone steals from a thief he still tastes the fruits of theft. Rav Huna accepted the rebuke and made restitution. His vinegar then turned to wine again, or, according to another version, there was an increase in the price of wine so that he recouped his loss when selling the balance of his stock. Applied to our verse, this means that the Torah calls the person who steals from a thief רעך, i.e. puts him on the same moral footing as the thief himself. The Torah adds "and do not commit robbery" to tell us that if we steal from a robber, we too are considered robbers.

The Torah (19,14) continues with: "Do not curse the deaf." This should be understood in the sense of Kings II 24,14: וכל החרש והמסגר, "all the craftsmen and smiths." In the above mentioned context all the leading people of Jerusalem who could have enabled its continued existence as an independent nation were exiled. Here, too, the Torah means that one should not curse the judges, the leaders, etc., without whom the state could not continue to function properly.

Following this injunction, the Torah warns that one should not place obstacles in the path of the blind, an allusion to attempts to bribe judges whose sense of fairness would be blinded by acceptance of a bribe, such as Moses has repeated in Deut. 16,19. There are other dimensions to such bribes, i.e. attempts to trip up the blind, such as the advice given in Jerusalem Talmud Taanit 3,6 "to honour, i.e. send gifts to your physician before you are in need of him." People who do this know that sooner or later they will be in need of the services of a physician, and they want to ensure that they will then get immediate attention. The same is true of someone who is in the habit of sending gifts to a judge. He knows that if ever he will need to have to appear before a judge in litigation, he can choose this judge knowing he will be favourably disposed towards him. The Torah therefore ends the verse with the injunction to fear the Lord your G–d, i.e. that G–d is quite aware of our machinations. This fear of the Lord is something within the province of one's heart.

The Torah (19,15) continues by exhorting: "Do not commit injustice while performing justice." On occasion one commits an injustice while in the midst of performing justice. An example would be a judge favoring a poor person before him in the knowledge that any judgment against the pauper would bring about his own or the community's legal obligation to provide for him.

The Torah adds in the same breath: לא תהדר פני גדול, "Do not show deference to the rich." Maimonides, concerning this verse, writes that it includes giving every litigant a chance to have his say be he long-winded or not. A litigant should not be able to claim that the judgment pronounced by the judge was based solely on unsupported arguments. Tur Choshen Mishpat 16 confirms this. Every argument presented by either litigant must be examined so that it could serve as shedding a favorable light on the actions of that litigant, whenever possible. This is why the verse concludes with the words: בצדק תשפוט עמיתך.

We next have the injunction not to go about slandering people (19,16) This is also directed at judges. It includes a judge who did not preside over a certain litigation and who says that if he had been the judge in that case the decision would have been different. When the Torah phrases this injunction as "do not walk…" it is an allusion to people who are in the habit of going from one house to another exchanging gossip, etc. The Torah suggests to such people that if they do not want to become guilty of slander they should not keep "walking" around so much. Staying at home is a self-imposed "fence" around this law.

The Torah continues with: לא תעמוד על דם רעך, meaning that you should not only not actively spread such gossip, but you should not even remain in a place where gossip is discussed. The Talmud (Erchin 15) calls it “לשון הרע "לישנא תליתא, evil gossip a "threefold tongue," because it causes death to both the person against whom it is directed, to the person spreading it, and to the person listening to it.

The Torah next exhorts us not to bottle up our hatred against a fellow jew in our heart (19,17), but to tell him openly if we wish to criticize his conduct, i.e. הוכח תוכיח. Proverbs 27,5 provides the rationale, namely that a rebuke reveals loving concern for the person so rebuked. This is a virtue as explained by Rashi on Genesis 37,4 that Joseph's brothers, rather than concealing their dislike of Joseph and flattering him, spoke out about it. One must not contrast this with the statement of our sages who condemned Naval for saying what was in his heart. They even changed the reading of the name of his ancestor from נבל to כלבו so as to emphasize that every evil thing in his heart he expressed with his lips (Samuel 25, Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 2,3). His was a special case; he should not have spoken at all instead of using his power of speech only to denigrate others. Joseph's brothers, on the other hand, had to maintain relations with him. Rather than pretend to like him they chose to say what was on their minds.

When the Torah urges הוכח תוכיח, it moderates it by adding: ולא תשא עליו חטא, "incur no guilt because of him." I understand this to mean that in the process of rebuking your fellow you are to stress your surprise that a good man such as he should become guilty of the misdemeanor you are rebuking him for. You are to rebuke only those people who are intelligent enough to realize that you have their interest at heart and who will love you for it. Solomon spoke about this distinction in Proverbs 9,8. The Alshich elaborates on this in his commentary on the Book of Proverbs, [see my translation of this commentary, pages 173-4. Ed.]

The Torah continues (19,18) telling you not to take revenge or even to hold a grudge against fellow-Jews. The conjunctive letter ו, linking the two commandments is justified. Someone might have thought that if the Torah even forbids us to hold a grudge there is no need to forbid actual revenge. This is not so. I would then have considered an act of revenge as less culpable than that of bearing a grudge. If someone refused his neighbor the loan of, say, a gardening tool, such refusal might not be attributed to the owner wanting to revenge himself against the potential borrower, but the potential borrower might think of the refusal as due to the owner's concern over possible damage to the tool. We also might have considered it a transgression of a negative commandment not involving a deed by the person violating the commandment. A human tribunal is not competent to impose a penalty in such cases, seeing that there is doubt about the motive of the refusal, a doubt which only G–d Himself is able to resolve. For the above reasons one might have thought that the two prohibitions should have been written separately without the conjunctive letter ו linking grudge-bearing to an act of revenge. The Torah writes first: "Do not take revenge," so that even if the refusal of the loan of the tool is due to one's genuine concern that the tool should not suffer damage while in the hands of the borrower, he is still not allowed to refuse because bystanders would interpret the refusal as an act of revenge.

The Torah continues with: ואהבת לרעך כמוך, אני ה', "Love your fellow as yourself, I am the Lord." Whereas the Ten Commandments commence with G–d saying: אנכי ה' אלוקיך, in this instance G–d describes Himself as, אני ה'. The latter word is the Egyptian equivalent for אנכי. The Ten Commandments comprise 613 letters from the beginning until the word רעך in Exodus 20,14. The last two words in the Ten Commandments, i.e. אשר לרעך, "that which belongs to your fellow," are the רגל, "foundation," upon which the entire Torah is based.

Mixing species which G–d wanted to remain separate, whether in the sphere of clothing, i.e. the inert, the sphere of farming, the sphere of growing vegetation, or in the sphere of the living creatures such as the mismatching of domestic animals, is forbidden because it runs counter to G–d's design for His universe. This is why the Torah (19,19) prohibits a variety of such species from being paired. The letters in the word שעטנז are the same as שטן ע"ז, that "Satan is strong" an allusion that warns us that we would strengthen the forces of Satan if we worked against G–d's design for this world. The word שטן is an acronym for שוע, טווי, נוז, terms denoting the spinning, twisting of threads and smoothing or carding of certain mixtures used in making garments.

פשתן, flax, and צמר, wool, are the mystical dimensions of Cain and Abel respectively. History has taught that the two, i.e. Cain and Abel, did not mix successfully.

We have elaborated elsewhere on the fact that each blade of grass depends on a spiritual input from the higher world that tells it to grow. When such spiritual input addresses a species other than the one which it is supposed to complement, an intolerable situation results.

In the case of animals of different species being mated with each other, this is an intolerable mixture of spiritual forces with one another. A classic example of opposing spiritual forces is the maid-servant (of gentile descent, 19,20) who has been partially freed [such as by only one of her masters, Ed.] She is neither able to wed a slave nor can she wed a Jew because she has "one foot" in the spiritual domain of slaves, whereas her other "foot" is already in the spiritual domain of the Jewish people. We have also described her relationship with G–d as partially like that of a child, and partially like that of a slave.

In 19,23, the Torah legislates that trees planted in ארץ ישראל undergo a period of three years of ערלה, a period similar to that of a male child before it has been circumcised. We have understood Torah legislation as an attempt to rectify errors committed by Adam , Noach, etc, who have been responsible for a withdrawal of G–d's presence and for damage to G–d's universe. Noach became drunk because he drank prematurely from a vineyard which had not yet reached its fifth year. In his comments on Rav Alfassi at the beginning of the sixth chapter of Berachot, Rabbeinu Yonah quotes a ruling that of all the trees which grow in the diaspora only the vineyard is subject to the נטע רבעי legislation because whenever there is a dispute concerning whether a certain legislation applies, we decide in favor of the more lenient viewpoint when it concerns applicability of the law in the diaspora. He supports this ruling with the argument that wherever teachers of the Mishnah disagree regarding the הלכה, we adopt the more lenient view where practice in the diaspora is concerned. In the case of wine, there is a special requirement to sanctify wine, i.e. to bring it to the level of sanctity that existed prior to the sin in the garden of Eden. The ruling is supported by similar sounding words ערלתו [even when the context is totally different. This exegetical method is known as גזרה שוה. Ed.] on separate occasions.

When someone pulls at the piece of skin near his glans, he denies the sanctity of his body achieved through circumcision, as we have previously explained in connection with one of the three sins Adam is accused of. The expression קודש הלולים may also be understood as קודש חלולים sanctifying what had previously been desecrated, i.e. the יין המשומר.

Rabbeinu Yonah holds that wine in its fourth year, after redemption, requires a benediction as a matter of biblical law, both before and after one has drunk it. He bases this on the word הלולים, in the plural. A drunk person is not allowed to recite such a benediction. By reciting a benediction one "redeems" the wine from its גלגול, its need to be rehabilitated. The author, basing himself on some works of the Arizal, describes the benediction recited by the owners of the sacrifices who eat part thereof as crucial to the process of "the priests perform the service, whereas the owners eat in order to bring about effective atonement." The injunction not to eat of the sacrificial meat prematurely, i.e. before the blood has been sprinkled on the altar by the priests (19,26), also contains allusions to this process. The allusions to transmigration of the soul are found in Job 33,29 where hope is held out that a person who has not fulfilled his task on earth may be given a second or even a third chance to do so. We may see a similar allusion in the legislation of נותר, which follows the legislation that meat of the peace-offerings may be eaten on two days and the intervening night, i.e. during a maximum of three time periods. This alludes to the three opportunities given to the soul (personality) to redeem itself within the body of a person while on earth. When the Torah says in 19,8: ואכליו עונו ישא, "that anyone who consumes such sacrificial meat after the deadline has expired will bear his sin," the idea is that he will no longer qualify for atonement. The statement by Hillel in Avot 1,14 –If I am not for myself, who is? If I am only concerned with myself what kind of a person am I? If not now when?" – may also be read as an allusion to the statement in the Talmud concerning the validity or invalidity of the repentance of a person who says: “I shall sin since I will have a chance to rehabilitate myself (on the Day of Atonement, Yuma 86), or, in a transmigration of my soul!" Anyone who ever had such thoughts during his life on earth will not be permitted to rehabilitate in such a way, for surely he will not be granted a second round on earth. Pardes Rimonim deals with this problem in his chapter on the soul. The author explains that the contribution one's friend or associate can make to one's own rehabilitation is extremely limited; this is why Hillel stresses that what one does not do for oneself no one else is going to do for one. On the other hand, if one attempts to achieve one's rehabilitation by one's own efforts, not relying on other factors, one will experience that G–d extends one a great amount of help, similar to what David said in Psalms 31,20: "How abundant is the good that You have in store for those who fear You!" One will realize then that one's own contribution was really major, that G–d appreciated it. The rhetorical question: "What am I?" must be understood in the sense that I grew to realize my importance in the eyes of G–d. This is the deeper meaning of 19,5: לרצונכם, "to your satisfaction."

The Torah (19,26-29) continues with legislation not to imitate the "cultural" standards of the Gentile nations. All their so-called culture is based on idol worship, a form of being ערל לב, of uncircumcised heart. When a human being initiates the process of defiling himself, other forces will defile him even more (Yuma 39). This is why the process of rehabilitation has to begin immediately, before one becomes progressively more defiled, more impure. We can interpret the Torah's demand מפני שיבה תקום "arise in the presence of an aged person" (19,32) as a warning not to wait until one's evil urge has become so old that it does not tempt one anymore. Compare the comment of the Zohar on this verse (Sullam edition page 45). The word מפני then is read as לפני.

The paragraph commencing with וכי יגור אתכם גר, "When a stranger (convert) resides amongst you, etc" (19,33), contains an allusion to Abraham, the first convert to Judaism. He also became the first אזרח, natural born citizen, as we know from Psalms 89,1, which, according to all our sources, is a reference to Abraham. The reason the Torah alludes to Abraham as the first convert is to teach us not to accuse others of shortcomings when we ourselves suffer from the same type of shortcoming. To denigrate a stranger is to forget that we ourselves started our career as a nation as strangers. In the words of Baba Metzia 59b: "If one's family tree contains the name of someone who has been legally hanged, he should not even say to a fellow "hang this fish up for me," for the very mention of hanging is a reminder of a blemish in his own family." The Israelites were guilty of idol worship while in Egypt as well as of many abominable practices. How then could they dare remind a convert of his pagan past? Abraham himself chose exile (Shemot Rabbah 59) for his descendants in preference to their having to linger in purgatory. Purgatory comprises both the dimension of dryness and wetness. The dryness expresses itself in the fire, the wetness in a form of snow. As an allusion to this, the Torah here continues with the prohibition to sacrifice to the fire-god Moloch (20,2-5) a warning of what is in store for Esau and his followers. The Torah speaks only of people who sacrifice some of their offspring to Moloch. The author of Semag writes an explanation as a reply to the heretics; however, the true reason for this is analogous to the statement of our sages on Genesis 21,12 where Abraham did not want to expel Hagar and Ishmael. G–d told him there that his principal heirs would be "part of Isaac." Just as the Torah referred in that case to "part of Isaac," so here too the syntax of the Torah speaks of the likely event, i.e. that someone offers some of his offspring as a sacrifice to that deity. Just as only part of Isaac's descendants turned away from the Abrahamitic tradition, i.e. Esau, so the Torah, by speaking of "some offspring being offered to the Moloch," reassures us that it is inconceivable that a descendant of Isaac would sacrifice all of his offspring to such a deity. The Torah continues in 20,7: והתקדשתם. This is a reference to Jacob. He had succeeded in attaining sanctity of his body.

When the Torah speaks about someone cursing his father or mother in 20,9, the opening word כי, is difficult. The meaning could be that if a person who curses father or mother must face execution, how much more so is such a penalty applicable to someone who curses G–d. The Torah addresses those charged with carrying out the execution, i.e. it is part of the ושמרתם את חקותי in verse 8. Nachmanides understands the word כי as referring to 19,3 the commandment to respect mother and father. The Torah would tell us here that in the event a person ignores the commandment of 19,3 but curses his parents instead, he would face the death penalty. His explanation would be difficult to accept because the Torah dealt with too many other subjects in the interval. I see no such problem because I have demonstrated how all the various legislations form a continuous concept, i.e. aspects of sanctification. The Alshich as well as Klee Chemdah elaborate further along these lines. [cf. my translation of Torat Moshe by the Alshich, page 543. Ed.] The paragraph concludes with the promise that by making a separation between the impure and the pure we will achieve sanctity and will be apart from all the other nations (20,26). This means that we will merit to live in a world all of which is under the spiritual aura of the Sabbath.

[Following is a fragment of a section of which the beginning pages was lost:]

The opposite is true of the wicked, who will experience הכרת תכרת הנפש, an extermination of their souls, as spelled out in Numbers 15,31. Whereas it is within the power of the righteous to transform the attribute of Justice to become the attribute of Mercy, the wicked accomplish the very reverse. Although in this context body and soul are viewed as opposites, both the body's and the soul's activities may evoke responses from either the attribute of Mercy or the attribute of Justice. Sin is possible when body and soul work in tandem, as we know from the parable of the blind and the lame. Whereas neither the one nor the other could commit theft individually, they managed quite well by the lame becoming the eyes of the blind and the blind becoming the legs of the lame.

In Avot 3,1 Rabbi Akavyah enumerates three thoughts which are apt to help a person avoid the commission of a transgression. Since we can all count to three, and the thoughts are mentioned separately, why did the Rabbi have to tell us that there were three considerations? Midrash Shmuel suggests that the Rabbi wanted to stress that these three considerations are effective only if one thinks of all of them at the same time. Hence he stressed the number "three." The author of this Midrash proceeds to show that whereas the first of the considerations listed by Rabbi Akavyah referred to the body, the second referred to the soul. This explains why the Rabbi did not use the word Ayin i.e. "nothing" when describing the way we are headed as he had described the place we originate from. Instead, he refers only to a direction, i.e. Le-on. The soul enters the body "naked," and its task is to leave it after having become a personality, i.e. after having acquired suitable "clothing." These subjects are discussed in the chapter about the soul in Pardes Rimonim. When it has to give an accounting, the soul has to demonstrate its accomplishments while in a body before the attribute of Justice because the yardsticks applied to the soul are in accordance with its superior origin. The body has to give an accounting before the King of kings, the King who judges all the terrestrial kings as pointed out in Avoda Zarah.

Such considerations also enable us to explain the Mishnah in Avot 5,8, that the Jewish people experienced ten miracles while the Temple was standing. The list includes such things as that no woman suffered a miscarriage due to the odour of the flesh of the sacrifices which was burned up on the altar, and that the meat itself never turned putrid. No fly was ever seen in the slaughterhouse of the Temple; no unclean emission ever befell the High Priest on the Day of Atonement. The rain never extinguished the fire on the wood pile of the altar; the wind never prevailed over the column of smoke that rose from the altar; no disqualifying defect was ever found in the Omer, the two Shevuot loaves, nor in the show-breads. The people stood closely pressed together and yet found ample space to prostrate themselves; no snake or scorpion ever caused injury in Jerusalem, and no man ever said to his fellow: "There is too little room for me to lodge overnight in Jerusalem."

Why did the author of this Mishnah not say "G–d performed these miracles etc.," instead of phrasing it passively, merely as something experienced by the people? When the same phraseology is used in connection with the miracles performed in Egypt as listed in the preceding Mishnah, this could be explained as a by-product of the plagues, i.e. Israel being saved from the afflictions suffered by the Egyptians. It is worthwhile to read the comment of Midrash Shmuel on this Mishnah which he attributes to a Rabbi Moshe Almosnino [a prominent scholar in Salonika and Constantinople during most of the 16th century. Ed.].

The reason the ten miracles are described in the manner they are is that they teach us ten lessons. Man has free choice. Five of the miracles listed represent man's right hand, the other five represent his left hand. The right hand symbolises the three awarenesses demanded by Rabbi Akavyah concerning one's soul, plus the need to rectify any sins one has already committed. This makes four. The fifth is the awareness of before whom one has to give an accounting. Once one has to give an accounting before G–d it is too late to engage in remedial action, i.e. תקונים. There are also five awarenesses that apply to the body, i.e. the "left hand." In view of all this, our Mishnah in chapter 5 commences with the negative aspects of such miracles, whereas it concludes with miracles which demonstrate positive accomplishments by the people who experienced them.

The fact that a pregnant woman did not experience a miscarriage due to the stench of the meat on the altar corresponds to the statement of Rabbi Akavyah that we must be aware of the smelly drop of semen our body originates from.. This subject is mentioned in Yuma 82 where we are told about a pregnant woman who experienced a terrible urge to eat on the Day of Atonement and whose predicament was presented to Rabbi Yehudah Hanassi. The latter instructed that one should whisper to this woman that the date was the Day of Atonement. When this advice was followed the woman's hunger pains subsided. Concerning this incident they applied the verse in Jeremiah 1,5: "I have known you before you were even formed in the womb." The baby that this woman gave birth to was the famous scholar Rabbi Yochanan. The Talmud next reports about another similar case involving Rabbi Chanina and a pregnant lady. The same procedure was followed, but it did not assuage the lady's terrible urge to eat. The bystanders applied to that lady Psalm 58,4: "The wicked are defiant from birth." The child born from that pregnancy was a certain Shabtai who hoarded produce during years of drought and sold it at exorbitant prices. We draw a parallel from the experience of pregnant ladies who passed the Temple and who did not abort an embryo due to the unpleasant smell of the sacrificial meat to women who did not feel revolted by the smell (or awareness) of their own flesh and blood. According to Rabbi Akavyah the mere thought of it should have been revolting.

The second kind of awareness demanded by Rabbi Akavyah, consciousness of one's destination, a place of worms and decay, similarly holds no terror when one speaks of meat such as the sacrificial meat which has been sanctified on the altar. Such meat is not subject to decay amd worms. The Talmud describes several instances of rabbis whose body had not decayed for many years after their burial. One such instance was that of Rabbi Eleazar who was blessed by a Jewish adulterer about to be executed that his flesh should not become worm-eaten nor decay (Baba Metzia 83b).

The absence of flies in the slaughterhouse cited as one of the ten miracles which occurred in the Holy Temple symbolises an absence of bodily desires. The body is less likely to decay when one controls them. Rabbi Akavyah therefore demanded an awareness of the fact that there would be a price to pay for indulging one's body in order to frighten us into controlling such urges. Berachot 10a states that the Shunamite woman who used to provide lodging for the prophet Elisha recognized that he was a holy man because flies never bothered him or his food. The presence of flies then symbolizes an excessive concern with the physical. The people who ignored Moses' instructions in Exodus 16,19 not to try and leave over part of the manna which fell on the first day learned their lesson because their left-overs became worm-eaten and stank. We read in Malachi 2,3: "I will strew dung upon your faces, the dung of your festival sacrifices, and you shall be carried out to its heap." The presence of flies and their ilk round the sacrificial meat is a clear sign of a curse. We have stated that our own table should serve as our private altar, i.e. as the visible symbol that we should strive for holiness.

The fact that during the hundreds of years the Temple stood the High Priest never suffered from an involuntary emission of seminal fluid on the Day of Atonement is a clear indication that the putrid drop of semen – mentioned by Rabbi Akavyah – from which human life originates has been rehabilitated. The origin of seminal fluid is in the brain, and pure thoughts influence the purity of the seed. When man starts out correctly, pure, undefiled, every day of his life can be like a Day of Atonement and in his purity he may be comparable to the angels. This is what Rabbi Eliezer (Shabbat 153) had in mind when he told his students to repent one day before their death, i.e. on a daily basis. When one lives on such a basis, the pollutant transmitted as a residue of Eve's sin is purified each and every day.

The inability of the rains to extinguish the wood pile of the altar alludes to the eternity of the judgment in the future. Let me first explain something about the nature of the rain and what it symbolises to the extent that I understand the matter. We have mentioned that the Torah does not spell out spiritual goals and rewards. Different scholars have advanced different reasons for this. Most are listed in a book called Avodat Hakodesh. We shall also explain why Hebrew is called לשון הקודש, "the holy tongue." At the same time I shall explain why the handles of certain vessels are subject to impurity, whereas the "foot of the small chair" is not considered in the category of such a יד, i.e. handle. We will also endeavor to explain the meaning of attributes such as "hand" or "foot" when attributed to G–d.

We shall follow the approach of Pardes Rimonim in his introduction to שער האותיות. Many people mistakenly believe that the letters of the Hebrew tongue are only symbols used to express certain formations by our mouths when we make certain sounds. Such a premise is called הסכמיים, an accommodation, by the sages who formulated the אלף-בית, to an already existing speech pattern. These letters must instead be considered as עצמיים, original in their own right. Whatever language we speak is originally borrowed from the Hebrew. All languages evolved from Hebrew. When Adam first named all the animals in Genesis 2,19, he expressed the essence of each animal through the name he accorded that animal. As a result, a name of an object represents its true spiritual dimension. When the Hebrew word for rain is גשם, for instance, this is an expression denoting the spiritual influence exerted from the higher regions, denoting that the purpose of the spiritual input has been achieved. This process applies to the various worlds, such as the world of בריאה, יצירה, and עשיה, respectively, until in our physical world the drops of moisture that fall from the sky are also called גשם. This is actually a name "borrowed" from a word which had a broader meaning to begin with. The same applies to the word ידות used by the Mishnah to describe handles. Keeping this in mind, we understand that when the Torah (Leviticus 26,4) lists a number of blessings in store for us as a result of observing G–d's various statutes, etc., the first such blessing mentioned is that of גשם, rain. In view of the fact that rain is only one of the instruments enabling a crop to materialize, we would have expected the Torah to first mention bountiful crops as a consequence of Torah observance. The fact that the Torah chooses to mention rain first is an indication that there is much more to גשם than we thought.

To return to the miracle of the woodpile on the altar not being extinguished by rain. The corresponding fire in the Heavenly Regions is a mystical dimension involving the souls of the righteous which the archangel Michael sacrifices on that altar. We have explained that the word גשם in its original meaning expresses the outpouring of spiritual largesse to regions in the various worlds, such spiritual largesse eventually to be perceived in this physical world as rain. The ability to absorb such spiritual largesse without being overwhelmed by it is tested, so to speak, by the souls in those regions. The souls have to demonstrate their ability to maintain an affinity with the Divine while assigned to this world. The souls who pass this test have demonstrated love for their spiritual origin. Once they have done this theirs is the kind of love of which Solomon has said in Song of Songs 8,7 that the most powerful waters cannot extinguish such love, i.e. the fire symbolizing such love. So much for the five miracles that pertain to the body.

The other five miracles mentioned in our Mishnah, are the ones we have termed "positive" miracles. We again find reminders of three kinds of awareness respectively as in the Mishnah of Rabbi Akavyah, and two illustrations of תקונים, measures designed to repair damage caused by previously committed sins. Between them they represent the יד ימין, right hand. The wind never prevailed over the column of smoke that rose from the altar." The column of smoke alludes to the reminder of "where you came from" in Rabbi Akavyah's statement. The souls within the body are reminded of their original holy origin. Their root is with the One of whom it is said: עושה מלאכיו רוחות, "He makes the winds His messengers" (Psalms 104,4). The smoke which connects the meat of the offerings to the Higher Regions is viewed as a ladder of souls. All the souls stood at the foot of Mount Sinai at the time G–d gave the Torah and the Ten Commandments to spiritualized man and when the Mountain was enveloped in smoke. This was the moment, when, according to our tradition, the angels, i.e. the רוחות, protested that G–d would hand over His glory to Moses, to mortal man who had risen to take the Torah from Heaven. G–d then instructed Moses to engage in debate with the angels. At the end of the debate the angels said to G–d: "Give Your glory upon him" (Shabbat 88). This is the meaning of the statement in the Mishnah that the רוח, "wind," (messenger sent by G–d) did not prevail over the column of smoke.

The next miracle, that no disqualifying defect was ever found in the "Omer, the two loaves which were presented on Shevuot, nor on the showbreads," alludes to Rabbi Akavyah's second awareness that of knowing where one is headed. When one considers that only the righteous, i.e. those people who have managed to attach their bodies to their souls instead of vice versa, are headed for eternal life, this is a potent reminder not to sin.

The Torah (Deut. 8,3) has taught that man does not live on bread (physical) alone, and the three sacrifices mentioned here which all involve offerings of one kind of bread or another are the perfect symbol for this lesson. The spiritual "bread," i.e. whatever emanates from the mouth of G–d, is what sustains the צדיק. The reason that the Rabbi mentioned three separate examples of bread elevated to a spiritual dimension is that they represent the spiritual dimension of the weekday (Omer), the spiritual dimension of the Sabbath (showbreads), and the spiritual dimension of the festivals (the two loaves of Shevuot). The sanctity of all three kinds of bread "evolved" through the manna, the "heavenly" food the Israelites were fed during their wanderings in the desert. These three sanctities of bread also allude to three levels of the human soul, the נפש, רוח, נשמה respectively. These basically spiritual breads had to become manifest so as to enable one to examine whether any had been disqualified through some defect.

The way the Israelites rehabilitated themselves for shortcomings in appreciating the relative significance of spiritual food, i.e. the value of their souls, was that while they stood pressed together, they prostrated themselves before G–d and suddenly did not find themselves hemmed in any more. The tightness experienced while standing symbolized the smelly drop of semen, their putrid origin, whereas the spaciousness experienced when prostrating oneself before G–d represented the spiritual uplift experienced by their souls. As long as their concerns had been centered around physical progress the Rabbis' injunction not to be boastful, not to "make waves," was fully applicable. Hence, even while in the precincts of the Temple, they experienced the tightness of space. Only when their main concern had become a spiritual one did they no longer find space confining. It is the mark of a truly great Torah scholar that he becomes more and more humble. Our sages have already said that "whoever raises himself up, will experience that G–d will lower him" (Eruvin 13b). The reverse is also true. The author of the Mishnah simply gave us a recipe. If someone desires prominence in this world, i.e. he stands upright, עומדים, he will experience that space in this world is at a premium, צפופים; if, on the other hand, he is prepared to prostrate himself before the Lord, to assume a low profile, he will find רווחים, that there is no shortage of space. This is the way to rectify any error one had committed in the direction in which one was headed, i.e. לאן אתה הולך, meaning that no disqualification would be found in the way one utilizes both one's physical and one's spiritual "bread." This then is the moral message of "no disqualification was found in the Omer," etc. We have been exhorted by our sages (Avot 1,6) to appoint a Torah authority for ourselves, i.e. עשה לך רב, and the Talmud (Sanhedrin 19b) said that anyone who teaches the child of his neighbor Torah is equivalent to having given birth to him. This statement refers to the soul of the person, since Torah is like a soul to a body.

The Mishnah continues by stating that neither serpent nor scorpion was ever reported to have inflicted harm on people in Jerusalem. We may also understand this in a spiritual sense, namely that the words (fire) of scholars (Avot 2, 15) do not harm the soul; should these scholars have been provoked however, their words have been compared in power to that of serpents and scorpions.

The Mishnah next lists the fact that no one was ever heard complaining that Jerusalem was so crowded that he could not find lodging for the night. This corresponds to Rabbi Akavyah's third awareness, that one needs to constantly be aware of before whom one will eventually have to give an accounting of one's conduct. We have already explained that different categories of people, even different categories of צדיקים, are measured in accordance with the spiritual level they had attained and are expected to maintain. When the Mishnah mentions Jerusalem, this refers not only to the physical Jerusalem in our world, but also to the spiritual concept of what our sages have called ירושלים של מעלה, the Jerusalem in the Celestial Regions. Torah scholars, as we mention in our prayers daily, מרבים שלום בעולם, constantly add new dimensions to the concept of peace and harmony in the world. They do this by joining together different parts of the אהל של תורה, the tent which is a symbol of Torah.

Avot 5,10 discusses four basic attitudes amongst people, i.e. the one who says: "what is mine is mine and what is yours is yours." Such an attitude is called "average" by some, and extremely negative, i.e. the attitude of the people of Sodom, by others. The second attitude is that of people who say: "What is mine is yours, but what is yours (by the same token) is mine." This attitude is categorised as that of an ignoramus. The third attitude: "what is yours is yours, and what is mine is yours (at your disposal) also," is described as the attitude of the pious; finally, there is an attitude which proclaims: "what is mine is mine, and what is yours is mine also;" this is the attitude of the wicked.

We may understand the word שלי as referring to what is material, whereas the word שלך in the Mishnah in question refers to the mind, the abstract. When a person proclaims: שלי שלי ושלך שלי, it is as if he said: The body and the mind both belong to the secular, to earth-bound values. This is typical of the wicked person who wants to make life a totally physical experience and to drag down the spiritual part of man to the level of the merely physical. When a person declares: שלך שלך וגם שלי שלך, he is described as pious because he expresses his striving to elevate what is physical to the level of the spiritual. The person who says: שלי שלך ושלך שלי is similar to the person of whom Solomon said in Kohelet 2,24: "Is it not good for a man to eat and drink and enjoy?" Solomon refers to the person who wishes to partake of "both tables," i.e. life in the here and now as well as life in the Hereafter. When he refers to the enjoyment, he refers to the joy of studying Torah. Whereas some of our sages consider this attitude as average, i.e. tolerable, others consider it as the attitude espoused by the people of Sodom. The Rabbis who see in this attitude an average attitude believe that a philosophy of זה נהנה וזה לא חסר, "The fact that one person derives pleasure but not at the expense of his fellow," is something morally tolerable. It is similar to someone who lights his candle from another candle. He secures light for himself without diminishing the existing light for others. These rabbis compare such conduct to the verse in Psalms 34,11: ודורשי ה' לא יחסרו כל טוב, "Those who turn to the Lord are not failing to do something wholly good." The motto of: "What is mine is yours and what is yours is mine," is equivalent to turning the laws of nature upside down. When a person turns the weekday into the Holiday by denying himself all physical pleasure on weekdays, whereas he uses the Holidays for unbounded physical enjoyment, he reverses the order G–d has established for this world and is clearly ignorant of G–d's plans. The Torah has spelled out that only certain activities are allowed on the Holidays in order to ensure our minimal physical comfort on such days. This is the meaning of Exodus 12,16: אך אשר יאכל לכל נפש הוא לבדו יעשה לכם, "Only what every person has to eat, that alone may be prepared for you." When we examine what the author of Emek Berachah writes in connection with the above Mishnah we find that the desire to enjoy both the physical parts of this world as well as the spiritual ones is not enough for a person who wants to qualify as pious. People such as the prophets Elijah and Chanoch learned how to cope while availing themselves of less and less of the comforts available for the body in this world. In order to establish the closest possible ties with G–d the physical part of this world cannot be enjoyed in its own right. The enjoyment of the Holiday should comprise the life-force of the body, נפש הגופני, as well as the life-force of the soul, נפש הרוחני, through the study of Torah and engaging in prayer.

When our time will come to be tested as to how we lived our lives, the test will include three areas of our conduct, everyone having to prove how he lived up to the moral imperative to become an אדם. The Mishnah under review lists five levels of such achievement. The level חסיד, describes the highest such category. The second highest category is the category of those, who, while enjoying the here and now, – seeing it is impossible for most people to utterly negate physical comforts – enjoy such comforts in order to better serve the Lord. They dedicate all physical enjoyments to G–d. Both Maimonides and Tur Orach Chayim section 231 recommend such a lifestyle. In a different context I have explained an incident related in 104 in which Rabbi Yehudah Hanassi is reported as having made a solemn declaration: "I raise my ten fingers towards Heaven and declare that You, G–d, are my witness that I toiled with all these ten fingers for Torah and that I did not devote even my little finger to help me indulge in physical comfort."

We have a famous statement by Rav cited in Berachot 17a that in the Hereafter there is no food and drink, etc., but that the righteous will sit with their crowns on their heads deriving pleasure from the brilliance of G–d's Presence. Why did Rav have to emphasize that in a world of the spirits, an abstract world, there are no such activities as eating and drinking? The use of the word "enjoying" for the brilliance of G–d's Presence is peculiar since the term נהנין is usually associated with the enjoyment of earthly pleasures. Rav should have used an expression such as: "they will experience illumination," or something of that order. Rav wanted to justify the eating of the righteous in this world. If in the Hereafter there is no eating, clearly this indicates that eating even in this world is something that is an inferior activity. How do the righteous explain their indulging in this world?

When Rav spoke about the righteous "sitting," he referred to their mode of life in this world Even in this world their physical enjoyments, i.e. נהנין, came from the brilliance of G–d's Presence; they made use of the comforts of this world only in order to better appreciate the brilliance of G–d's Presence. Rabbi Yehudah Hanassi's testimony meant that he had used all the comforts of this world only in order to further his Torah study and his spiritual advancement. When the Torah (Exodus 24,11) speaks about the אצילי בני ישראל, the spiritually most highly placed Israelites eating and drinking and enjoying a vision of G–d, this is an allusion to the motivation which should be present when we eat and drink while in this world. A similar allusion is found in Psalms 40,9: ותורתך בתוך מעי, "Your Torah is within my entrails." The correct way to live in this world is spelled out in Proverbs 21,23: שומר פיו ולשונו שומר מצרות נפשו, "He who guards his mouth and tongue, keeps his soul from troubles." Onkelos already explained (Genesis 2,7) that what makes a person into a human being is the power of speech. It follows that we have to sanctify ourselves through the manner in which we use this power of speech.

We are taught in Sofrim 6,4 that there are three occasions when the Torah writes the word לא whereas we read it as לו. Once in Leviticus 11,21, another time in Leviticus 25,30, and a third time in Leviticus 5,1, where the Torah commenced the verse with the words: ונפש כי תחטא, "When a 'soul' commits an inadvertent transgression, etc." The nature of the transgression is improper use of the mouth, abuse of the power of speech. In this instance the abuse consists of failure to testify, i.e. אם לוא יגיד. The Zohar (Sullam edition page 86) seems to understand the choice of the word נפש as opposed to the word רוח or נשמה, part of our life-force, as indicating that any sin we commit is due only to this inferior part of our "soul." The superior parts such as רוח ונשמה are by themselves quite incapable of committing a sin. The dual spelling of the word לוא is a hint that the רוח ונשמה has to make restitution to the נפש for the purity it has deprived them of by its sin. In other words: What the purely part of man has deprived the רוח, of "לא," has to be restored to the רוח, i.e. לו. Unless this occurs, the result will be: ונשא עונו, "he will bear his sin." This is the first of the three aspects concerning which an individual's lifestyle will be examined after his death, as we mentioned at the beginning of this discussion.

The second aspect of one's lifestyle which will be subject to examination is the use one has made of one's mouth concerning the food one ate. Did one consume food with the intention of increasing one's sanctity? The Torah describes winged creatures which primarily use their legs to move with (11,21). There appears to be a symbolism here. Does one ignore one's wings, symbol of flying to higher regions, in favor of לנתר על הארץ, jumping around merely on earth, thus signalling one's preference for the physical aspects of this universe? Permission to eat the species which לא כרעים, do not use their feet in preference to their wings but rather strive towards the spiritual regions לו, symbolizes why one should eat and what motivation should guide one when eating.

The third aspect concerning which man's conduct on earth will be examined is alluded to by the dual spelling of 25,30 in connection with the discussion of the applicability of the law on redemption of houses sold permanently. The Talmud Erchin 15 discusses the advantage enjoyed by a creature who has been given the power of speech. Basing themselves on Psalms 120,3 "What can you profit, what can you gain, O deceitful tongue," our sages portray G–d as saying to the tongue: "All the other limbs of man are upright; but you are in a prone position. All the other limbs of man are an appendix to his body, but you are within his body. Not only that but I have surrounded you with two חומות, walls, one of bone (the teeth) and one of flesh." The secret dimension of the letter מ is that it appears both as an open letter and as a closed letter (the final ם which in its form is like a closed wall). When a person is circumspect about the use of his tongue, the mouth acts like a dosed wall. When he is careless, his mouth is like a wall which has broken down. This is alluded to in the final, closed ם in the middle of the word in Isaiah 9,6: למרבה הפשרה ולשלום אין קץ, "In token of abundant authority and of peace without limit." In the verse just quoted, our Rabbis perceive that it is human nature to look for faults in others, i.e. "a broken wall" while considering themselves like a "closed wall," i.e. free from faults. This is the deeper meaning of what our sages (Baba Batra 2a) describe as היזק ראיה, damage caused to a person by invading his privacy by looking into his domain [a kind of peeping. Ed]. It is the moral background to the Mishnah in the above mentioned section of the Talmud in which the contribution a neighbor has to make to a wall dividing common property is discussed. The purpose of the wall is to prevent such damage. In other words, the so-called damage is due to the tendency of people to discover something discreditable about their neighbors. We see that even halachically the wall is perceived as something that prevents damage of an abstract nature such as היזק ראיה.

Another allusion to walls being perceived as preventing moral damage is found in 26,28 where G–d is described as dealing with the recalcitrant Jewish people as בחמת קרי. G–d's anger is the result of abuse of the חומה, wall, as we shall see. In all the three instances of the dual spelling of the word לא-לו, we follow the written text first. This means that if the house in question did not have a wall surrounding it לא חומה, it ought to have one, i.e. לו חומה. [It is in the nature of such spelling that the reader first notices the written text before he articulates the word when reading it. The לא therefore is seen first. Ed.] If we were to read the לו before the לא, the meaning would be that we speak about a house which first had a wall, i.e. moral inhibitions, whose moral inhibitions were removed subsequently, i.e. לא חומה. In such an instance the words in the תוכחה describing G–d's reactions as בחמת קרי are applicable. We may then see the removal of the חומה, "wall of moral inhibition," as the catalyst of G–d's anger, חמת קרי. We have three areas in which man's lifestyle is examined by G–d. We have statements by our sages relating to all these three areas. The first area is covered by the Mishnah we have quoted in Avot. The second area is covered by the statement of Rav concerning the absence of food and drink in the Hereafter. The third area is covered by the dispute about the nature of הזיק ראיה discussed in Baba Batra. The sages (Baba Kama 30a) said in very succinct language that if someone wishes to be considered as pious he should observe the various rulings pertaining to the benedictions we are to recite. Other sages say such a person should live up to the moral precepts found in the tractate Avot.

The underlying principle of all this is that the way Torah scholars increase peace and harmony in this world is that they demonstrate that the dichotomy between body and soul must be healed, that through Torah study the body is elevated to the level of the soul and not vice-versa, G–d forbid. Through Torah study they also contribute to the harmony in the Celestial Regions. We have an allusion to this in Isaiah 27,5: או יחזיק במעוזי יעשה שלום לי שלום יעשה לי, "Or, if he holds fast to My refuge, he makes peace for Me, peace he makes for Me." The repetition of the word peace indicates that the prophet speaks about peace on earth as well as peace in the Heavens.

It was Moses' particular accomplishment to have so refined his body that he could ascend to Heaven and G–d asked him to establish שלום, peace, there. This is the true meaning of the famous Aggadah in Shabbat 89a which reports that when Moses arrived in Heaven he found G–d preoccupied with tying crowns to the letters of the Torah. Moses observed this without saying a word, whereupon G–d said to him: משה, אין שלום בעירך? "Moses, is there no peace in your city?" [we normally understand this as a mild rebuke that Moses did not offer a greeting. Ed.] When Moses said כלום יש עבד שנותן שלום לרבו, "a slave can certainly not make any contribution to the peace of his master," i.e. be brash enough to presume that he can do what the master is unable to do himself, G–d replied: "you should have assisted Me." This is precisely what Isaiah spoke about in the verse we quoted. When there is no שלום, there is nothing. By prefacing his remark with the word כלום, Moses indicated that in the absence of שלום, peace, there is nothing at all that is worthwhile. G–d responded that there are different levels of יש, there is peace on earth and peace in the Heavens. As long as peace has not been established on earth, however, the "peace" in Heaven remains as כלום, equivalent to nothing. Looking at that exchange in this light gives a deeper meaning to it.

The relationship between blessing and curse is like the relationship between body and soul. The righteous excel in converting the curse into a blessing, i.e. to transform something which was merely physical into something spiritual. This is the meaning of the statement in Bereshit Rabbah 33 that the righteous transform the attribute of Justice into the attribute of Mercy, whereas the wicked do exactly the reverse. The first two letters of the Ineffable Name of G–d, י-ה, symbolize the attribute of Mercy, whereas the last two letters of this name, ו-ה, symbolize the attribute of Justice. This is well known to all students of the Kabbalah. When a person proceeds "forward" in the letters of the alphabet, i.e. א-ב-ג-ד, these four letters amount to a numerical value of י, ten. When he then adds the next letters the sequence is ה-ו in that order. When one proceeds backwards, the order of the letters ר-ה is reversed.

Since I am already on this subject, I want to include an insight which G–d has granted me concerning the peculiarities of the ערכין legislation in פרשת בחוקותי. We find the letters י and ה respectively as symbolizing two categories: 1) When the Torah lists respective monetary values for males and females in the chapter, the numbers "five" and "ten," ה and י respectively -in different combinations- form the backbone of this legislation. We have said that the letters י-ה which symbolize the attribute of Mercy, are used in connection with evaluation of the male, whereas the letters ו-ה which symbolise the attribute of Justice are used in connection with the evaluation of the females. The Biblical allusion to all this is found in Psalms 96,11: ישמחו השמים (masculine), ותגל הארץ (feminine), [the respective first letters of the two expressions י-ה, and ו-ה respectively are the symbols of male and female. Ed.] The second category of numberings in that chapter uses the letters י-ה, as each representing either male or female. Psalms 122,4, speaking about שבטי י-ה עדות לישראל, alludes to the fact that the Jewish nation is composed of males and females and that only when they are together are they considered "the tribes of G–d."

Let me now explain the significance of the various ages as mentioned in the ערכין legislation. Our sages (Rosh Hashanah 2b) have said that a single day is considered as a whole year [under certain circumstances, such as a king who was appointed on the last day of the month of Adar. Ed.]. By applying the same rationale, i.e. that there is a cut-off date which determines who or what belongs to a certain year, we can view the Torah's statement מבן חודש עד בן חמש שנים, as a reference to a five year old, since no change in the evaluation takes place until after that child is over five years old. The same applies to people between the ages of five and twenty. They are viewed as if they were twenty years old. Once a person is over twenty and qualifies for military service, he is considered as if he were sixty years old, [the age at which military duty terminates. Ed.] During these years a person's value is considered at its maximum, and his value is based on the number י-ה, i.e. ten times five=50 shekel. A female of the same age group is evaluated at thirty shekel based on a calculation of ו-ה, six times five=30 shekel. Between the ages of five and twenty, the period during which a male is supposed to wed a woman, he is evaluated as 20 shekel which is expressed in terms of the letter י spelled as a word, i.e. יוד=20. A female of the corresponding age group is also evaluated in terms of the letter י but in her case we spell the number ten as a letter, i.e. י instead of as a word. Her value is therefore determined as being ten shekel. Since the method of writing a letter as a word is called מילואים, and the full spelling of the word יוד is achieved by the addition, i.e. מלוי, of the letters ד-ו, there is a clear symbolism here, seeing that woman is to man is what ד-ו is to י. We find a sort of confirmation of this analogy in an Aramaic proverb quoted by the Talmud Kiddushin 41a: טב למיתב טן דו מלמיתב ארמלו, "better for (two) to dwell together than to live (alone) as a widow." A woman views herself as man's complement. We therefore find that man and woman together are still considered under the concept of י, i.e. either as regular י, or as יוד במילואו. A similar calculation applies when either of the male or the female is between the ages of five and twenty. They are then evaluated under the concept of ה. When the Torah describes the value of the male as five shekel and the value of the corresponding female as three shekel, the "three" is alluded to as a complement to the male in "three" ways.

[The author continues in this vein. I have decided to condense here as it gets very complicated. Ed.]

Let us return to the statement that by their actions the righteous can transform the attribute of Justice into the attribute of Mercy and that the reverse is true of the actions of the wicked. This is the deeper meaning of 26,5: וישבתם לבטח בארצכם, "you will dwell safely in your land." Such a state is achieved through the refinement of matter, i.e. converting ארץ earth because of the בטח, the way one relates, i.e. relies on G–d. When your life on earth is one in which your enjoyment is motivated by the desire to serve G–d better, then the land itself assumes a spiritual dimension. This is why the prophet Isaiah 11,9 may have chosen to describe such a future period as כי מלאה הארץ דעה את ה', that the earth will be full of knowledge of the Lord." This is the reason why we have numerous allusions to this thought in פרשת בהר, where the sanctity of the land is discussed. The subject is always the sanctity of matter, not just the sanctity of the spirit. In פרשת בחוקותי the emphasis is merely shifted to the future when we have statements such as ועץ השדה יתן פריו, "and the tree of the field will yield its fruit" (26,4). This promise does not speak about the fruit-bearing trees yielding their harvest; rather it promises that as a result of sanctifying the land through our conduct the "tree of the field," (not the orchard) will also produce fruit fit to be consumed by man. The mystical dimension of all this is that matter will be perceived as possessing an intelligence of its own.

The land of Israel which is under the constant direct supervision of G–d (Deut. 11,12), is in this respect an allusion to the corresponding ארץ עליונה, "earth of the Celestial Regions" all of which belongs to Israel. This is the meaning of Isaiah 60,21: ועמך כולם צדיקים לעולם יירשו ארץ, "As for your people who are all righteous, they will inherit an earth in another world." The Hereafter (the rejuvenated planet earth), [alluded to in פרשת בהר as the seventh year, Ed] is called שבת, as opposed to the six years, i.e. the 6,000 years of mankind's physical existence on this earth as it is now.

The plain meaning of the verses dealing with the שמטה and יובל legislation points to the need for the seventh year to enable the land to assume a spiritual dimension after six years of continuous farming just as the dimension of time is consecrated on the Sabbath after six days of toil involving mostly mundane, secular matters. Looked at from an allegorical point of view, we may think in terms of a lifespan comprising seventy years. These years, commencing at the age of twenty and coincidental with full accountability [for one's actions] to Heaven, are considered the fifty years of adulthood. The seventy years which comprise an average lifespan allude to the seven days of Creation during which G–d issued ten directives (daily?). When you deduct twenty from this total you are left with fifty, i.e. seven times seven.

At the end of every such seven year cycle, the earth produces ספיחים, spontaneous growth without your having either plowed or seeded. This is equivalent to the שבת שבתון concept. At the end of the chapter called מהות והנהגה, in Pardes Rimonim, the author explains that nowadays (since the expulsion from Eden) our sustenance is only the product of accretions, ספיחים, whereas when the world was perfect, i.e. when man resided in Eden, sustenance was the product of G–d's careful planning as described by the Torah in Genesis 2,10: "A river would issue from Eden to water the garden etc." This river no longer exists. This is why the Torah warned us not to harvest the grain that grows of itself, nor the grapes that grow by themselves. This type of grape alludes to the wine squeezed out by Eve out of the fruit of the tree of knowledge.

Instead, the land should enjoy a Sabbath "on which one could eat" (25,5-6). This is an allusion to the statement of our sages that he who toils on Sabbath eve will have what to eat on the Sabbath (Avodah Zarah 3a). The words: לך ולעבדך, "for you and your servant" in the same verse may be understood as telling us that when G–d provides sustenance for the צדיק i.e. לך.He will also provide for the person who is not a צדיק. We have a tradition that a צדיק is able to save a number of souls from their suffering in purgatory. By merely passing by the gates of purgatory (Shir Hashirim Rabbah 8) he can "kidnap" them and secure their entry to the Hereafter. We know this from Elisha, whose bones conferred life on a person even after he himself had already been dead for some time (Kings II 13,21). When the Torah (25,8) emphasizes וספרת לך, "Count for yourself," this is an allusion to how we interpret Hillel's maxim "if I do not do it for me who will?"

The words שבת שבתות are a further allusion to the seven days of Creation during which a new world was created. The fiftieth year corresponds to the seventieth year of one's life.

The sounding of the Shofar is reminiscent of an ancient custom in Israel that when someone died, the sounding of the Shofar was a signal for people to attend the burial (Moed Katan 27). The seventieth year, which symbolizes the end of a normal lifespan, is to remind one of impending death and the accounting one has to render. The blowing of the Shofar is also in order on the Day of Atonement (25,9) when one renews one's life after having secured forgiveness. When verse 10 speaks about "return to one's original possession," the meaning includes return to one's former innocence. Death secures the atonement for those who return to G–d, i.e. when the spirit returns to G–d, as Solomon said in Kohelet 12,7. These are all thoughts that man should constantly bear in mind, they should not be קרי, something he thinks about only incidentally. One needs to think of oneself as an alien, גר, in this world, not as a permanent fixture. This is what the Torah implies in 25,23: כי גרים ותושבים אתם עמדי, "For you are strangers and residents with Me." We will not acquire permanency until we arrive in the Hereafter. The last verse seems self-contradictory. Either we are strangers or we are residents. How can we be both? The answer is that as long as we do not sanctify ourselves as the Torah wishes us to do, our tenure is no more than that of strangers, גרים; once we have sanctified ourselves through our Torah-oriented lifestyles, however, we acquire tenure, i.e. become תושבים. The warning not to view ourselves as possessing tenure on earth is expressed more forcefully by the legislation that land cannot be sold permanently (25,23). People who live under the illusion that land ownership secures them tenure on this earth are fools. They forget what David reminded us of in Psalms 127,1 when he said: אם ה' לא יבנה בית שוא עמלו בוניו בו, "Unless the Lord builds the house its builders labor on it in vain." We have now explained how all these various paragraphs in our portion are linked together logically.

The overriding rule to be learned from all this is that man must strive to cleave to his Maker not only with his spiritual faculties but also with his physical attributes. This is the meaning of the promise: "you will dwell securely on the land." Once we have achieved such a level of closeness to G–d, the Torah then proceeds to speak about spiritual rewards in פרשת בחוקותי by promising to transform the rain into something which we will be able to perceive as a spiritual dimension of G–d's largess, as we have already pointed out.