קדושים תהיו, ”you shall be holy;” Our sages in Torat Kohanim state that this was one of the portions of the Torah which was read out in public once every seven years on Sukkot on the occasion of “hakhel,” the public reading of the Torah by the King before the assembled nation, men women and children (compare Deuteronomy 31,10, the penultimate of the 613 commandments). The reason was that it contains so many of the basic laws of the Torah, such as the laws about offering personal voluntary peace-offerings, the penalty for disregarding the laws abut incest and sexual mores. We must understand that holiness can only develop as a result of abstaining from all the items that the Torah has described as an abomination in the eyes of Hashem. Nachmanides writes that he has examined the wording in his edition of the Torat Kohanim, and has not found anything spelled out there about being especially פרוש, i.e. keeping one’s distance from the subject covered by sexual mores, but that we are to be generally פרושים, discreet, and discriminating in our conduct, as a result of which holiness will develop. [My edition of the Torat Kohanim, printed in Torah Shleymah bears out what Nachmanides writes. Ed.] G’d is quoted as saying: “just as I keep apart (from contact with what is unbecoming, so shall you keep yourself apart from contact with matters that are unbecoming for you.” It follows that the subject of פרישות includes abstaining and keeping one’s distance from all the subject matter mentioned in the Talmud as subject to such warnings by our sages. Nachmanides uses as an example the fact that whereas on the one hand, the Torah has permitted sexual intercourse, it imposed limitations with whom such sexual intercourse may be indulged in, similarly, it has also permitted the eating of foods which are palatable and non poisonous, but has imposed limitations in forbidding Jews foods which gentiles clearly enjoy without apparent harmful effects. Holiness, if aspired to, is therefore possible by imposing upon oneself restrictions and not considering everything that has not been expressly forbidden as permitted, but to train oneself to be moderate in enjoying the material attractions the world has to offer. These attractions may be enjoyed when they are intended to make the performance of a commandment more meaningful both esthetically and artistically, for instance. A person intent on attaining a level of holiness would not seek out such attractions for their own sake. [When someone loves silver trinkets and collects them, this does not further his path to attaining holiness, although he did not do something forbidden. If, however, he indulges his whim by buying beautiful ethrog boxes, mezuzah housings, kiddush cups, etc., then he may at one and the same time indulge his sense of what is esthetically beautiful, and come closer to attaining degree of holiness. Our sages, in limiting the frequency of marital relations with one’s wife even, suggested that a Torah scholar limit himself to such marital intercourse once a week, while an ordinary uneducated worker is allowed to indulge in such activity more often. (Compare Chagigah 18, Berachot, 22 and other places in the Talmud) Nachmanides points out that it is possible not to violate a single one of the 613 commandments in the Torah and still not only to remain far from “holy,” but to continue to be a gross and uncouth individual, eating to excess, drinking to excess, indulging in legally permitted sex at every opportunity, etc. If the ideal of a Torah personality could be the result of merely not violating any of the 613 commandments, Moses would not have had to write in Deut. 6,18 ועשית הישר והטוב בעיני ה', “do what is fair and good in the eyes of Hashem.” Inhalachic parlance, our approach to life should be to act לפנים משורת הדין, “to stay well within what is allowable legally.” The meaning of the dictate in our verse therefore is:

כי קדוש אני ה' אלוקיכם, “for I, the Lord your G’d am holy.” Naturally, G’d did not expect that we, the creatures, become like He, the Creator. But, He hopes and expects that we will try and emulate as many of His characteristics as it is possible for us to emulate, seeing we are only creatures. By doing this we can achieve דבקות, a measure of close attachment to the Divine, something the Torah encouraged us to do on several occasions (compare Deut. 10,20; 11,22; 30,20) In a way, this was the message of G’d revealing Himself to us in the first of the Ten Commandments.

איש אמו ואביו תיראו, ”everyone is to revere his mother and his father.” Whereas in the Ten Commandments the Torah demands that one honour one’s parents, there the demand to honour one’s father precedes the demand to honour one’s mother. The Torah continues:

את שבתותי תשמורו, “you are to observe My Sabbath days.” Comparison with the Ten Commandments shows that the emphasis was on ”remembering” the Sabbath, not on observing it, i.e. not to violate the restrictions in one’s activities that apply on the Sabbath.

אל תפנו אל האלילים, “Do not turn to the idols!” The injunction here is addressed to the mind rather than to the hands and feet that carry out the desires of the heart and mind. We are commanded to totally discount any supposed influence so-called deities have on anyone’s fate, future, etc. We must remain firmly convinced that our future depends exclusively on decrees made by the Creator in heaven.

ואלוהי מסכה לא תעשו לכם, “and molten gods you must not make for yourselves.!” The warning here is that culpability for idolatry does not start at the moment one worships idols, but already when one sets out to construct such an idol with the intent to worship it. In Vayikra Rabbah these verses are all explained as being patterned on the Ten Commandments. The Torah continues:

וכי תזבחו זבח שלמים, “when you set out to slaughter a peace-offering, etc.” After the Torah had forbidden slaughtering and any other aspect of idol worship, it now addresses our desire to offer gifts to the Deity by telling us that the proper address for such offerings if we want it to be welcome, is only the attribute of Hashem. More to the point, contrary to what the naïve human being thinks that such an offering is something the Deity needs or desires, the Torah reminds us that the sole purpose of such a peace-offering is to secure a condition of grace for ourselves; no offering impacts on the Deity in the least, seeing that Hashem is totally self-sufficient. What could man possibly give to the Creator who is the One who has given everything we have to us? The reason why the Torah makes this point in conjunction with the offerings known as שלמים, peace-offerings, is that most of the meat of these animals may be consumed by the owners of the offering rather than by the priests, and it need not be consumed on consecrated grounds but the entire city of Jerusalem is considered holy enough for eating what are known as קדשים קלים, sacrificial meats of a relatively low level of sanctity. Another reason may be that only Israelites are allowed to offer this type of sacrificial offering altogether. Gentiles who are allowed to offer burnt offerings are not allowed to offer peace offerings at all. [On the altar of the Tabernacle or Temple, Ed.] Ibn Ezra writes that the reason why in our chapter the demand to accord reverence for the mother precedes the demand to do the same for one’s father, is that a young child in his early years gets to know the mother intimately whereas it does not establish such a close relationship with its father as yet. The next major focus of a young child is the Sabbath, seeing that it is a duty to train even youngsters in the observance of the Sabbath. The same is not true of the other festivals. Having become familiar with the concept of the Sabbath, the youngster next becomes familiar with the concept of G’d, the Creator, the lawgiver, who rested on the seventh day. Having become familiar with these concepts the youngster is introduced to the need to be in awe of the Creator. The Torah does not repeat the word איש in front of each piece of legislation. It uses the plural mode תיראו when legislating the need to be in awe of parents as well as of the invisible G’d, to remind us that it is every Israelite’s duty to implant such feelings in a fellow Jew; it is not merely the parents’ business to do so. Deviants have to be forced to toe the line when in public. Public desecration of the Sabbath, for instance, is not to be tolerated in a Jewish state or even in exile that is self-governing. The reason why the Torah concludes verse four with the words אני ה' אלוקיכם, is to remind us that the reason why G’d wants us to rest on the Sabbath is because He Himself rested on the first Sabbath and interrupted His creative activities on account of the sanctity of that day. Still quoting Ibn Ezra, the reason for the words אל תפנו אל אלילים, “[something that sounds like a repetition of previous legislation on the subject, Ed.] is that we must not even briefly look at such displays of pagan deities. The reason the Torah repeats the injunction of אלוהי מסכה לא תעשה לך, not to make yourself a molten image, is simply to reassure you that you have no need for any additional celestial assist. By saying אני ה' אלוקיכם, Hashem tells us that He, and only He, will look after our needs. The reason that the Torah writes (verse 9) that we must not completely harvest every last stalk of our fields, immediately after speaking about the peace-offerings, is to draw a comparison between gifts we offer to Hashem such as the fat parts of the peace-offerings, and the gifts we leave for the poor. Giving to the poor is another way of honouring Hashem, who has also made the poor. After having dealt with the need to voluntarily leave gifts for the poor and the stranger (proselyte) who has not yet established an economic base for himself, the Torah enjoins us not to steal, as a corollary of voluntarily giving to the poor. If we even share with the poor what we are in the habit as considering as ours, how much less may we deprive anyone of what is rightfully his by stealing from him? The Torah phrases this legislation also in the plural mode to teach that anyone observing someone stealing and not protesting is as if he had aided and abetted the thief. The Torah continues by warning us not to lie actively or passively, nor to keep silent when we know that someone else lies or cheats. (Verse 12) The injunction not to swear a false oath, i.e. involving G’d Himself in one’s sin by using His name in vain when denying one’s transgression, is added as a warning that sinning leads to denying the sin, which in turn results in desecrating the name of the Lord publicly, one of the most serious sins possible. Here too, the plural mode is used to involve the party demanding that the second one confirm his claims by swearing in the name of Hashem.

לא תקלל חרש, “do not curse a deaf person.” The Talmud in Sanhedrin 66 points out that the Torah has forbidden cursing notables such as judges and kings, when it wrote אלהים לא תקלל ונשיא בעמך already in Exodus 22,27, and here it equally forbids cursing less prominent people, even those who cannot hear that they are being cursed. Once even a deaf person is included in this legislation it is clear that one must not curse anyone. Nachmanides writes that according to the plain meaning of the text the Torah warned against cursing the deaf, as seeing that the fact that he cannot hear the curse he cannot feel insulted or enraged by it, it follows that one must not curse people who can hear the curse and who will feel shamed by it. Furthermore, as is the Torah’s custom, the example for legislation selected is always something near at hand, i.e. people feel free to curse the deaf and to trip up the blind as they are not afraid of being identified and being called to account for this. This is why the Torah had to add:ויראת מאלוקיך, “you shall fear your G’d,” i.e. He will see and punish what people do not see or do not hear. Cursing rulers, something which usually takes place in the privacy of one’s home where one is not overheard is in addition something pernicious, as it is usually motivated by one’s personal pique against such a ruler, while one forgets that the exercise by this ruler of his appointed functions is what prevents our society from degenerating into anarchy. This is why the Torah felt the need to spell out an additional prohibition against cursing dignitaries, although the law could have been derived logically from our verse alone.

לא תלך רכיל, “do not be a gossipmonger.” According to Nachmanides Onkelos’ translation of these words as לא תיכול קורצין, describes someone raising his voice. Yonathan similarly renders קרא בגרון, in Isaiah 58,1 as אכלי בגרונך, “call out loudly with your throat.” He quotes more examples of translating רכיל as something involving making something public by means of sound. An alternate rendering describes רכילות as publication of the information through unmistakable gestures with one’s eyes.

לא תעמוד על דם רעך, “do not stand idly by when the blood of your fellow is being shed.” Seeing that the Torah does not link these two injunctions by the letter ו, i.e. ולא תעמוד וגו', some commentators believe that the entire verse contains one single prohibition, the latter half of the verse being the interpretation of the first half. The meaning would then be: do not carry tales in order that in the end you will not stand by idly when your fellow’s blood will be spilled. It is assumed that he who accepts slander against his fellow, i.e. believes the accusation, will out of anger take physical action against the person whom he perceives to have been guilty of what the slanderer accused him of. This is why our sages said that לשון הרע, “slander eventually kills three people.” (Tanchuma, Metzora, 2)

לא תשנא את אחיך בלבבך, “do not hate your brother in your heart.” Some commentators interpret this line as “if you see your fellow man commit some sin do not say to yourself: ‘I wish he would continue in this way,’ but remonstrate with him and try to get him to desist and to improve his ways. Nachmanides writes that seeing the Torah uses real life examples, i.e. people keeping their disapproval of others or even hatred of others to themselves, the Torah urges that If one has a legitimate reason to disapprove of one’s neighbour’s lifestyle, one should not bottle this up within oneself, but should discuss it openly with the party concerned so as to give him a chance to mend his ways.

ולא תשא עליו חטא, “so that you will not bear a sin on account of him.” If your fellow sins because you did not call his error to his attention, you will share in his sin. Not only this, but the Torah adds that you are obligated to love your fellow man.” (Verse 18) Personally, I believe that the correct interpretation of our verse, i.e. the words הוכח תוכיח את עמיתך, is similar to when Avraham remonstrated with Avimelech. (Genesis 21,25) He remonstrated with Avimelech who had allowed his, Avraham’s wells to be either shut down or to be claimed by his own people as theirs, instead of bearing a grudge in his heart against Avimelech. The result was an agreement between the two. When such rebuke is administered with discretion it may often result in resolving a dispute. Having advised us not to bear grudges without first having voiced our grievances, the Torah also instructs us not to harbour feelings of revenge for injustices real or unproven. Having taught us not to entertain negative feelings against our fellows, the Torah proceeds to demand that we relate positively to them, i.e ואהבת לרעך כמוך. You will note that the Torah does not write רעך, but לרעך. Had the Torah written the word רעך, it would have meant that we are instructed to love our fellow man’s body, his person as much as our own, an impossible task. As it is, the Torah demands that we relate to our fellowman’s possessions with the same degree of concern as we do to our own possessions. You should be as concerned for the welfare of your fellowman as for your own,

לא תקום, “Do not take revenge.” An example of revenge meant here is that if your neighbour refused to lend you any of his tools, and he turns to you some day asking you to lend him yours, you are not to justify your refusal to lend him your tools by saying that seeing he did not lend you his tools when you needed them, you now do not lend him yours either. Some people ask why the Torah criticizes the second party for his refusal to lend, without saying a word about the behaviour of the first party who had started the chain reaction by refusing to lend his tools in the first place? The answer given is that the first party, who obviously is a miser, while not acting as a good neighbour, had not violated a law as it says nowhere that one must lend one’s tools, however, he who basically is willing to lend his tools to neighbours, refuses to this neighbour only as an act of revenge. This is not tolerated. It is a negative virtue. His refusal stems from feelings of hatred. Some people answer the above question by saying that it is clear that the first one will be punished more harshly so that there is no need to spell this out, seeing he had started the chain of reciprocal unfriendliness. We have a tradition that the plague of tzoraat occurs, among other reasons, as retaliation for miserly conduct, withholding help from one’s neighbour being one such example.

בהמתך לא תרביע כלאים, “You must not mate your animal with another species.” Ibn Ezra writes that the Torah links the laws of not interbreeding species and the encouragement to become holy in order to make the point that after you have become a holy nation you must not commit violent acts against any person sharing your beliefs, and you must not even forcefully interfere with the animals’ natural way of behaviour which is, after all, the way they have been programmed to behave by the Creator. Animals are more loyal to the rules laid down for His creatures than man is. Rashi writes that the prohibition against cross breeding must be seen as a Divine decree, G’d did not see fit to give us His reasons. Nachmanides writes that the sages did not write anywhere that the underlying reasons for this legislation have been deliberately hidden, giving the evil urge and the gentiles a chance to ridicule and undermine our faith in the Creator. Whereas such an argument is true with respect to the prohibition to mix wool and linen, [but not other fibers, Ed.] the reason for not mixing different seeds in a vineyard, or not crossbreeding species of animals are not at all a challenge to [test of, Ed.] our faith. On the one hand, all G’d’s laws, [especially those regulating our conduct vis a vis Him seeing that they emanate from a higher intelligence, are of a kind whose true intent we are unable to fathom, Ed.] are beyond our ability to fully comprehend, as opposed to the laws governing inter-personal relations which we are expected to try and understand. However, we are encouraged in many instances to examine some aspects of how the חוקים are beneficial to our successful existence on this earth. We must not make observance of these laws conditional on our understanding their usefulness. There appears to be a perfectly rational reason for the legislation of forbidding crossbreeding, both of animals and plants. The Creator enabled each species to perpetuate itself by planting its seed in the appropriate counterpart. Crossbreeding, in the vast majority of cases, would foil the Creator’s plan, and such species would die out, as their seed would not produce any issue or issue that was capable of sustaining itself. G’d provided the seed to these creatures in order to enable His universe to endure as planned. Any activity that puts the Creator’s intent at risk, is therefore forbidden, is an act of insurrection if persisted in. This is the reason why already at the time of reporting creation, the Torah stresses again and again the words למינו and למיניהם, “according to its species,” or “according to their species.” He who interferes with this obviously finds fault with the Creator, implicitly criticizes Him. G’d does not need His creatures’ help in perfecting His universe, He is content if His creatures do not ruin it. We know from experience that even if apparently well matched human beings mate with one another, especially those forbidden under the rules of incest, any children from such unions are liable to intensify genetic defects which no human being is totally without. In other words, not only do totally different species not reproduce when crossbred, but, even members of the same species fail to reproduce satisfactorily if the rules of the Torah are not followed. Who would know best what is good for us if not He Who had created us? When the Torah enlarges this prohibition by writing שדך לא תזרע כלאים, “you must not scatter more than one type of seed in your field,” it includes even relatively simple plants in its regulations. Our sages expressed their conviction that violating this commandment will be found detrimental to the farmer’s interest, even if he thought that he would benefit through such a stratagem. Our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 10,7) have illustrated their approach to the whole subject when they told us that there is not a single species of plant which does not have its own mazzal, i.e protective guardian angel appointed in the heavens. Clearly, such a statement refers only to species created by G’d, not to new species created by man. Such species are without any heavenly protection.

ובגד כלאים שעטנז, “and a garment consisting of a mixture of lamb’s wool fibers and linen fibers, etc.” Nachmanides writes that the reason for this prohibition – which singles out wearing a garment made of such mixture, not the making of the mixture- is that we must learn to keep our distance from species that have been mixed. And Maimonides write in "The Guide of the Perplexed" that the reason for the שעטנז prohibition is because at that time there was a well-known garment of the sorcerers with whom they did all their actions and he said that he found it written in their books and according to it - it was a great matter and very desirable for them to do their evil deeds for their forbidden worship so the Torah kept it away from anyone because the Torah wants to extinguish their deeds and annihilate their memory. What Rashi brought a verse to forbid alone is only a reference, for the Torah did not forbid unless the wool and linen are each alone, material that is calendered (pressed, שוע), or woven (טוי) or twisted (נוז) together i.e. woven and then two times, and therefore it was necessary to allow Kilayim in Tzitzit and unlike Rashi, who interpreted that it is not considered Kilayim until the linen and wool are intertwined with each other, otherwise Kilayim should not be allowed in Tzitzit, however in each material that is calendered (pressed, שוע), or woven (טוי) or twisted (נוז) together it is considered Kilayim even if it is not a garment such as weaving threads and making a belt out of them (Mishnah Kilayim 9:1). And fabrics that are not but calendered (pressed, שוע) [, or woven (טוי) or twisted (נוז)] alone are not forbidden from the Torah but from Rabbinical decree (Nida 61b) although it is each one by itself - or material that is calendered (pressed, שוע), or woven (טוי) or twisted (נוז) together:

ואיש כי ישכב את אשה, “If a man lies carnally with a woman, etc.” the reason why this verse follows the subject of forbidden mixtures of species is that lying carnally with a woman not one’s wife is another type of mixing forbidden species with one another.

והיא שפחה נחרפת לאיש, “she being a servant woman (gentile slave) designated for an Israelite man, etc.” The term נחרפת is subject to different interpretations, as is the status of the woman in question. [I am providing some background here not found in the author’s commentary, seeing the author concentrates more on the linguistic meaning of the word: נחרפת Ed.] According to some opinions, Rashi included, the woman is not originally Jewish, but on the way to being freed, which by itself is possible only if she converts to Judaism. At the time this intercourse occurs, apparently she is half slave, having been owned jointly by two masters, one of whom had not yet released her. She had been promised as a wife to a Hebrew slave (servant). Such a Hebrew servant, at the instruction of his master, would legally be allowed to sleep with her even while she had not begun any process of conversion. Some see in the word a comparison to זבולון, compare Judges 5.18 זבלון עם חרף נפשו למות, “Zevulun, a tribe that defied and risked death.” Zevulun’s chancing death at Devorah’s command is similar to this slave in our verse surrendering to a man’s advances. Nachmanides sees the word as related to חרפי, as in Job 29,4 כאשר הייתי בימי חרפי, “when I was still in my early youth.” The days of נעורים, adolescence, are compared to חורף, winter, seeing they are the beginning of the season, before summer, whereas the time of old age זקנה are considered as again as such as the summer of one’s life is already past and one approaches “winter.” Accordingly, the meaning of our verse is that the שפחה described here is a woman designated as a concubine, someone frequently described as נערה, i.e. “a wife of a junior status.” At any rate, the woman in question is not totally a married woman as yet. Ibn Ezra writes that the word is related to חרפה, inferior status, a woman who is not yet exclusively betrothed to a specific man seeing she is still a slave. She is however, still a virgin at the time the man in our verse sleeps with her.

בקורת תהיה, “there shall be an investigation.” According to Rashi it is up to the court to determine the status, as the woman is not guilty of the death penalty. [She would be if she were a married woman and had consented to infidelity. Ed.] Some interpret the need for this investigation as resulting from the fact that to many onlookers this woman does have the status of a married woman, so that some people would be in a hurry to put her to death. In order to prevent such a miscarriage of justice, the Torah orders an investigation. The word בקרת is related to the word יבקר in Leviticus 13,36 where the Torah declares an investigation by the priest as uncalled for, writing לא יבקר הכהן. Still other scholars see in the word בקרת the word בקר when it is used in the sense of administering physical punishments with a strap. Nachmanides views the words as indicating הפקרות, that the woman in question due to her dubious status was considered הפקר in the sense of unprotected by law. According to Nachmanides we encounter the expression הבקר in the Mishnah, when it always means the same as הפקר with the letter פ instead of the letter ב. (compare Peyah 6.1 et al) Still others consider the word as similar to פילגש, concubine, quoting Psalms 45,10 בנות מלכים ביקרותיך, “Royal princesses are your favorites.” Ibn Ezra categorically rejects this saying that on the contrary, the meaning of the word in Psalms is from יקר, the especially highly regarded ones. In other words, princesses who elsewhere are highly esteemed will be become lowly slave women for the Jewish people [remember Hagar who voluntarily became the slave of Sarah. Ed.]

כי לא חופשה, “for she had not yet been set free completely.” She was not yet able to become the legal wife of the man designated for her. Nonetheless, the man who had slept with her has to bring a guilt offering as spelled out in verse 22.

ונטעתם כל עץ מאכל, “you will plant every kind of fruit-bearing tree.” After the Torah had discussed halachic aspects of planting seeds in the field, we now hear about halachic aspects of planting orchards. Placing seed inside a woman or placing seed inside the earth are activities that have quite a bit in common with one another.

וערלתם ערלתו, “you shall treat its fruit as if uncircumcised. (forbidden)” Rashi views the choice of the term ערלה here as parallel to the meaning of the word when applied to the uncircumcised male, i.e closed off, אטום, not yet opened up. It is out of bounds, not yet to be enjoyed. Nachmanides also writes that there is something quite different in the prohibition of the fruit of newly planted trees during the first three years compared to other products the Torah has forbidden. The fact that it becomes permissible without our having to do anything to the fruit itself, once sufficient time has elapsed, lends support to the concept that ערלה is nothing else but a “closed door” which in due course will open. We find that the development of the fruit is referred to as פתיחה, compare Song of Songs 7,13 פתח הסמדר, “the blossoms opened up.” The Torah portrays the fruit of the first three years as if they had not yet “opened up.” The underlying reason for this commandment is parallel to the commandments governing agricultural products, such as the setting aside challah, the first part of dough when making bread, leaving a small section of one’s harvest uncut for the poor, donating terumah to the priest, G’d’s representative on earth, etc. In each of these instances the idea is that before we ourselves partake of G’d’s bounty, we indicate by performance of the respective commandments that we are aware of the origin of our wealth and that we are grateful to the Creator for this. If, in the case of orlah, these early fruit are not presented as a gift, the reason may be that such a gift of relatively underdeveloped fruit might be viewed as inappropriate, seeing that it is inferior. This is the reason why the fruit of the fourth year is treated as suitable for consumption in the holy city of Jerusalem, and only in the year following this is the tree’s bounty freely available to the owner of the orchard. (Verses 24-25) (The fruit of the fourth year is treated like the second tithe, מעשר שני, in that it is sacred to the extent that it either may be consumed only in Jerusalem, or redeemed so that the money of the proceeds is spent in Jerusalem. (Sifra) Nachmanides adds that it is true, (as scientists claim) that there is also a health hazard when the fruit of the first three years are consumed [raw, I presume, Ed.] as there is excessive acidity. Moreover, in the majority of cases the tree does not even produce fruit during the first tree years after having been planted, depending on climate and the quality of the soil, etc. Maimonides advances these considerations as the reason for the prohibition in his Moreh Nevuchim¸ section 3, chapter 37. He mentions that in earlier times the magicians, etc., in order to establish their reputation as quasi-deities, used to add some kind of poison to newly planted trees, which they knew would lose its power after a certain length of time. They would make you believe that it was they who had made these poisons harmless, the ordinary person not having any knowledge of the nature of such poisons, and thinking that whereas without the blessing of the magician they might have died, the magician possessed power over life and death, whereas in fact he only exploited the ignorance of natural science of the common man. [I gave just one example of how the ignorance and gullibility of the man in the street enabled the magicians to prosper from their superior knowledge. Ed.] When the appropriate time had arrived, these magicians would sacrifice some of this fruit to their particular deity, claiming that this sacrifice made the fruit safe for the multitude.

לא תאכלו על הדם, “do not eat over the blood.” According to Rashi there are numerous interpretations offered for this verse, one of them being reflected in Samuel I 14,33 הנה העם חוטאים לאכול על הדם, “here the people commit a sin by eating over the blood, etc.” [The people ate from the loot of the battle while the slain had not yet been buried, etc.] Nachmanides writes that according to the plain meaning of the text the Torah warns against adopting the practice of the sorcerers who used to gather around blood they had spilled and preserved in a bowl, and foretell the future, relying on the demons that would gather around to foretell them the path of future events. When the Jewish soldiers were with their King Sha-ul in camp and they were very much afraid of the Philistines their enemies, Sha-ul would not do anything without consulting the urim vetumim, as we know from above chapter in Samuel, verse 36. To his consternation, on this occasion the priest did not receive a reply to his enquiry, something which prompted Sha-ul to enquire which sin the people could have been guilty of that would deny them access to the word of G’d. As a result, it was found out that his own son Yonathan had violated his father’s command not to taste any food on the day of the battle, and he had, while being unaware of the prohibition, tasted some honey. The people, not wanting to accuse Yonathan, had phrased it as if all of them had been guilty of a trespass, i.e. eating prematurely on the day of the battle. [Prior to the battle, the people had not asked via the urim vetumim, but engaged in sorcery regarding the continuation of the war, something which Sha-ul considered a grievous act of treachery against G’d. Also, they had started to enjoy the spoils of war without giving thanks to the Lord by means of the blood of the appropriate animals being presented on an altar. Ed.] The reason why the Torah wrote the legislation of ערלה, the restrictions applying to the fruit of the tree during its first three years, immediately after the above legislation is to show that here too before enjoying the fruits of defeating an enemy, first we must express our gratitude to Hashem Who has made us victorious. Seeing that in periods when private altars were forbidden this might represent quite a hardship, the rule was enforced only when there was a legitimate altar in the vicinity.

לא תנחשו, “do not indulge in sorcery.” The word נחש is similar in meaning to that of נסיון, experimenting and using the outcome of the experiment as one’s guideline for how to act. [It is debatable if Eliezer’s request at the well stipulating certain behaviour patterns of the maidens that came out to draw water at the well falls into the category of forbidden ניחוש, at any rate at that time Torah had not yet been given. Ed.] Lavan admitted to Yaakov that he was in the habit of using such sorcery, i.e. Genesis 30, 27 נחשתי ויברכני ה' בגללך, “I have discovered by such experimentation, that G’d’s blessing for me is on your account.”

ולא תעוננו, “and you are not to believe that some periods are lucky compared to others.” Ibn Ezra writes that some people claim that the word עונן is derived from ענה, “answering,” i.e. a person poses a certain question expecting to guide his behaviour according to the answer he receives. This is not a tenable interpretation according to the rules of grammar. He believes, instead, that the correct interpretation is based on the word being derived from ענן, “cloud,” that the Torah forbids us to read meaning into the cloud patterns we observe in the sky, and to use such patterns as guidelines for our behaviour.

לא תקיפו פאת ראשכם, “do not round off the edge of your scalp.” Ibn Ezra understands this as a warning not to trim one’s hair in the manner that the priests of idolatrous cults are in the habit of doing. 1) We should not look like such people but preserve our identities also in the manner in which we appear externally. Furthermore, seeing that hair, especially hair of the head, is considered a mark of beauty, what possible reason would we have to deprive ourselves of this mark of תפארת, ”glory?”

אל תחלל את בתך להזנותה, “do not desecrate your daughter by making her into a harlot;” Rashi, basing himself on Torat Kohanim, understands our verse as handing over one’s daughter to be used sexually in any setting other than that of wedlock. Nachmanides, severely limits this verse by stating that the term used here means only not to allow one’s daughter to become sexually involved with parties who because of legal restrictions could never offer marriage to such a girl. This, according to most authorities would mean that if the relationship would lead to marriage the penalty would be death, either by a court of law or by heavenly decree, karet. [Tthe disagreement, of course, does not touch on the ethics or morality of the situation, but on the legal implications of our verse. Ed.] The only scholar who considers what Rashi says as legally making such a daughter into a harlot when she sleeps with a male while she is unattached, is Rabbi Eliezer, whose opinion is not accepted by halachah.

ולא תזנה הארץ, “so that the land not become a whore.” The restrictive clause “the land,” which is interpreted by Sifra as ‘but you may make a whore out of the produce of the land,” is understood by Nachmanides as arrived at by the Torah not having written ולא יזנו את אנשי הארץ, “so that the people of the land will not become pimps and whores.” There is no question that the principal concern of the verse is the second prohibition not to become guilty of the land becoming full of harlotry, etc. The last few words are to be viewed as an independent prohibition. The author of halachot gedolot, (Rabbi Yehudai ben Rabbi Shemuel gaon, head of the Babylonian Torah academy in Sura) lists these words as one of the 365 negative commandments in the Torah, stating that it is a twofold prohibition, i.e. a warning to the father separately and to the daughter in her own right not to allow herself to be used by her father in such a fashion. She must not have sexual relations with anyone except for the purpose of entering into a relationship of wedlock. The Torah divides the verse into two halves, the first one dealing with a girl who as a minor is under the total control of her father, the second part addressing such a girl after she has grown up and is still not married. It then applies to her and her male partner equally.

את שבתותי תשמורו, “you are to observe My Sabbaths;” the reason why this exhortation, not the first of its kind, has been written here immediately following laws about sexual chastity is reminiscent of the Talmud Kidushin 81 where the social separation of men and women is discussed and Avin is on record as saying that if one allows men and women to mingle socially one furthers unchaste conduct and worse. He considered the time when the Israelites went up to the Temple to celebrate the festivals as the most dangerous of such opportunities. The parallel with the Sabbath is clear. On the Sabbath, social gatherings are encouraged, wine flows freely, and therefore the opportunities to become guilty of unchaste behaviour are multiplied on that day. Hence the Torah issued a special warning to be on guard against violating sexual mores on the Sabbath. Immediately after the warning not to allow the Sabbath to entrap you into forbidden contact, the Torah writes:

אל תפנו אל האובות, “do not turn to the sorceries that follow, etc.” [if I understood the author correctly. Ed.] “Do not have social intercourse with these sorcerers even on the Sabbath, thinking that since they do not practice their art on the Sabbath that this is harmless. Ibn Ezra writes that this is a warning not to do what King Sha-ul did near the end of his reign in desperation, when he asked a sorcerer to conjure up the deceased prophet Samuel’s image (Samuel I 28,7) The word אובות is derived from Job 32,19 וכאובות חדשים יבקע, describing skins filled with wine that are full to bursting. בעלי אובות, those soothsayers are like people who cannot wait to reveal the knowledge they believe that they possess. The word ידעוני, is related to דעת, knowledge, and also describes these supposedly knowledgeable people who foretell future events. The Torah adds that the result of turning to such soothsayers will be

לטמאה בהם, “to become contaminated by them.” Any person, soul, who turns to such charlatans in order to divine the future will lose whatever degree of cleaving to Hashem it had achieved prior to this. The reason for this is:

אני ה' אלוקיכם, “I alone am the Lord your G’d.” You are not to look for refuge with anyone other than I.

ויראת מאלוקיך אני ה', “you shall be in awe of your G’d, I am Hashem.” Ibn Ezra sees in our verse a warning by G’d that if we fail to accord honour and accord dignity to the elderly, He may punish us for this in our own old age. Other commentators see in the statement a reminder that these elderly have been honoured by G’d with attaining long life and wisdom, and it would not do for us not to accord them at least the same recognition that G’d has shown them. They back up their approach by quoting Isaiah 24,23 ונגד זקניו כבוד, “and the Presence (of G’d) will be revealed to His elders.”

וכי יגור אתך גר, “and if a proselyte shall reside amongst you,” The reason why the Torah saw fit to write this verse immediately after having told us to treat our native born elderly with dignity and respect, is that G’d draws a comparison between the former and the latter, both being people who by circumstance are somewhat handicapped, one by age and frailty, the other by not yet having established his self-worth in the new nation he has joined. Other opinions see in the sequence of how to respect elders and not to discriminate against proselytes a message that anyone who discriminates legally or otherwise against proselytes offends the Creator Who instructed us to be especially courteous to the elderly.

לא תעשו עול במשפט, ”do not pervert the judicial process.” According to Ibn Ezra the verse refers especially to treatment of proselytes, as the reason why the Torah felt it necessary to write ושפטתם צדק בין איש ובין אחיו ובין גרו, “judge righteously between a man and his brother, and between his fellow who is a proselyte, or even a resident alien!” (Deut. 1,16)