דבר אל בני ישראל, “speak to the Children of Israel;” Nachmndes points out that seeing that the legislation following includes all segments of the people equally, the priests are not mentioned separately. The Torah introduces this chapter with the words: אני ה' אלוקיכם, as if to say: “when you speak to them tell them that you are speaking in My name.” There had been no need to spell this out more clearly seeing that whenever Moses came out of the Tabernacle without wearing his veil around his head, whatever he was going to say were instructions he had just received from Hashem, and he did not have to add the words: “thus Hashem has said.” Everybody knew that the spirit of the Lord was speaking out of Moses’ throat. There are many similar examples in the Book of Deuteronomy, paragraphs beginning with the words: והיה אם שמוע תשמעו אל מצותי, “it will be when you will surely listen, etc.,” when nobody misunderstood thinking that Moses was speaking about commandments issued by him instead of Hashem. The people were well aware that the promise of rainfall, to quote but one example, was not meant to mean that Moses would command the rain to fall. Ibn Ezra comments that the reason why the Torah, after having previously spoken about the demons, begins its admonition to the people not to walk in the footsteps of the Egyptians, is that these Egyptians had made a practice of offering sacrifices to these שערים, the demons. The reason that the practices of the people of Canaan were also singled out here as something the people of Israel should not try to emulate, was that these people were steeped very deeply in sexually perverted conduct, עריות. Our sages say that the Egyptians were no less guilty of sexually licentious conduct than were the Canaanites.

את משפטי תעשו, “carry out My laws, etc.” Rashi says that whenever the Torah refers to G’d’s law as משפטי, what He means is that if He had not spelled out these laws in His Torah, the people themselves should have made laws like this in order to secure the continued existence of civilised society. This is why the Torah adds the otherwise superfluous words אשר יעשה אותם האדם וחי בהם, ”which mankind is to observe and live by them.” Nachmanides writes that according to the plain meaning of the text the laws described as משפטים, are the ones written in Exodus chapters 21–24 that comprise in the main inter personal relationships known as מצות בין אדם לחברו. This is why the Torah adds the rider אשר יעשה אדם וחי בהם, ”that man is to carry out in order to live by these laws.” Failure to observe these laws results in anarchy. Our sages interpret the words וחי בהם as a promise that he who observes these laws will enjoy life in the world to come. In that event the words would refer to observing את חוקותי תשמורו, “to observe My statutes,” i.e. the ones whose rationale escapes us, for observance of which the Torah holds out he promise of success beyond this world, seeing that observing social justice is self fulfilling in our terrestrial universe, and does not need the assurance of וחי בהם. We must realize that when the Torah speaks of חיים, “life,” it does so on different occasions in different contexts, i.e. ”life on different levels” as is appropriate to the context in which the word appears.

את משפטי תעשו, “you are to carry out My laws, etc.;” the reason why the משפטים were mentioned first is that once we observe these commandments i.e. performing justice tempered wit mercy, משפט וצדקה, it is easier to also perform the statutes which are basically acts of obedience and faith in the Creator.

איש איש אל כל-שאר בשרו, ”any man shall not approach his close relative, etc.” Nachmanides writes that the underlying reason for the legislation not to indulge in incestuous relationships has not been spelled out in the Torah. Maimonides claims in his Guide for the Perplexed (3,49) that the underlying reason is to minimize the frequency of indulging one’s libido, and with close relatives who may live in the same house such opportunities exist more than with potential sexual partners who live elsewhere. The subject is closely related to matters discussed in the Sefer Yetzirah, that the author claims not to have understood. Moreover the subject of sexual gratification contains animalistic elements at the same time as the fulfillment of the first commandment G’d gave man. Anyone who knows that in indulging his libido he will not or cannot fulfill that commandment must not indulge in sexual intercourse. Seeing that in order to fulfill the commandment to multiply, i.e. to have children, our libido has its positive part to play in the way the Creator arranged the human race, it was impossible to outlaw sexual activity altogether. He therefore legislated what from our vantage point may look like a compromise, but what from His vantage point no doubt reflects His superior wisdom. [Some of this wording is my own. Ed.]

ערות אביך, “The nakedness of your father, etc.” Rashi explains that the reference is to the wife of one’s father who is not one’s mother, whereas the words ערות אמך refer to one’s mother who was never married to your father (either because he raped her or they had illegitimate relations seeing that he was legally unable to marry her) Nachmanides adds that the Talmud in Sanhedrin 54 does not explain our verse in the manner Rashi does, but explains the scenario in terms of homosexual relations of son and father. Seeing that in the Talmud there is an opinion (Rabbi Yehudah) that reflects Rashi’s approach, the R’osh, our author’s father, writes that Rabbi Yehudah’s view appears closer to the plain meaning of the text. Nachmanides’ own opinion is that the two statements ערות אביך and ערות אמך do not speak of parallel situations at all. The first warning is the prohibition not to sleep with one’s mother, because by doing so one violates one’s father’s nakedness, whereas the second warning mentioning one’s mother underlines the fact that in violating one’s father’s nakedness one at the same time violates one’s mother’s nakedness. One commits two evil deeds at one and the same time by perpetrating a single incestuous act. After the Torah warns regarding incestuous relations involving one’s father which is at the same time an incestuous relationship with one’s mother, the Torah comes back to forbidding incestuous relationships with the wife of one’s father who is not one’s mother by saying that one must not have such relations with one’s father’s wife because by doing so one would in effect commit incest with one’s father. Similar reasons are given by the Torah for forbidding such relations with the father’s brothers. The meaning of the line ערות אחי אחיך לא תגלה is: “do not have relations with the wife of your father’s brother.” This is why no mention was made specifically of the wife of such brother (uncle).

מולדת בית או מולדת חוץ, “whether born to someone who may remain at home, or born to someone who must remain outside of it.” Rashi comments that the meaning of these words is: “regardless of whether one tells your father that: “you may keep her,” or whether one tells the father: ”you must divorce her.” [Compare Yevamot 23, an example being quoted being the mamzeret, an illegitimate offspring who we might have thought does not qualify as a “relative.“ Ed.] Nachmanides writes that according to the plain meaning of the text this is a warning not to have sexual relations with one’s mother’s half sister, from the same mother, regardless if such sister was born to a husband and wife, her sister’s husband having married also his wife’s half sister, or if she is the daughter of a totally illicit relationship. Had we not had this verse, we would have thought that as long as the sister in question had been born in wedlock that she deserves preferred treatment, i.e. that the Torah would not publicly shame her by this legislation. This is also the reason that the Torah additionally writes in the following verse about a half sister when the two only have the same father. The first half of that verse speaks of such a half sister born in wedlock, i.e. מולדת אביך. This was necessary, seeing that in the case of a half sister, the daughter of the same mother, the Torah had not spelled out this distinction. There had been an assumption that possibly sleeping with a daughter of one’s father that resulted from an illicit relationship might not be considered by the Torah as an incestuous relationship; the Torah therefore had to set the record straight telling us that such a relationship is forbidden under the heading of קורבה, incest with a relative. The line בת אביך מולדת אביך was written so that we would know that the first verse mentioning בת אביך does not speak of a father’s daughter sired with his legal wife. Seeing that in the rules of incest for non Jews such relationships apply only when they involve the mother rather than the father, the Torah went on record that amongst Israelites there is no such distinction, and both father and mother are considered on an equal footing when it comes to incest. It is therefore possible to incur the penalties for a single act of incestuous relations both because of violating the law not to sleep with one’s sister and with one’s father’s wife.

שארה הנה זמה היא, “they are close relatives, it is an act of depravity.” Onkelos translates the word זמה as עצת חטאין, “a frivolous sinful plot.” The originator of this plot is the evil urge. Nachmanides writes that basically all acts of incest are the product of temptation by one’s evil urge, and the reason why in this particular instance the Torah mentions זמה, “an evil plot,” is that the word זמה is derived from זמם, an expression the Torah uses for witnesses who plot together to accuse an innocent party of having committed a major crime. (Deut.) A devious, illicit plot is called זמה, or מזמה as we know from Job 42,2 and Both those instances describe the planning stage of an activity. I believe that the reason why the Torah chose the verse dealing with a man engaging in sexual relations with a mother and her daughter or her granddaughter to describe such as an evil plot, is because in both instances it is likely that when the man engaged in sexual relations with one of the parties he fantasized about having such relations with the mother or the daughter, as the case may be. In other words, while committing the one sin he was already planning the next sin. In other words, by doing so, both indulgences of that man had been turned into sinful planning by him. The words: כי שארה הנה “for they are ‘family,’” make it plain that the Torah considers the parties mentioned as ‘family”’ in the same sense as a wife is “שאר” of her husband [although not so by DNA standards. Ed.]

ואשה אל אחותה לא תקח לצרור,” and you must not marry your wife’s sister to make them rivals.” Until you married your wife’s sister, these sisters maintained a very warm relationship with one another. As soon as you provided the basis for jealousy among them by marrying both, you broke up this relationship and turned them into enemies, each vying for your favour. [We only need to think of Rachel and Leah to know the truth of that piece of psychology. Ed.] This same consideration does not apply when a man treats both a mother and her daughter as his wife, even though in terms of DNA the relationship between mother and daughter is closer than that between two sisters. This is borne out by the fact that one may marry the sister of one’s wife if one’s wife has died, something that is forbidden in the case of a mother who is one’s wife dying and one wants to marry her daughter.

ואל אשה בנדת טומאתה לא תקרב, “you shall not approach a woman (your own wife) during the time she is unclean through menstruation.” The Torah varied the term used for having sexual relations with one’s own wife during certain periods from לא תגלה ערותה to לא תקרב, seeing that one is constantly in the proximity of one’s own wife, and therefore a special effort is required not to run afoul of the prohibition to have relations with her. Therefore the Torah not only forbade intercourse but even touching one’s wife during those days, and that is why the Torah used the term לא תקרב “do not even come close!” Nachmanides writes that the reason for this prohibition is that basically, sexual intercourse is for the purpose of reproducing, for having children. Seeing that the embryo is fertilised by the mother’s blood, and it is a well known fact that during menstruation a woman’s body is unable to perform this function there is no point in her husband having relations with her during that period. Nachmanides adds that not only can a menstruating woman not produce or initiate life, but the blood oozing from her during that period is liable to kill any nascent life or afflict it with incurable disease. Furthemore, the scientists have told us of a true experiment, according to which a woman who is in an early state of menstruation who looks at a shiny mirror made of polished iron, that this mirror will reflect drops of blood, proving that the natural effect of her state is to create harmful substances which adhere to the surface of the mirror from the air she exhaled, making her similar to a lethal viper that can kill merely by looking at you. How much more so would she exhale harmful substances if one were to lie with her and be intimate with her. Because of all these reasons the Torah decreed a kind of isolation on such a woman, describing her state of impurity as a special impurity known as טומאת הנדה, and her state of contamination is compared to that conferred by contact with certain שרצים, four-legged vermin, and to the contamination conferred by someone afflicted with tzoraat whose ritual impurity is anchored in his body. [Our sages, as was their custom, accepted the results of the most recent findings of science in their time, especially in view of the fact that Jews in their time did not possess scientists of their own. This Editor has published an article exposing that halachah was erroneously based on such mistaken scientific findings in connection with the need to allow river water to cool off for 12 hours before using it to make the dough for matzot for Passover. Compare my book “the Just lived by his faith*,” as* well as the translation in Hebrew published by Heychal Shlomoh in שנה בשנה in תשנ'ד. Such a woman remains forbidden to her husband, and is generally in a state of ritual impurity until she has immersed herself in a ritual bath.

ואל אשת עמיתך לא תתן שכבתך לזרע, “and you must not lie carnally with the wife of your neighbour or colleague to defile yourself with her.” Ibn Ezra writes that cohabitation is an act that can be for one or more of three different purposes. 1) It is intended to impregnate one’s partner with one’s seed so as to produce offspring. 2) It may be designed to relieve oneself of excess pressures (moisture in the parlance of the author) built up in the body. 3) It can be engaged in so as to satisfy one’s lust, an act reducing man to the level of the beasts. The reason that the Torah adds the word לזרע, is to tell us that even when it is engaged in for an otherwise noble purpose, it is totally inadmissible when engaged in with someone else’s wife. Nachmanides writes that the reason the Torah added the word לזרע in our verse, is to remind us that if this were permitted, the father (and mother, if she is promiscuous) of any child resulting from such insemination would not know who the true father of such a child is. As a result of such lack of knowledge the earth would become full of abominations resulting from incestuous relationships even by Torah observing people. This is why the Talmud in Sotah 26 in commenting on Numbers 5,13 ושכב איש אותה שכבת זרע, “if some man has cohabited with her and left his sperm in her,” explains that the additional words שכבת זרע mean that if the wife is suspected of perverted sexual relations which could not result in her insemination, that she would not be given the special waters in order to determine if her professions of innocence were true. [it might explain the deceived husband’s rage, suspicion, as he would never know if the child his wife bears is his own. Ed.] This may also be the reason why Torah adds the words:שכבת זרע in Leviticus 19,20 as there too a doubt would surface about the paternity of any child born by that servant woman. In that instance even coitus interruptus is culpable, as the chance of a drop of semen having entered the vagina cannot be discounted. Personally, I feel (Nachmanides writing) that seeing that a married woman is totally out of bounds to any other man for any kind of intimacy, the words שכבת זרע or לזרע are perfectly justified, seeing that if the Torah had only written לא תתן שכבתך, I might have deduced that even if these two people had only kissed or embraced each other they would already have committed a capital offence. Therefore, the Torah added a word that clearly defines the offence as lying carnally with one another. The reason that in our verse the Torah omitted the customary words לגלות ערותה, “to reveal her nakedness”, is that this is a term fit to be used only in connection with people who are genetically related to one another.

למולך, “to the Moloch.” Nachmanides writes that this word represents a certain type of idolatry, and the reason that the Torah dignifies this type of idolatry by using the prefix ה i.e. the vowel patach at the beginning which substitutes for the definitive article “the,” is due to the fact that this particular idolatry was extremely well known in Egypt, where the Israelites had become familiar with it. Ibn Ezra writes that it is possible that it was the chief deity of the people בני עמון, and may have been known to the Israelites as such.

לא תתן להעביר למולך, “do not present them to the Moloch. The reason why the Torah employs the expression תתן, “give,” as well as the term העברה, ”transfer,” means that culpability for violating this injunction begins only when both of these acts have been perpetrated. The second stage of that cult involves handing a child over to fire, Moloch being the fire-god. In other words, the father hands over his child to the priests of that cult. Nachmanides adds that the word להעביר is not to be understood as the priests of that cult making the child brave a ring of fire, risking burning his feet, as portrayed by Rashi, for how could the father be guilty of death when a priest of another religion performed this act? Moreover the wording of the verse clearly means that the father of the child himself performed whatever act the Torah describes. Rather, the father may hand over his child to these idolatrous priests, who, in turn perform some sort of ceremony like swinging the child over fire, before restoring it to the father. [There appears a certain amount of confusion as to precisely what these rites were and as a result we do not know for which violation the father would be guilty of death. In light of this I have decided not to elaborate on the subject any further. Ed.] The Torah, by using the word חלול in connection with this barbarous cult makes plain that it is a cult which desecrates the sanctity of all human life, hence the Torah’s extreme opposition to this cult.

ואת זכר לא תשכב, “and you are not to indulge in homosexual relations with another male.” Nachmanides writes that the reason for the injunctions against sexual relations between males, and between man and beasts, are quite clear, seeing that G’d abhors such mismatching of His creatures. Such relations cannot contribute to the continued existence of the respective species, the only valid reason for indulging in the sexual act. Ibn Ezra writes that seeing that the older daughter of Lot said to her younger sister (Genesis 19,34) “here I have slept with my father last night, etc.,” this is clear proof that the Torah views initiation of the act by the female of the species as on the same level as if the male initiates it, i.e. when a forbidden relationship is entered into both parties are equally culpable. Although the Torah uses the masculine לא תשכב in our verse, the same applies to the female of the spies, i.e. lesbianism is also prohibited. Nachmanides criticizes Ibn Ezra, saying that if he were correct why was the woman not automatically included in the warning of ובכל בהמה לא תתן שכבתך לטמאה בה, “you must not inject your seed into any female animal to lie with it carnally,” and mention separately immediately afterwards:ואשה לא תעמוד לפני בהמה לרבעה, “and a woman must not stand in front of an animal for the purpose of mating, etc,?” He therefore concludes that the verse quoted by Ibn Ezra from Genesis 19,34 means that Lot’s daughter drew attention to the fact that seeing that ejaculation of semen by the male normally occurs only as a result of physical activity by the male, something which in the case of the drunken Lot could hardly be expected, she told her sister that in order to secure the semen that both of them wanted, it was not enough to remain passive during the procedure, but they had to be physically active to arouse their father.

ותטמא הארץ ואפקוד עונה, “the land became contaminated and I recalled its inequity upon it.” Nachmanides writes that the extremely harsh attitude of the Torah to people violating the laws of incest and sexual perversions is due to the fact that the very earth of the land of Israel is revolted by such behaviour and will seek ways and means to eject people from it that so abuse their virility. The commandments involving incest and sexual perversions are commandments involving one’s body, and apply universally, wherever we are, so that we may wonder why the Torah linked non-observance to the Canaanites being ejected by that land, and the Torah threatening a similar rejection by the land to the Jewish people if they did not observe higher moral standards? We must understand this in terms of the concept that what goes on in our world has parallels in the celestial regions. When the Creator created the universe, He imbued certain celestial forces with the ability to strongly affect the affairs in the terrestrial universe. Thus He appointed a “שר,” minister, for each of the nations of the earth who represented their interests in the celestial spheres. In our parlance this is part of the discipline known as astrology. Celestial bodies, their constellations, the times at which each appears in the sky and where in the sky, all play a role in the fates of these nations. All this occurs under the guidance of the Supreme Authority, Hashem, seeing that these bodies are not free to vary their orbits. In Daniel 10,13 we read as follows: ושר מלכות פרס עמד לנגדי עשרים ואחד יום, והנה מיכאל אחד השרים הראשונים בא לעזרני, “but the heavenly prince of the Persian kingdom stood opposed to me for twenty one days; when behold! Michael one of the foremost heavenly princes came to my aid.” Daniel describes a confrontation between the heavenly forces appointed on behalf of the Persian Kingdom and the people of Israel, and describes that if not for the intervention of Michael, an angel appointed to look after the special interests of Israel, the opposing forces might have prevailed. The representatives of these various nations are described as מלכים kings, G’d by comparison being known as מלך מלכי המלכים, the King who is the supreme King,” just as we have the term אלוקי האלוקים, “the Supreme Divinity,” indicating that there are forces that are also perceived as divine but on a much lower level. When Avraham in his prayer for the good people of Sodom, if any, speaks of השופט כל הארץ לא יעשה משפט?, “is the One Who is in charge of Justice in the whole universe not going to perform justice?” He implies that there are forces, divinely appointed, to dispense justice in their narrow domain. The important thing to remember is that above all these “kings”: or “ministers” appointed by G’d as His agents to look after the affairs of the nations of the earth, exclude Israel. There is a Supreme Being from whom all the others receive the parameters of their authority. The Land of Israel, in this respect, has always had rules of its own, as we know best from when the King of Assyria transplanted nations to that land to fill the void created through the exile of the Ten Tribes, and these nations fell victim to lions, etc., until they learned by experience that in order to survive on that land they had to adopt different mores. (Compare Baba Kamma 38 based on Kings II 17, 24-34) In short, seeing that the land of Canaan, even before the land was occupied by the Canaanites, was נחלת ה', a special land set aside for the Jewish people, this land tolerated deviant behaviour much less than other lands not predestined for G’d’s personal supervision. [I have condensed and rephrased some of this in the interest of brevity. Ed.] If we needed further proof of the above, consider the fact that our matriarch Rachel died a premature death immediately after crossing the boundary of this land. Yaakov’s having married two sisters while both were alive, something forbidden by the Torah (after it was revealed to the Jewish people) did not apparently bother G’d while Yaakov had not yet crossed the boundary into the Land of Israel. The moment he did, G’d applied stricter yardsticks to the mode of conduct expected of him and her. Apparently she had become pregnant with Binyamin before they had reached Shechem, otherwise who knows if Binyamin would have not have died with her. Consider also, that once in that land, Yaakov ordered his servants to dispose totally of any objects that had ever been used as objects of idolatry. (Genesis 35,2) The fact that the Torah while speaking of the punishment of the Canaanites did not list where they had been warned about their sexual depravity, is proof that all of mankind had been warned about this ever since first man was given the 7 basic commandments of conduct on G’d’s earth. The very fact that the Torah testifies to the Egyptians having been guilty of similar excesses but they were never expelled from their country, proves that different rules of tolerance apply on the soil of Eretz Yisrael Further proof of the special status of the soil of the Holy Land, is the fact that the כותים whom the Assyrian King had transplanted to the land formerly occupied by the Ten Tribes had never been punished by G’d when they had worshipped the same deities in the country of their origin. We should also consider the statements of our sages Ketuvot 110 that anyone residing permanently outside the Land of Israel is considered as not having a “G’d,” i.e. Divine protection. Gentiles, especially while in their own countries, are allowed to co-opt deities such as horoscopes as long as they recognise Hashem as the Supreme G’d and Creator. When the sages said: “as if they had no G’d,” they meant that the fates of such people were not presided over by Hashem personally, but that they were subject to mazzolot, astrological constellations, etc., something that is not the case for people living in Eretz Yisrael of which G’d has said that He has His eyes on it from the beginning of the year till the end of the year (Deut. 11,12). You must not counter that the verse from Daniel we quoted before in which Michael is described as the שר ישראל, the angel appointed by G’d as especially in charge of protecting the Jewish people, proves that they were not under the direct guidance of Hashem. First of all, the function of that angel is to implore Hashem to use His mercy on behalf of His people; secondly, the Jewish people with whom Daniel associated were all in exile, most of them in voluntary exile, at least after Cyrus ascended the Persian throne having defeated the Babylonians, and having enabled the return to Zion under Zerubavel. 52 years after the destruction of the Temple. [Jews who chose to remain in Persia, even under the premiership of Mordechai were a primary target of the statement we quoted from Ketuvot 110 that “Jews who live outside the Holy Land are considered as if they had no G’d.” Ed.]

ותקיא, “it spit out, etc.” Once the measure of their sin which G’d was prepared to tolerate if they would repent, had become full, the fact that G’d decreed their destruction is considered by the Torah as if that decree had already been carried out. Alternately, the word ותקיא in the past tense, applies to the parallel phenomenon in the celestial regions. We have a similar statement in Numbers 14,9 when the impression by the majority of the spies that the land consumes its inhabitants was interpreted by Joshua and Calev as evidence that the protection of that nation’s guardian angel, described as צלם, had already abandoned this people so that they would fall into the hands of the Israelites like ripe plums.

ונכרתו הנפשות העושות מקרב עמם, “all the people committing such violations will be cut off from their people. Nachmanides writes that the penalty known as karet by the Torah, comprises three different aspects. The first type of that penalty is meant when the Torah describes it as applied to ונכרת האיש ההוא, “the man in question will be cut off.” (Example Exodus 30,33, where the making of incense of the kind used in the Tabernacle is punished with this penalty.) The second type of karet is the type described in our verse, and the third type is meant when the Torah prefaces it with the words הכרת תכרת הנפש ההיא עונה בה, (compare Numbers 15,31 where the Torah speaks of people blaspheming deliberately.) There is another, differently worded such penalty mentioned in connection with violating the Day of Atonement in Leviticus 23,30 where the Torah writes והאבדתי את הנפש ההיא, which means the same as והכרתי הנפש ההיא, “I will utterly destroy that person from membership in its people.” The Torat Kohanim explains that the word karet does not always mean that the hereafter of the person, נפש, so punished is automatically forfeited. This is why the Torah in Leviticus 23,30 used a variant. There is a difference in the application of the karet penalty if the person guilty of that particular violation had been driven by a craving to eat forbidden fat or blood, for instance, and that person in his overall lifestyle is very Torah-observant. In such a situation, the many merits he has accumulated protect him against the aspects of the karet penalty that extend beyond death, and he is punished by premature death in this life without losing his share in the hereafter. Shortening such a lifespan usually means death before reaching the age of 60, just as the people of the generation of the Exodus died before reaching 60, hence they had to stay in the desert for 40 years. On the other hand, as we know from personal observation, there are many wicked Jews who live well beyond the age of 60 on this earth. This does not mean that their sins have been overlooked, but that instead of applying that penalty to the physical parts of their lives, G’d has seen fit to reward them for their good deeds with long life on earth so that He does not have to reward them for such deeds after their deaths. The last mentioned group of people comprises most of the gentiles who practice the licentious sexual mores condemned by the Torah, and as a rule, after their physical death they experience painful punishment for a period of up to 12 months after which time their bodily remains are utterly destroyed and their souls are burned, their spirit being scattered under the soles of the feet of the righteous. There is a yet harsher type of the karet penalty in which both body and soul are utterly destroyed. It is applied to people whom the Torah in Numbers 15,30 described asאת דבר ה' בזה ואת מצותו הפר הכרת תכרת וגו', “he deliberately blasphemed Hashem, and violated His commandments. The use of the root כרת twice in that verse means that such people will not only be uprooted from this world but also from all parts of the hereafter. The only sins concerning which this word is used twice are idolatry and blasphemy. Our sages elaborated on this subject still further in tractate Shavuot, saying that also included in this harsh application of the karet penalty are people who deliberately mislead others by interpreting Torah in a manner that contradicts the halachah. Such people will not only die prematurely but they will not have any share in the eventual resurrection of the dead. Nor will they experience life in the hereafter, i.e. a life of the disembodied soul. We should remember that when the Torah uses expressions that deny some people life in the hereafter, this is the best proof of the fact that there exists such life. Otherwise, what does the sinner stand to lose by his rebellious conduct? Verses dealing with such penalties reinforce our belief in reward for good deeds being paid after our life on earth has come to an end. By saying that some souls will be cut off from what awaits them in the hereafter, the Torah is in effect saying that for the ordinary Jew much that is worth looking forward to is in store for them after their bodies have died. The word כרת is meant to conjure up in our minds the picture of a tree some of whose branches and leaves are being chopped off. Instead of the Torah speaking openly of a life in the hereafter, something we are to regard as natural, the Torah warns that sinners of certain categories will be miraculously denied that which is a natural state for the human being who lived in accordance with the Creator’s wishes. We have already explained elsewhere that all the promises of pleasant developments or the threats of disastrous events in the future which are spelled out in the Torah, must not be viewed as natural developments but as proof of Divine intervention in the fates of either the individual or the Jewish nation. This is why the Torah, when warning against violating the legislation involving incest, etc., speaks of the unnatural penalty of unnatural כרת, something which cannot be explained away as a natural development in terms of evolution, regression or whatever. There are thirty six sins which carry the penalty of karet, the vast majority of them involving violations of G’d’s sexual mores for man. Our sages do not tire of lumping together idolatry, shedding of innocent blood, and violating sexual mores, even between what are nowadays called “consenting adults,” as the most serious sins a Jew can become guilty of. Of the three, גלוי עריות, offences involving our libido, is always mentioned ahead of such crimes as murder, to show how abhorrent such a sin is in the eyes of the Creator. Maimonides writes in his Moreh Nevuchim section 3, chapter 41 that seeing man’s libido is a powerful drive, only the threat of terrible punishments is likely to act as a restraining influence on us.