Source Browser

{
  "title": "Ibn Ezra on Leviticus",
  "index": {
    "title": "Ibn Ezra on Leviticus",
    "categories": [
      "Tanakh",
      "Rishonim on Tanakh",
      "Ibn Ezra",
      "Torah"
    ],
    "schema": {
      "nodeType": "JaggedArrayNode",
      "depth": 3,
      "addressTypes": [
        "Perek",
        "Pasuk",
        "Integer"
      ],
      "sectionNames": [
        "Chapter",
        "Verse",
        "Comment"
      ],
      "match_templates": [
        {
          "term_slugs": [
            "ibn-ezra",
            "leviticus"
          ]
        }
      ],
      "lengths": [
        27,
        589,
        1022
      ],
      "isSegmentLevelDiburHamatchil": true,
      "diburHamatchilRegexes": [
        "^<b>(.+?)</b>",
        "^(.+?)[\\-–]"
      ],
      "titles": [
        {
          "lang": "en",
          "text": "Ibn Ezra on Vayikra"
        },
        {
          "lang": "en",
          "text": "Ibn Ezra on Lev."
        },
        {
          "lang": "en",
          "text": "Ibn Ezra on Lev"
        },
        {
          "text": "אבן עזרא על ויקרא",
          "lang": "he",
          "primary": true
        },
        {
          "text": "Ibn Ezra on Leviticus",
          "lang": "en",
          "primary": true
        }
      ],
      "title": "Ibn Ezra on Leviticus",
      "heTitle": "אבן עזרא על ויקרא",
      "heSectionNames": [
        "פרק",
        "פסוק",
        "פירוש"
      ],
      "key": "Ibn Ezra on Leviticus"
    },
    "order": [
      20
    ],
    "authors": [
      {
        "en": "Abraham ibn Ezra",
        "he": "אבן עזרא",
        "slug": "ibn-ezra"
      }
    ],
    "enDesc": "Ibn Ezra’s commentary on the Tanakh reflects his knowledge as a Hebrew grammarian and philologist. His commentary is terse and aims to discover the pshat, the contextual meaning, of the text. Ibn Ezra was known for his independent ideas which aroused much controversy. Many view Ibn Ezra as the forefather of Biblical criticism. As an example, in the last chapter of Sefer Devarim (34:10), Ibn Ezra comments that Joshua, and not Moshe, wrote from this point until the end of the Torah.",
    "pubDate": [
      1524
    ],
    "hasErrorMargin": true,
    "compDate": [
      1155,
      1165
    ],
    "compPlace": "Middle-Age France/Italy/England",
    "pubPlace": "Venice",
    "era": "RI",
    "dependence": "Commentary",
    "base_text_titles": [
      {
        "en": "Leviticus",
        "he": "ספר ויקרא"
      }
    ],
    "base_text_mapping": "many_to_one",
    "collective_title": {
      "en": "Ibn Ezra",
      "he": "אבן עזרא"
    },
    "is_cited": true,
    "heTitle": "אבן עזרא על ויקרא",
    "titleVariants": [
      "Ibn Ezra on Vayikra",
      "Ibn Ezra on Lev.",
      "Ibn Ezra on Lev",
      "Ibn Ezra on Leviticus"
    ],
    "heTitleVariants": [
      "אבן עזרא על ויקרא"
    ],
    "sectionNames": [
      "Chapter",
      "Verse",
      "Comment"
    ],
    "depth": 3,
    "heCategories": [
      "תנ\"ך",
      "ראשונים על התנ״ך",
      "אבן עזרא",
      "תורה"
    ],
    "compDateString": {
      "en": " (c.1155  – c.1165 CE)",
      "he": " (1155 – 1165 לספירה בקירוב)"
    },
    "pubDateString": {
      "en": " (1524 CE)",
      "he": " (1524 לספירה)"
    },
    "compPlaceString": {
      "en": "Middle-Age France/Italy/England",
      "he": "צרפת / איטליה / אנגליה של ימי הביניים"
    },
    "pubPlaceString": {
      "en": "Venice",
      "he": "ונציה"
    }
  },
  "text": {
    "he": "<b>ויקרא.</b> מצאנו ברית יחיד בעבור שני דברים גם יתכן להיות מצוה אחת בעבור דברים רבים כמצות העולה והקרבן כי בתת כל חלק בעתו ימלט החלק שיש לו חלק לעולם הבא על כן פירוש לכפר לתת כופר והעד מתחלת כי תשא על כן כתיב פן יפגענו בדבר גם יש בעולות סודות לעתידות גם יתבונן מכל קרבן סוד התולדות והחטאות והמצות להחיות מורי התורה. וטעם <b>ויקרא אל משה</b> אחר ולא יכול משה שהכבוד קראו מאהל מועד שיבוא שם ושם ידבר עמו והכבוד לפנים מהפרכת ושם היה משה נכנס כי כן כתוב וזה טעם ותמונת ה׳‎ יביט. וטעם להזכיר הקרבנות קודם המצות כי השכינה תשוב אל מקומה אם לא ישמרו תורת העולה וכן היה וחלילה חלילה להצטרך לעולה וכן כתוב אם ארעב לא אומר לך רק יש לו סוד: <b>מכם.</b> מאוחר וכן הוא אדם מכם כי יקריב קרבן וכמוהו רבים או יהי׳‎ מכם מממונכם או יהיה מכם רמז להוציא את הגזל כי כן כתוב שונא גזל בעול׳‎: <b>מן הבהמה.</b> יהיה הקרבן כלל ואחר כן מן הבקר ומן הצאן שהם מין כבש ועז פרט גם מלת קרבנכם כלל: <b>אם עלה קרבנו.</b> פרט ועול׳‎ מפורשת: <b>מן הבקר.</b> גדול או קטן אחר שמונת ימים ובעבור היות העולה קרבה כלה לגבוה היא מהנבחרת והזכר נבחר מהנקבה על כן אין בעולה נקבה: <b>תמים.</b> בלא מום ואחר שאמר יקריבנו פירש אל המקום אשר יקריב אותו כי יכנס בחצר אהל מועד: <b>לפני ה׳‎.</b> דבק בטעם עם אל פתח אוהל מועד יקריב אותו: <b>לרצונו לפני ה׳‎.</b> שיקריבנו ברצונו ולא באונס: <b>וסמך ידו.</b> היה נראה מהפשט שבידו האחת יסמוך כי דרך שעיר המשתלח איננו כדרך כל קרבן על כן שנה הכ׳‎ רק כאשר מצאנו המעתיקים שהעתיקו שכל סמיכה בשתי ידים סמכנו עליהם והגוף הקרב לכפר על העולה על הרוח יקרא עולה גם כן הקרב בעבור חטאת ואשם יקרא חטאת ואשם: <b>ונרצה לו.</b> יפיק רצון מהשם: <b>לכפר עליו.</b> להיות כופר עונש שיש עליו: <b>לפני ה׳‎.</b> כמו עולת הצאן <b>על ירך המזבח צפונה.</b> כנגד השלחן: וטעם <b>ושחט.</b> הכהן שישחטנו אחד <b>ויזרקו</b> רבים את הדם וכן כתוב וימציאו בני אהרן: וטעם <b>אשר פתח אוהל מועד.</b> להוציא מזבח הקטורת: <b>והפשיט.</b> כהן או הלוי נלוה אליו: <b>ונתנו בני אהרן.</b> שלא יגשו הלוים וזאת מצוה על הכהנים ולא פחותים משנים: <b>הפדר.</b> רבים חכמי הדור פירשוהו הגוף והנכון בעיני שהיה הפדר החלבים וכן הוא וערכו בני אהרן הכהנים את הנתחים שהם נתחי הגוף את הראש ואת הפדר שהם החלבים ויחסר אות וי״ו שהוא כמנהג הלשון אודם פטדה וברקת ונתח אותו לנתחיו ולנתחי הגוף את ראשו ואת פדרו או יהיה פירוש את הראש עם הראש וכמוהו רבים והעד הנאמן ויקטר משה את הראש ואת הנתחים ואת הפדר: <b>וערכו.</b> על בן הבקר כי הוא גדול ועל הכבש וערך: <b>ירחץ במים.</b> כהן או לוי על כן הוצרך להוסיף עם והקטיר מלת הכהן: <b>אשה.</b> שם התאר וטעמו קרבן אש והוא תאר למלת הכל: <b>ניחוח.</b> מפורש: <b>על</b> ירך <b>המזבח.</b> מחוץ וכן ירכתי צפון כי רבים טעו ואמרו שמגדל ציון היה בתוך ירושלים: <b>מן התרים.</b> גדולים ולא קטנים: <b>בני היונה.</b> להוציא את הגדולים על כן לא אמרו יונים: <b>ומלק.</b> אין לו אח במקרא ומשפט המליקה מדברי הקבלה: <b>ונמצה דמו.</b> מבנין נפעל מגזרת מצית: <b>מראתו.</b> ידוע וכמוהו הוי מראה ונגאלה: <b>בנצתה.</b> עם הנוצה שלו וכן מלא הנוצה: <b>אצל המזבח.</b> מחוץ: <b>קדמה.</b>כי הוא רחוק ממקום הכבוד: <b>אל מקום הדשן.</b> גם שם ישימוהו: <b>ושסע.</b> מגזרת ושוסעת שסע כטעם בקוע: <b>ונפש כי תקריב.</b> נפש אדם והזכיר הנפש שהמנחה נדבה גם הנפש תקרא נדיבה ורוח נדיבה תסמכני: <b>סלת.</b> קמח חטה נקיה והיא הנקראת בלשון קדר סמי״ד והנה אין ראוי להיות מנחה לגבוה כי אם מהמין שאין למעלה הימנו: <b>וקמץ.</b> מגזרת לקמצים וקדמונינו פירשו קמץ מלא ודבריהם אמת: <b>מסלתה.</b> מעט ממנה וכן מהשמן רק כל הלבונה יקטיר: <b>אזכרתה.</b> האל״ף נוסף והטעם מה שהיה לו לזכרון לפני השם בעבור מנחתו ורבים פירשוהו כריח וקטורת כמו זכרו כיין לבנון: <b>לאהרן ולבניו.</b> ולכל הכהנים בשוה: <b>חלות.</b> עבות ויש אומרים עגולות מלשון חלילה בדברי קדמונינו: <b>מחבת.</b> קערה מכוסה בקערה והתי״ו תחת ה״א כתי״ו ושבת לנשיא: <b>מרחשת.</b> מעשה מטוגן ויש מפרשם מגזרת רחש לבי והטעם בעבור שישמיע קול: <b>לאהרן ולבניו.</b> אחריו והטעם לכהן המקריב כי כן כתוב על שתי המנחות: <b>שאור.</b> הוא המחמיץ גם כן הדבש ורבים אמרו שפירושו דבש תמרים וכן כל ארץ זבת חלב ודבש ויש להם כדמות ראיה בספר עזרא: <b>קרבן ראשית תקריבו אותם לה׳‎.</b> כטעם שתים שני עשרונים המונפים לפני השם בחג השבועות וזה פירוש לה׳‎ אף על פי שהם קדש לה׳‎ הם למאכל הכהן: <b>ברית אלהיך.</b> הכנסתיך בברית והשבעתיך שלא תקריב תפל ולא יאכל כי הוא דרך בזיון: <b>ואם תקריב מנחת בכורים.</b> רבים אמרו שמלת אם חיוב ולפי דעתי כי אין צורך כי החיוב הוא ראשית בכורים ולא הבכורים והרוצה להביא מנחה מבכורים נדבה יביא: <b>אביב.</b> נקרא כן בעבור שהוא ראשון והוא מגזרת אב: <b>גרש.</b> טעמו ידוע וקרוב מגזרת גרסה נפשי ואם הוא בסמ״ך: <b>כרמל.</b> כמו וכרמל בצקלונו: <b>שלמים.</b> מפורש: <b>על הכסלים.</b> ידוע והוא מגזרת כוכבי השמים וכסיליהם: <b>על הכליות.</b> כמו ויבואו האנשים על הנשים וטעמו עם. ונקראו כליות בעבור כח תאות המשגל והיא מגזרת נכספה וגם כלתה נפשי: <b>חלבו האליה תמימה.</b> טעמו כאשר היא שהאליה תקרא חלב ותעו הצדוקים כאשר אפרש לך בפרשה השנית גם תעה הגאון שאמר כי הוא חלבו והאליה כי מדקדוק הלשון לא יתכן כי יהיה ראוי להיות חלבו ואליתו או החלב והאליה: <b>העצה.</b> ידוע ממקומו ואין לו אח ויש שמי שהוציא מגזרת עץ בדרך רחוקה: <b>לחם אשה.</b> כבר פירשתי לחם שהוא מאכל וימצא על הפרי ועל הבשר: <b>ואם עז.</b> ממין העז זכר או נקבה כמשפט הכבש ובבן הבקר לא הזכיר האליה כי אם בכבש כי האליה בעז ובשור קטנה ועוד כי הכבשים שהן בארץ ישראל יש להם אליה גדולה וזה דבר ידוע: <b>כל חלב לה׳‎.</b> זה הכלל ואחר שהחלב והדם לגבוה הם אסורים לכם ובפרשה השניה אאריך לבאר חוקת עולם: <b>נפש כי תחטא.</b> לעשות בשגגה אחת ממצות לא תעשה שיש עליהם כרת או מלקות. ומלת נפש כלל לישראל ולגר כי כן כתוב. ואחר כן פרט והחל מהכהן הגדול והוא הכהן המשיח: <b>לאשמת העם.</b> שהורה שלא כהוגן ואשם העם וכלם שוגגים או פירוש לאשמת העם באשמת כל בני אדם ונזכר כן בעבור שהכהן הוא נושא התורה והוא עצמו נשמר וקדוש לשם: <b>על חטאתו.</b> בעבור חטאתו וכאשר הוא גדול יקריב הפר שהוא הגדול מכל הקרבים על גבי המזבח: <b>וטבל הכהן.</b> הוא המשיח בעצמו. וטעם שבע פעמים תמצאנו בפרשת וירא בלק ובעבור גודל מעלת הכהן הגדול יזה מדם חטאתו על פרכת הקדש ועל קרנות מזבח הקטרת וכל הפר חוץ מהחלבים ישרוף בחוץ כי איננה עולה: <b>על שפך הדשן.</b> שיהיה נשרף במקום שיש שם דשן המזבח: <b>ונודעה החטאת.</b> וכן משפט הכהן הגדול ואם איננו נזכר כי אם לא הודע אליו חטאתו לא יקריב פר החטאת. ויש אומרים כי בכל שנה יקריב כן שמא חטא. והזכיר עם כל עדת ישראל ונודעה החטאת שהכהן יתכן שיודיעם ואין מי שיודיע לכהן רק מעצמו. וחטאת הקהל כחטאת הכהן הגדול בכל משפטיה. והנה הכהן הגדול שקול כנגד כל ישראל: <b>זקני העדה.</b> הם המנהיגים והם יסמכו את ידיהם בעדם ובעד כל ישראל כי לא יתכן שיסמכו כל ישראל: <b>חטאת הקהל הוא.</b> הפר ואם ישגו ישראל ולא יעשו אחת ממצות עשה יקריב פר לעולה ושעיר לחטאת: <b>אשר נשיא יחטא.</b> הפוך וכן הוא אשר יחטא הנשיא והוא דבק באשר למעלה ואם כל עדת ישראל כאילו אמר ואם אשר יחטא הוא נשיא שבט או נשיא בית אב: <b>או הודע אליו.</b> אחז הכתוב דרך קצרה כמו לכהן והטעם שידע הנשיא מעצמו שחטא או הודיעו אדם אחר שראהו. דקדוק הודע אליו פועל עבר כמו והצר לך ויחסר המודיע כמו אשר ילדה אותה ללוי ויאמר רבי משה הכהן כי הוא מהבנין שלא נקרא שם פועלו כי החולם והשורק יתחלפו והוא על משקל ויוסף הורד מצרימה והנשיא יקריב שעיר מטעם זרזיר מתנים או תיש כפירוש הגאון בספר משלי והוא זכר למעלת הנשיא רק לא יובא את דמה לפנים מהקדש והכהנים יאכלו חטאת הנשיא לכפר בעדו כי כן כתוב ולא יאכל הכהן הגדול חטאתו: <b>מעם הארץ.</b> והם כל ישראל והכהנים ההדיוטים וכל הלוים: <b>ואשם.</b> פעל עבר כמו כי זקן יצחק: <b>שעירת עזים נקבה.</b> כי מעלתו נקלה ממעלת הנשיא: וטעם <b>ונסלח לו</b> בפרשת שלח לך: <b>ואם כבש.</b> ואם הביא ממין הכבש לחטאת יביא נקבה כמו שעירת עזים: וטעם <b>כאשר יוסר חלב הכשב.</b> להביא האליה כי אין עם השעירה אליה: <b>ונפש כי תחטא ושמעה קול אלה.</b> הוא החרם וכן ואת אלית והכתוב אחז דרך קצרה והזהיר שחייב העד להגיד כי אם לא יגיד יש עליו עונש מהשם שישא עונו אם שכח ולא הגיד ואחר כן נזכר לו: <b>או נפש אשר תגע.</b> בנבלת הארבעה הנזכרות והם חזיר וחביריו: <b>או בנבלת בהמה טמאה.</b> למאכלה כסום וחמור ושרץ טמא מהשמונה הנזכרים: <b>ונעלם ממנו.</b> ואחר כך יודע או נגע בזב וטמא מת וזבה ונדה: <b>לבטא בשפתים.</b> דבור שפה: <b>להרע.</b> למי שהוא חייב או לפירוש הגאון להתענות. וטעם להזכיר אלה שהוא חייב להודות ועל האחרות שהן מצות לא תעשה לא יתודה לפני הכהן והקרבן אחד: <b>ואם לא תגיע ידו.</b> כי היד היא העושה מלאכה והיא הקונה רמז למי שאין לו: <b>אחד לחטאת ואחד לעולה.</b> ויאמר רב יצחק כי טעם אחד עולה בעבור שלא תגיע ידו אולי עלה על רוחו מחשבה והקרוב אלי שהאחד כנגד האמורים והשני חטאת כמשפט: <b>עשירת האיפה.</b> מאכל לאיש אחד ביום אחד: <b>תמעל מעל.</b> דבר שנתכסה עליו מגזרת מעיל והטעם כי חטאת הוא בקדשי השם יביא איל שהוא שוה כסף שקלים ומעוט רבים שנים: <b>ישלם.</b> וישלם אשר חטא מן הקדש עם תוס׳‎ חמישתו וזה הוא אשם בשגגה בתחלה ואחר כך ידע: <b>ואם נפש כי תחטא.</b> ועשה אחת ממצות לא תעשה ולא ידע אם הוא אסור יביא איל ודעת רבים שזה אשם תלוי לא ידע אם עשה אם לא עשה והחטאת שבתחלה לא ידע ואחר כן ידע והנה החטאת שלא ידע שהוא אסור עד שהודע והאשם ידע שהוא אסור ושכח ואחר כן נזכר או אשם תלוי: <b>אשם אשם לה׳‎.</b> הוא פירושו אשם הוא: <b>ומעלה מעל בה׳‎.</b> שעבר על מצות לא תעשה מדבר שהוא בינו ובין אדם: <b>או בתשומת יד.</b> שותפות ששם ידו עמו: <b>בגזל.</b> בחזקה כמו ויגזול את החנית: <b>עשק.</b> בסתר: <b>ועמיתו.</b> רעהו ויתכן שהוא בעומתו. וה״א בהנה נוסף: <b>ונשבע על שקר.</b> פירושו או נשבע על ממון שיבקש אדם ממנו והעד או מכל אשר ישבע עליו לשקר: <b>בראשו.</b> בעצמו או מה שהוא שוה: <b>וחמשתיו.</b> מיעוט רבים שנים והנה הם שני חמישיות ועוד אפרשנו: <b>ביום אשמתו.</b> טעמו ביום שובו מאשמתו יביא איל: <b>בערכך.</b> כראשון והוסיף חומשים בעבור שזה האשם הוא בזדון ודברי יחיד הם שגם זה האשם תלוי: <b>לאשמה בה.</b> שם מהבנין הקל תחת שם הפועל: <b>היא העולה.</b> נקראת כן בעבור שהיא עולה כלה על המזבח ובכאן רמז שלא יעלה עולה בלילה רק היא תהיה על מוקדה כל הלילה. וה״א מוקדה נוסף או מוקד ומוקדה הם שני שמות: <b>ואש המזבח תוקד בו.</b> ולא חוץ ממנו: <b>מדו.</b> חלוק וחכמים אמרו שהוא חנוק כנגד מדתו: <b>על בשרו.</b> כנוי לערוה וכן זב מבשרו: <b>אשר תאכל האש.</b>הנשאר מאכילת האש: <b>אצל המזבח.</b> מחוץ לפאת מזרח: <b>והאש על המזבח תוקד בו.</b> פעם שנית להוסיף <b>לא תכבה.</b> ביום: וטעם <b>בבקר בבקר.</b> בכל בקר ובקר. ובתחלה יעלה העולה ואחר כן אימורי השלמים: <b>אש תמיד תוקד.</b> טעם זה הפסוק להוסיף תמיד: <b>הקרב אותה.</b> שם הפועל וטעם הקרב יקריבו אותה בני אהרן וטעמו אחד מבני אהרן על כן והרים ממנו. והוספו זאת הפרשה על הכתובה בפרשת ויקרא: <b>מצות תאכל במקום קדוש.</b> והנה שתים מצות. וכל זכר שלישית: וטעם <b>לא תאפה.</b> הוא העיקר במצות פסח: <b>כחטאת וכאשם.</b> כן המנחה: <b>כל אשר יגע.</b> במנחה ובחטאת ובאשם הוא קדש לשם: <b>זה קרבן אהרן.</b> או אחד מבניו תחתיו: <b>ביום המשח אותו.</b> אשר יוצק על ראשו שמן המשחה ורבים אמרו כי זה בי״ת תחת מ״ם והטעם כי מיום המשח אותו הנה זה חייב להקריב תמיד מנחתו: <b>מרבכת.</b> אין לו אח ויש מי שאומרים רכה ויש מי שאומרים במהרה. ותי״ו תביאנה סימן לאהרן וכן תי״ו תקריב. ועל דעתי כי כן הוא תי״ו תפיני וטעמו תקון ואין ריע לו והקדמונים אמרו שהיא שתי מלות תאפה נא. ויאמר רבי יונה המדקדק שהוא על משקל דוכיפת וזה המשקל מעקל: <b>כליל.</b> כמו כלה כליל תהיה לשם: <b>לא תאכל.</b> ככל המנחות כי איך יאכל הכהן מנחתו או חטאתו. מקום שחיטת כל חטאת צפונה: <b>קדש קדשים.</b> כי הוא כאחד הקדשים: <b>הכהן המחטא.</b> טעמו הזורק דם כאילו אמר המסיר חטא החוטא ורבי המפרשים אמרו כי טעם המחטא רוחץ או מטהר וכן תחטאני באזוב ואטהר: <b>כל אשר יגע.</b> בבשר החטאת יהיה קדש לשם והכהן יאכלנו לכן חלק הזורק כחלק כל אחיו: <b>יזה.</b> א״ר משה הכהן שהוא כמו יטה מבנין קל ובפתחו׳‎ היו״ד מהכבד והאות המובלע נו״ן וכן ויז מדמ׳‎ אל הקיר בחיר״ק עם ויז בפתח רק במלת נטה מראה על הקיר בחיר״ק עם ויז הוא בצר״י בבנין הקל וכן מצאנו ויז נצחם מבנין הקל ויפה דקדק.  ובעבור שהחטאת קדש צוה השם לכבס המקום שנפל מדמה על הבגד <b>במקום קדוש</b> הוא חצר אהל מועד כי יש הפרש בין קדוש וטהור: <b>אשר יזה עליה.</b> יחסר מקום או. והטעם או אם יזה אחר עליה שהוא הבשר יכבס הבשר הכהן ואחר כך יאכלנו או פירושו המקום אשר יזה מהדם תכבס ויהיה בגד לשון נקבה וזכר וכמוהו אשר תשיג ידו ותי״ו תכבס לכהן: <b>תבשל בו.</b> גם בשלה ומורק ושוטף מבנין שלא נקרא שם פועלו ובא ומורק בחול״ם בעבור הרי״ש שלא תדגש כי אם במקומות מועטים במשקל לא זורק עליו מגזרת מרקו הרמחים כי המ״ם שרש: וטעם <b>קדש קדשים הוא.</b> עם כל זכר שאין ראוי לאכול החטאת שהקריבו ממנה והובא לכפר כי אם התמימים והזכר תמים מהנקבה ואפילו קטן יקרא זכר והזכר שהוא בן שלש עשרה שנה כאשר העתיקו אבותינו: <b>וכל חטאת אשר יובא מדמה וגו</b>׳‎ <b>לכפר בקדש.</b> והנה מקום הפרכת יקרא קדש כי החצר ואם היא קדש כנגד אהל מועד חול והנה גם יקרא לפנים הפרכת קדש כנגד אהל מועד כמו בזאת יבא אהרן אל הקדש וזאת החטאת היא חטאת כהן הגדול או הקהל: <b>וזאת תורת האשם.</b> כבר הודעתיך ההפרש בין חטאת ואשם אף על פי שהכתוב יאמר בחטאת אשם ובאשם חטאת. וטעם להזכיר זאת הפרשה להזכיר החלבים שאין להם זכר בתורת החטאת: <b>עולת איש.</b> מלעיל בעבור היות הטעם בראשית המלה האחרונה כמשפט: וטעם <b>לו.</b> אחר שאמר לכהן תוספת ביאור שלא ינתן העור לכהן אחר: <b>וכל נעשה.</b> שם התאר לשון נקבה כמו אין אבן נראה כי לשון זכר ואשר היה נעשה ליום אחד: <b>וחרבה.</b> כמנחת היורד ומנחת הקנאות: <b>אם על תודה.</b> טעמו שיתן תודה לשם שנמלט מצרה: <b>חלות מצות.</b> כרצונו אך לא פחותים משנים וכן רקיקי מצות: <b>מרבכת.</b> הנבחר בפירושים בעיני שהיא מובחרת וחלות מצות ורקיקים אפויים וחלת המרבכת אינה כן: <b>על חלת.</b> כמו ויבאו האנשים על הנשים והטעם עם חלות: <b>והקריב ממנו. אחד מכל קרבן.</b> הנה ארבע חלות בפחותים והאמת שהם עשרה: <b>ביום קרבנו יאכל.</b> שיאכלנו המקריב אותו וביתו ומי שהוא טהור כי גם השלמים קדש ואם הם קדשים קלים: <b>ואם נדר.</b> שבטא בשפתיו בצר לו: <b>ונדבה.</b> שנדבה רוחו אותו להביא זבח לשם לא לנדר ולא לתודה: <b>ביום הקריבו.</b> שם הפעל מהבנין הכבד הנוסף וממחרת אותו היום.  וי״ו <b>והנותר ממנו.</b> כפ״א רפ״ה בלשון ישמעאל וכמוהו ויעזב את עבדו גם והארץ היתה תהו ובהו: <b>באש ישרף.</b> כאשר נשרפו האימורים רק לא ישרף על גבי המזבח: וטעם <b>המקריב אותו לא יחשב.</b> אחר שיהיו האימורים קרבים לגבוה הנה כל הנשאר קדש וכן אבני המזבח שאחר שהם קדושים אין ראוי שישאר ממנו לחול על כן אבנים שלימות: <b>פגול.</b> כדברי המתרגם ארמית וכן ומרק פגולים כליהם. ויש שואלים אחר שעלה ריח ניחוח איך לא יחשב והטעם על המחשבה כי משפט השלמים להיות קדש והפגול איננו קדש ועוד בעבור שלא שמר את המצוה יצא שכרו בהפסדו אם הוא שלמים ואם נדר תתחדש עליו עון כנגד הראשון אם לא ישלם נדרו: <b>עונה תשא.</b> עונש ולא הזכירו הכתוב וכרת על טמא שיאכל בשר קדש: וטעם <b>וטומאתו.</b> להיותו טמא מעצמו כזב ומצורע גם בעבור מקרה לילה כי כן כתוב כי אמר מקרה הוא או שיהיה טמא בעבור אחר כטומאת אדם מת או חי והוא זב ומצורע או בבהמה טמאה שאינה נאכלת ושקץ טמא מהעוף והשרץ. ופעם אחת בא אלי צדוקי אחד ושאלני אם האליה אסורה מן התורה ואען ואומר אמת כי האליה תקרא חלב כי כן כתוב חלבו האליה תמימה רק קדמונינו התירוה ואסרו כל חלב אז ענה הלא כל חלב אסור מן התורה כי כן כתוב כל חלב וכל דם לא תאכלו ובתחלה כתוב חקת עולם לדורותיכם גם אני עניתיו כי זה הפסוק דבק עם זבח השלמים ואין מלת חקת עולם לדורותיכם בכל מושבותיכם ראיה גמורה כי הנה כתוב ולחם וקלי וכרמל לא תאכלו עד עצם היום הזה עד הביאכם את קרבן אלהיכם ושם כתוב חקת עולם ואם כן לא נאכל לחם בגלות כי לא הקרבנו קרבן העומר וגם הוא השיב כל חלב שור וכשב וען לא תאכלו גם אני השיבותי כי גם זה הפסוק דבק עם זבח השלמים והעד כי כל אוכל חלב מן הבהמה אשר יקריבו ממנה להוציא חלב כל בשר שאיננו קרב לשלמים והכלל בשר חול על כן הזכיר בפרשה הזאת וחלב נבלה וחלב טרפה יעשה לכל מלאכה ואכול לא תאכלוהו וידוע כי בשר הנבלה והטרפה אסורות והאסור הוא הבשר ובעבור שאין החלב קרב לגבי המזבח שמא יחשוב אדם שהוא מותר על כן הזהיר ואכול לא תאכלוהו ובעבור זה לא הזכיר הדם ובאה זאת הפרשה לבאר עונש האוכל חלב בשר קדש וכן כל דם הוסיף לעוף על כן חלב העוף מותר והראיה הגמורה שאמר בספר אלה הדברים בבשר תאוה שהוא חול שיאכלנו כלו ולא הוציא רק את דמו לבדו בשלשה מקומות ואין זכר לחלב כלל אז פקח הצדוקי עיניו ופצה בשפתיו שבועה שלא יסמוך על דעתו בפירוש המצות רק ישען על העתקת הפירושים: שוק <b>הימין.</b> לזורק הדם והחזה לכל הכהנים: <b>זאת.</b> זאת שכר משחת אהרן או משחת בניו נגידות: <b>ביום משחו.</b> מיום וכן בבשר ובלחם: <b>ולמלואים.</b> ככתוב בפרשת ואתה תצוה: <b>להקריב את קרבניהם לה׳‎ במדבר סיני.</b> כי לא הקריבו קרבן עד שבאו אל הר סיני וכבר הראיתיך שהמזבח שבנה משה על חלושת עמלק הוא בחורב והוא הר סיני ושם ישבו ישראל שנה פחות עשרה ימים כי כן כתוב ובמדבר לא הקריבו עולות כי כן אמר הנביא הזבחים ומנח׳‎ הגשתם לי במדבר ארבעים שנה בית ישראל גם לא עשו פסח כי אם במצרים ושנית בהר סיני כי במדבר לא היו להם מקנה ואחר שנסעו מהר סיני לא מלו בדרך והנה רובם ערלים ובעבור אכילת פסח מל אותם יהושע: <b>ואת פר החטאת.</b> בה״א כי כבר הזכירו וכן האלים וכן המצות: <b>ואת כל העדה.</b> ראשי השבטים והזקנים: <b>ויקרב משה את אהרן.</b> אל הכיור: <b>וירחץ אותם.</b> בצווי: <b>ויאפד.</b> כמו ויחגור וכאשר ציץ הזהב איננו המצנפת כן האורים והתומים אינם אבני החושן וכן הלוחות בארון על כן כתוב ויתן אל החשן: <b>ויקח משה את שמן המשחה.</b> טעמו וכבר לקח קודם משיחת אהרן: <b>ויקרב משה את בני אהרן.</b> פעם שנית בעבור שארכו הדברים או טעמו כאשר הקריב משה את בני אהרן הלבישם כתנות. ומלת וילבישם יוצאה לשנים פועלים: ו<b>יחטא.</b> כבר פירשתיו: ו<b>יקדשהו.</b> לכפר עליו כל העונות: <b>ויקח את כל החלב אשר על הקרב.</b> וכתוב בתחלה המכסה את הקרב וכתוב אחר אומר המכסה את הקרב ואת כל החלב אשר על הקרב דע כי החלב המכסה הוא רב מאד ואת כל החלב אשר על הקרב הוא מעט מפה ומפה גם המכסה הוא על הקרב לכן הכתוב אחז דרך קצרה: <b>שרף באש.</b> יש אומרים הוא בעצמו ויש אומרים בצווי וראייתם כאשר צוה ה׳‎ את משה ואיננה ראיה כי כן דרך לשון הקדש: <b>ויקרב את האיל השני איל המלואים ויסמכו אהרן ובניו.</b> ובכתוב הראשון וסמך אהרן ובניו והנה אין הפרש בין וסמך אהרן ובניו ובין ויסמכו אהרן ובניו כי מדקדק גדול טעה שאמר כי טעם וסמך הוא לבדו ואחר כן בניו וסמכו כלם יחד: <b>הימנית.</b> כמו הפנימית. וטעם על תנוך בהן. בפרשה זאת תהיה והנה הדם יכפר על נפש אהרן וכן כי הדם הוא בנפש יכפר וטעמו בנפש שיש בו לכפר והנה נפש תחת נפש וקרוב מזה הטעם ותגע לרגליו: <b>חלת מצה אחת.</b> היא ככר לחם אחת ויתכן היות ככר משקל ואיננו כמשקל הכסף והזהב: <b>וישם על החלבים.</b> ולא הזכיר יותרת הכבד והכליות כי היותרת היא קטנה ופירוש המלה כמו מה יתרון לאדם והכליות הם על חלביהן כי לא יתכן שיקראו הכליות חלב רק האליה היא חלב: <b>וינף אותם.</b> הניף אהרן ובניו כאשר יניף אהרן את הלוים: <b>בשלו את הבשר.</b> הם בעצמם כי ובשלת את בשרו בצווי: <b>והנותר בבשר ובלחם.</b> עד בקר כי כן כתוב: <b>ימלא את ידכם.</b> תחסר מלת קץ כאילו אמר כי קץ שבעת ימים או זמן. יש אומרים לא תצאו שבעת ימים ובלילה היו יוצאים לצרכם והנכון בעיני שיצאו בשעת הצורך ביום ובלילה וחכם גדול אמר כי חפרו מקום בחצר אהל מועד וזהו רחוק והכתוב אמר ויבכו בני ישראל את משה שלשים יום כאילו אין שם רגע שלא היו בוכים רק הכתוב דבר שישבו פתח אהל מועד יום ולילה והטעם שלא יתעסקו בדבר ולא ילכו אל מקום אחר וכן ומן המקדש לא יצא כאשר אפרש: <b>כאשר עשה ביום הזה.</b> פירוש וכאשר עשה ביום הזה משה כן צוה ה׳‎ לעשות שבעת ימי המלואים והיה ראוי להיות כאשר עשיתי אלא כי כן דרך לשון הקדש כמו והי׳‎ יחזקאל לכם ואת יפתח ואת שמואל והעד שפירוש צוה ה׳‎ לעשות כן ועשית לאהרן ולבניו ככה ככל אשר צויתי אותכם שבעת ימים ועוד ופר חטאת תעשה ליום כמו שנים ליום עולה תמיד וכתיב שם וחטאת על המזבח ומשחת אותו בכל יום עד סוף המלואים ועוד שבעת ימים תכפר על המזבח ולא הזכיר את שני האילים כי אחז דרך קצרה ודעת רבים כי פר חטאת לבדו יעשה בכל יום ולפי דעתי שטעם להזכיר הפר בעבור שינתן מדם איל העולה על אהרן ובניו והאיל השני יאכל בשרו רק פר חטאת הוא לכפר על המזבח וכן כתוב על הכפורים וטעמו בעבור כפורים: <b>ופתח אהל מועד תשבו.</b> להזכיר ולא תמותו: <b>צויתי.</b> פועל שלא נקרא שם פועלו ויש אומרים כי כן צויתי אותכ׳‎ ואם לא פירש שם לשבת פתח אהל מועד: <b>ויהי ביום השמיני.</b> היה נראה לנו כי ביום השמיני שמיני לניסן כי המשכן הוקם באחד לחדש רק המעתיקים אמרו שהיה ראש חדש ניסן ובשבעת ימי המלואים היה משה מקים את המשכן בכל יום וסותרו כדי להרגיל בו וללמד: <b>קרא משה לאהרן ולבניו.</b> ויצאו מפתח אהל מועד או העדה נכנסה אל החצר: <b>עגל בן בקר.</b> בשבעת ימי המלואים היה פר חטאת גם איל לעולה ולא הזכיר עם עגל בן בקר אם הוא בן שנה והקרוב אלי שפר כמו עגל בלא זכר שנה: <b>תמימים.</b> על העגל ועל האיל ופרי המלואים לחטא את המזבח וזה העגל לכפר על אהרן וכבר פירשתי זאת המלה: <b>שעיר עזים לחטאת.</b> על הקהל ועגל שאין לו שנה תמימה וכן כבש לעולה: <b>ושור ואיל.</b> גדולים: <b>ומנחה.</b> היא סלת לכל אחד ואחד: וטעם <b>ויאמר משה.</b> כאשר הראיתיך. ואשאל אותה וטעמו כבר אמר להם משה זה הדבר עשו שיתנו שעיר ועגל וכבש ושור ואיל אז יראה לכם כבוד ה׳‎ והטעם על האש שיצא: <b>וכפר בעדך ובעד העם.</b> שהיא מצוה שתכפר על נפשך ועל כל הקהל ובפר החטאת תכפר בעדך ואחר כך תעשה קרבן העם וכפר בעדם כי לא יוכל אדם לכפר על אחד עד היותו טהור מכל חטא: <b>אשר לו.</b> משלו היה וכן פר יום הכפורים: <b>ואת הדם.</b> הנשאר יצק: <b>ואת החלב</b> המכסה. ואשר על הקרב ועל הכליות: <b>וימציאו.</b> מגזרת מצא שמצאו בשעת הצורך: <b>ויקרב את קרבן העם.</b> על המזבח: <b>ויחטאהו כראשון.</b> הוא עגל החטאת: וטעם <b>ויחטאו.</b> כפר בו החטאת: <b>וישימו את החלבים.</b> עם הכליות ויותרת הכבד כאשר הראיתיך: <b>ואת החזות.</b> חזה השור גם חזה האיל: <b>ואת שוק הימין.</b> מזה ומזה ושוק סמוך אל הפאה או הצד: <b>וישא אהרן את ידיו אל העם.</b> אל נכחם וקדמוננו העתיקו מכאן צורת נשיאות כפים: <b>וירד.</b> כאשר הראיתיך רבים וכבר ירד מעשות חטאת העם ועולתם והשלמים: וטעם <b>וירד.</b> בעבור המזבח שהיה שלש אמות קומתו ואחר כן באו משה ואהרן אל אהל מועד ויתכן שבאו להתפלל על האש שתצא ובצאתם ברכו שניהם את העם: <b>את העולה.</b> עולת אהרן ועולת העם ועולת תמיד כי כן כ׳‎ מלבד עולת הבוקר: <b>ואת החלבים.</b> מהעגל ואיל אהרן והשעיר והשור והאיל: <b>וירנו.</b> הרמת קול וכן ותעבו׳‎ הרנה במחנה: <b>איש מחתתו.</b> כל איש לקח מחתתו ולפי דעתי שזה הדבר היה גם ביום השמיני והעד הן היום הקריבו את חטאתם: <b>ויתנו בהן אש.</b> לא מהאש שיצאה וזה טעם אש זרה: וטעם <b>אשר לא צוה אותם.</b> שמדעתם עשו ולא בצווי להקטיר קטורת גם באש זרה: <b>וימותו לפני ה׳‎.</b> כי חשבו שעשו דבר רצוי לפניו: <b>הוא אשר דבר ה׳‎.</b> כבר אמר לי השם שהוא יראה קדושתו בקרובים אליו כטעם רק אתכם ידעתי וכאשר אראה בם קדושתי אז אהיה נכבד ועל פני כל העם אכבד וייראו ממני: <b>שאו את אחיכם מאת פני הקדש.</b> יש אומרים כי הקטורת היתה לפני מזבח העולה והלוים נכנסים שם ויש אומרים שהיתה על מזבח הקטורת ומשה הוציאם מאהל מועד: <b>פני הקדש.</b> היא החצר כנגד המחנה כאשר פירשתי: <b>ראשיכם אל תפרעו.</b> יש אומרים לגדל פרע: <b>תפרומו.</b> תקרעו והנכון שהוא מן בגדיו יהיו פרומים וראשו יהיה פרוע ורבים אמרו מכוסה ואחרים אמרו מגולה והאמת דברי הקבלה: <b>ולא תמותו.</b> מלת ולא מושכת עצמה כמו ולא למדתי חכמה וכן הוא ולא על כל העדה יקצוף כי אתם תכפרו בעדם: וטעם <b>ואחיכם כל בית ישראל.</b> תמצאנו רמוז בפרשת ראה אנכי: <b>וידבר ה׳‎ אל אהרן.</b> כי נביא היה ויש אומרים על ידי משה כמו דבר אל אחז והזהירו שישמר הוא ובניו שלא ימותו כאשר מתו בניו הגדולים: <b>ושכר.</b> העשוי ממין חטה או דבש או תמרים כי היין משחית הדעת לשותיו ויתערבו לו הדברים. על כן ולהבדיל כי אתה כהן גדול ותבדיל בין מקום הקדש ובין החול והוא מלשון חלול גם יתכן בין יום קודש לחול: <b>ובין הטמא ובין הטהור.</b> בבהמה ובשרץ המים ובעוף על כן נכתבה אחרי זאת הפרשה פרשת זאת החיה ואחר כן טומאת היולדת וצרעת אדם ובגד ובית ובעל קרי וזב וזבה ונדה וזה טעם ובין הטמא ובין הטהור: <b>ולהורות את בני ישראל.</b> שאר המצות וכן ככל אשר יורו אתכם הכהנים: <b>קחו את המנחה.</b> אחר שהקטירו ממנה לגבוה אין ראוי לאכול הנשאר כי אם מקודשים ועתה תחלו לאכול החוק שנתן לכם השם שתקחו תמיד מאשי ה׳‎ ופירושו כל מנחה שהקטירו ממנה לשם: <b>במקום טהור</b> ואם הוא חוץ החצר והחזה והשוק תאכלו זכרים ונקבות כי כן כתיב כל טהור בביתך יאכל אותו וכן קנין כסף ויליד בית ואלמנה ששבה וכאשר תאכלו עתה השוק והחזה יהיה לכם החק לקחתו מכל זבחי השלמים: <b>שורף.</b> מהבנין שלא נקרא שם פועלו כמו ומורק ושוטף: <b>במקום הקדש.</b> פתח אוהל מועד כי כן כתוב ואותה נתן השם לכם כי כאשר תאכלו אתם את החטאת השם ישא את עון העדה או פירושו אתם תשאו את החטאת והטעם כי על ידכם יכופר עונם על כן לכפר: <b>הן לא הובא את דמה אל הקדש פנימה.</b> כפר הבא על כל המצות שהוא לכהן ולקהל. ואם ישאל שואל הנה פר חטאת שורף ולא הובא את דמו לפנים בקדש והטעם הפרכת ומזבח הזהב דע שפר חטאת הוא לחטאת על המזבח ושעיר החטאת הוא לעם ובשר החטאת לכהן: <b>אכול תאכלו.</b> היה ראוי שתאכלו אותה: יש מדקדקים שאמרו שהה״א של התימה לא יהיה אחריו דגש עם אחד מהז׳‎ מלכים כי אם עם השוא הנע ימצא והה״א פתוח בעבור שלא יתכן להתחבר שני שואי״ן ובעבור שמצאו יו״ד הייטב דגוש אמרו כי זה הה״א לידיעה כה״א השבה עם נעמי הנמצאו פה העיר ההוללה ואלה ההי״ן במקום אשר הנה כן פירוש הייטב ועוד אמרו כי ואכלתי פועל עבר ואילו היה עתיד היה מלרע כמו ודברתי אל הנביאים ודברתי אתך והטעם כי בני הנשרפים היום הקריבו את חטאתם ואת עולתם כי העגל והאיל בעד אהרן ובניו: <b>ותקראנה אותי כאלה.</b> פירוש צרות או דאגות על מות הבנים ובעבור זה לא יכולתי לאכול כל חטאת רק אכלתי ממנה מה שייטב בעיני השם והטעם מה שיוציאני לידי חובה. ועל דעת המעתיקים שה״א הייטב לתימה והוא מלה זרה גם על הפירוש שהזכרתי היא זרה כי לא מצאנו בכל המקרא ה״א הדעת עם פועל עתיד. ומלת <b>ואכלתי חטאת.</b> כאילו אמר ואילו אכלתי חטאת גם מצאנו מלות לעתיד והן מלעיל פן אורש וגנבתי והטעם כי הייתי אונן ואין אונן אוכל חטאת כטעם לא אכלתי באוני: <b>וידבר ה׳‎ אל משה ואל אהרן.</b> בעבור שהוא הכהן המורה המבדיל בין הטמא ובין הטהור: <b>מפרסת.</b> שם התואר וכן מקרין מפריס והטעם כל שהוא מתוארת שהיא בעלת פרסה: <b>ושוסעת שסע.</b> שם התאר והטעם שפרסותיה שסועות: <b>מעלת גרה.</b> מגזרת גרון ומעלת פועל. והזכיר הגמל והשפן והארנבת והחזיר בעבור שיש לכל אחד הסימן האחד ודרך לשון הקדש להזכיר הזכר מכל מין כי הנקבה בכלל הזכר היא והזכיר ארנבת יש אומרים לפי שלא ימצא הזכר מהם ויש אומרים שהזכר ישוב נקבה והפך הדבר והראשון קרוב אלי: <b>ובנבלתם לא תגעו.</b> והכתוב לא הזכיר הנוגע שיטמא עד הערב רק מדברי קבלה ידענו זה. והנה הנוגע בזדון יש עליו מלקות כי הוא עבר על לא תעשה: ואם רדפנו אחרי הכתוב לבדו בלי העתקה הנה לא הותר הדג שהוא באגמים כי הכתוב פרט <b>בימים ובנחלים</b>: <b>סנפיר וקשקשת.</b> כדברי המתרגם ארמית: <b>שרץ המים.</b> הם הקטנים שנבראו מן המים ובמים נפש חיה מזכר ונקבה. ואחר שאמד שקץ הם לכם אמר ושקץ יהיו לכם לפרש מה שהוא שקץ והוא מבשרם לא תאכלו והנה הדג יקרא בשר רק מה שאמרו חז״ל בנדרים הוא על מנהג דברי אלה הדורות והוסיף כל אשר אין לו סנפיר וקשקשת להיות כלל לכל מים כי לא הזכיר בתחלה רק הימים והנחלים: <b>הנשר.</b> ידוע גם זה עוף שיקרא כן בלשון ישמעאל יש כדמות ראיה שהוא כן בעבור היות שתי הלשונות קרובות: <b>העזניה.</b> אף על פי שיש דברי יחיד שאיננה ביישוב טעה הגאון שתרגם אותה אלענקא כי זה השם בלשון ישמעאל על דבר שלא נמצא בעולם ולא היה ולא נברא אלא למשל וכן יודו חכמי לשונם אם כן לא יתכן שיאסר השם הדבר שלא היה: <b>הדאה.</b> שם כלל לשני מינים והם דאה ודיה כמו ואת הצפור לא בתר עם תור וגוזל והנה צדקו המעתיקים שאמרו כי ראה היא דאה וסרה טענת רבי יונה שאמר איך יתכן לאמר השמר לך מהאריה והליש. ויש אומרים שנשר מן אשורנו ופרס מן הלא פרס לרעב. ועזניה מן עוז והנו״ן נוסף והוא הנקרא עקב״א. ודאה מן כאשר ידאה הנשר ואיה שמנהגה לשבת באיים ידועים: ו<b>עורב</b> מלשון ערב בעבור שחרותו: <b>בת היענה.</b> יש אומרים שהוא מין שלא ימצאו זכרים כמו הארנבת ואין מלת כיענים טענה כי אינם זכרים רק הם נקבות כמו יעלים ורחלים: <b>ואת התחמס.</b> מגזרת חמס: <b>ואת השחף.</b> מוליד השחפת: <b>והנץ.</b> יש לו נוצה רבה והקרוב שהוא הידוע הפורש כנפיו תמיד לפאת דרום כי יבקש מקום חם: <b>הכוס.</b> ככוס חרבות ויש אומרים שהוא נכסה מעין אדם על כן ישכון במקום שאין שם יישוב: <b>השלך.</b> יש אומרים עוף מנהג תולדתו להשליך ילדיו: <b>ינשוף.</b> עוף יעופף בנשף כי לא יראה ביום מפני להט אור השמש: <b>התנשמת.</b> כל רואהו ישום גם זה השם נמצא בשרצים: <b>הקאת.</b> יש אומרים שיש עוף מנהג תולדתו להקיא מאכלו: <b>הרחם.</b> אמר הגאון שהוא בלשון קדר בחלוף חי״ת בכ״ף כי בכתב׳‎ אות אחד להם והאחרים אמרו שהוא עוף מרחם על בניו: <b>החסידה.</b> היא הנראית למועדים ידועים בשנה ויש אומרים שהיא מפזרת חסד בדרך רחוקה: <b>האנפה.</b> שיתנאף מהרה: <b>הדוכיפת.</b> אמרו הצדוקים שהיא התרנגולת ואלה טפשי עולם כי מי הגיד להם: <b>העטלף.</b> עוף קטן יעוף בלילה והוא מלה מרובע (ר״ל בת ד׳‎ אותיות): ודע כי מלת תשקצו מן העוף. בדקדוק הטעם היא מעט רחוקה ממלת אל תשקצו את נפשותיכם כי הנפשות פעולים ובעוף טעמו שתדעו שהם שקץ ויהיו נחשבים לכם לשקץ וכל שרץ קטן שיעוף פעם ופעם הולך על ארבע שקץ: <b>אשר לא כרעים.</b> העיקר להיות לו עם וי״ו: <b>לנתר.</b> אין לו אח והמתרגם אמר לקפצא בהון כמו מקפץ וטעם דולג ואמת תרגם: נקר׳‎ <b>ארבה.</b> מלשון ריבוי: <b>הסלעם.</b> מין יעלה בסלעים: <b>החרגול.</b> אם היא מרובעת אין לו אח ואם היא שתי מלות כמלת לפלמוני המדבר תהיה תולדתו הפך תולדת הסלעם: <b>החגב.</b> ידוע מלשון ישמעאל: וטעם <b>אשר לו ארבע רגלים.</b> וכבר נכתב ההולך על ארבע. שיתכן שיש שרץ יש לו ד׳‎ רגלים ולא ילך בהן רק יעוף לבדו: <b>ולאלה תטמאו.</b> לכל שרץ העוף בעל ד׳‎ רגלים ואת אלה תשקצו מן העוף ודעת אחרים שפי׳‎ אלה לכל הבהמה וכל הולך על כפיו ולפי דעתי שמלת אלה על כל הנזכרים למעלה: <b>תטמאו.</b> מבנין התפעל ודגשות הטי״ת להתבלע התי״ו וכן וישמע את הקול מדבר אליו וכבס המטהר: <b>יטמא עד הערב.</b> אחז הכתוב דרך קצרה כי הוא צריך שירחץ במים: <b>והנושא.</b> חמור מהנוגע על כן יכבס בגדיו אף כי גופו וכן משפט כל בהמה גם פה אחז דרך קצרה וכן הוא ושסע שוסעת וגרה איננו מעלה או גרה מעלה ושסע איננו שוסעת וכבר אמר ובנבלתם לא תגעו טמאים הם לכם: וטעם <b>כל הנוגע בהם.</b> והם הנבלות הנזכרות למעלה יטמא כמשפט הנזכרים שהוא עד הערב ויש מין ממין הצדוקים שאמרו כי כל הנוגע בהם והם חיים יטמא ואין צורך להשיב על דברי שגעון כי הכתוב לא אסר כי אם בשרם ואמר ובנבלתם לא תגעו: <b>וכל הולך על כפיו.</b> בתחלה המשפט אחד וכן הנושא את נבלת׳‎ וזה הפסוק יישר פירושי במלת ולאלה תטמאו כי שם כתוב וכל הנושא מנבלתם ושניהם בפרשה אחת: וטעם <b>טמאים הם לכם.</b> להכניס כל ישראל אנשים ונשים וטף משפט אחד להם: <b>וזה לכם הטמא.</b> במגע גם אלה השמנה לא נוכל לדעתם באמת גם העופות כי אם מדברי קבלה: וטעם <b>אלה הטמאים לכם בכל השרץ.</b> אלה לבדם הם הטמאים שיטמאו במותם: וטעם <b>יטמא עד הערב.</b> אחר שירחץ: <b>במים יובא.</b> הבגד או השק או הכלי שהוא מקבל טומאה וצדיכין אנו למסורת: <b>אשר יפול מהם אל תוכו.</b> מאחד מהם כמו ויקבר בערי גלעד: <b>וכל משקה.</b> שם ואני הייתי משקה פועל: והנה התנור ללחם לאפות והכירים לבשל הבשר יותצו כי טמאים הם וזאת גזרת מלך: <b>באר.</b> בלשון הקדש לשון נקבה והיא הנובעת וכן כהקיר ברר מימיה ובור כרוי או חפור למטה השמים אם כן תהיה הבאר כמו מעיין ואין צורך להזכיר הנחל ויהיה מקוה מים סמוך אל בור כי יש בור אין בו מים ויש אומרים כי הוא חסר וי״ו כמו ראובן שמעון שמש ירח: <b>ונגע בנבלתם.</b> המים הנוגעים בנבלתם יהיו טמאים: <b>זרוע.</b> שם התאר כמו פעול או הם ב׳‎ שמות והעד ונתן להם זרעונים: <b>וכי יותן מים.</b> שישקו את השדה ונפל מנבלתם על הזרע ויש אומרים על המים ובא מלת יותן שהוא לשון יחיד עם מים וכן מי נדה לא זורק עליו ומלת יותן כמו יוקח נא מעט מים מהבנין הכבד הנוסף: <b>אשר היא לכם.</b> מותרת לאכול: <b>יטמא עד הערב.</b> אחר שירחץ במים: <b>והאוכל</b> חמור כמו הנושא כי שניהם נושאים זה בחוץ וזה בפנים: וטעם <b>כל השרץ השורץ על הארץ.</b> כל שרץ הארץ ובכלל שמונה שרצים הנזכרים והזכיר שלא יאכלו: <b>גחון.</b> כמו על גחונך תלך: <b>וכל הולך על ארבע.</b> בשרץ שהוא הקטן כאשר פירשתי בשרץ המים: <b>מרבה רגלים.</b> שם התאר והוא סמוך: <b>אל תשקצו את נפשותיכם.</b> להיות׳‎ מטונפות ומגואלות.  <b>ולא תטמאו בהם</b> כי ידוע כי הגוף הנאכל ישוב בשר בגוף האוכל: <b>ונטמתם בם.</b> חסר אל״ף כמו מראשית בלי אלף השנה ויש אומרים שהם שני שרשים והעד נטמינו בעיניכם וטעמו כאדם שאין לו דעת: <b>והייתם קדושים כי קדוש אני.</b> על כן אמרתי לכם ולא תטמאו והוי״ו כפ״א רפה בלשון ישמעאל וכן ויעזוב את עבדיו ורבים כמוהו: וטעם <b>כי אני ה׳‎.</b> כי לא העליתי אתכם מארץ מצרים כי אם להיות לכם לאלהים ואם לא תהיו קדושים לא אהיה לכם לאלהים על כן אם רצונכם שאהיה לכם לאלהים תהיו קדושים: <b>להבדיל בין הטמא.</b> בעוף ובשרץ המים: <b>הנאכלת.</b> המותרת לאכילה: <b>אשר לא תאכל.</b> על פי התורה: <b>אשה כי תזריע.</b> אחר שהשלים תורת הטהור והטמא בנאכלין הזכיר טמא אדם והחל מן האשה היולדת כי הלידה היא תחלה ורבים אמרו שהאשה מזרעת תחלה יולדת זכר על כן וילדה זכר ועל כן דעת חכמי יון שהזרע לאשה וזרע הזכר מקפיא וכל הבן מדם האשה והנה פירוש תזריע תתן זרע כי היא כמו הארץ: וי״ו <b>וטמאה</b> כפ״א רפה בלשון ישמעאל. וסבת טומאתה שבעת ימים עד שובה אל המרובע וכן ימצא בימי החולי כי השנוי יראה עד סוף כל ז׳‎: <b>נדת.</b> שם במשקל בזת והם שניהם מפעלי הכפל: <b>דותה.</b> טעמו כמו חולי כמו מדוה מצרים כי הדם היוצא הוא חולי בבשר האשה: <b>וביום השמיני.</b> אמרו חז״ל ביום ולא בלילה והנה הנולד חצי שעה קודם שקיעת החמה יהיה נמול לששה ימים וחצי יום כי יום התורה אינו מעת לעת: <b>ימול.</b> מבנין נפעל כמו לא יכון ויהיה מגזרת מולים היו ויתכן להיותו חסר נו״ן מגזרת ונמלתם כמו איש כי ידור נדר ויחסר המל כמו אביו או בית דין: <b>ערלתו.</b> ידועה כי הוא בערוה ואין כן ערלת לב ושפה ואזן כי כלם סמוכים: ה״א <b>טהרה.</b> נח נעלם והי׳‎ ראוי להראות כה״א ויקרא לה נבח. וטעם דמי טהרה. שהוא דם טוהר כנגד דם נדה ואיננו מטמא והשם גזר על הזכר כמספר הזכר אשר תשלם צורתו בבטן והנקבה כפלים וזה דבר ברורה ומנוסה: <b>בכל קדש לא תגע.</b> כמו המעשר והתרומה ובשר שלמים: <b>ואל המקדש.</b> אל חצר אהל מועד או אל העזרה בבית המקדש: <b>בדמי טהרה.</b> או על דמי טהרה אחד הוא: <b>בן שנתו.</b> לולי הקבלה מי היה מפרש לנו בן שנתו דאם הוא בן שנה תמימה לא יותר או פחות או תוספות ויש אומרים שטעם הכבש לעולה שמא עלתה שום מחשבה על רוחה בשעת לדתה מרוב הצער. חטאת שמא דברה בפיה: <b>והקריבו.</b> זה וזה הכבש והתור או בן יונה והכתוב אחז דרך קצרה וכן לא הזכיר מליקת חטאת העוף כי הכהן איננו אוכל חטאת עוף: <b>וכפר עליה.</b> כאשר פירשתי: <b>וטהרה ממקור דמיה.</b> זה אות כי לא תטהר בתולדתה עד הימים הספורים: <b>תמצא ידה.</b> כטעם ואין ידו משגת: <b>וכפר עליה הכהן וטהרה.</b> זה יורה אם לא יכפר עליה הכהן לא תטהר וזה תלוי בארץ: <b>וידבר ה׳‎ אל משה ואל אהרן.</b> וטעם אהרן. כי על פיו יהיו כל נגעי אדם מי שיטהר ומי שיטמא: <b>אדם.</b> ולא אמר איש איש מבית ישראל להכנים הגרים וכן אדם כי יקריב מכם כי תורה אחת לאזרח ולגר בקרבנות גם כן והכניס הגר שלא יטמא אחר כי הצרעת היא מהחליים הנדבקים מהחולה אל השלם: <b>והובא.</b> ברצונו ושלא ברצונו כי הרואה בו אחד מסימנים אלו יכריחנו שיבא: <b>או אל אחד מבניו הכהנים.</b> טעם אהרן הוא הכהן המשוח תחתיו וטעם אחד מבניו הכהנים ההדיוטים שימצאו חוץ למקדש ככהני ענתות: וטעם <b>הכהנים.</b> שלא יהיו מהפסולים: ומלת <b>שאת.</b> כמו שרפה וכן והמשאת החלה וישאם דוד ויתכן שנקרא כן בעבור שהאש תולדתה להנשא למעלה: <b>ספחת.</b> מגזרת ספחני נא ונספחו על בית יעקב חולי שיתחבר אל מקום אחד: <b>בהרת.</b> מגזרת בהיר הוא בשחקים והוא נודע שיעשה כדמות אות וסימן: <b>הפך לבן.</b> טעמו נהפך ללבן: <b>עמוק.</b> יותר יש בעמקו מעומק העור ואיננו כמו שפל: <b>וטמא אותו.</b> בדבור שיאמר שהוא טמא: <b>והסגיר הכהן את הנגע שבעת ימים.</b> האדם יהיה נסגר והוא ייחל עד שבעת ימים כי רובי החליים ישתנו ביום השביעי: <b>עמד בעיניו.</b> הטעם במראהו כי המראה הוא בעין וכל המפרשים אמרו שטעמו בעצמו והטעם כאשר היה: <b>פשה.</b> כענין נפוש: <b>שנית.</b> פעם שנית: <b>כהה הנגע.</b> רבים החכמים אמרו כמו חשך ועדותם ותכהין עיניו מראות ואמרו כי כהות לבנות פירושו כמו לבנה אדמדמת שיהיו בו שניהם ולפי דעתי שמלת כהה הפך פשה ומגזרת ותכהין עיניו והקרוב אליו ולא כהה בם וטעם לא פשה הנגע במקום אחר והנה הם שני סימנים שכהה המקום הנגוע ולא פשה בשלם: <b>וטהרו.</b> יאמר שהוא טהור כי מספחת היתה ואם פשתה אחר כן הנו טמא: <b>והובא.</b> האדם כחברו: <b>והיא הפכה.</b> השער השחור ללבן: <b>ומחית.</b> פירוש בשר חי והנה הבשר שלא ירגיש איננו כן: <b>נושנת.</b> קדמונית: מלת <b>יסגירנו.</b> יוצאה לשנים פעולים והטעם שיצוה שיסגר: <b>וטהר את הנגע.</b> כי כבר יצא הנגע כולו לחוץ והוא סר ממנו וטעם <b>וטהר את הנגע.</b> בדבור שאותו הנגע לא יטמא אחרים: <b>או כי ישוב.</b> שיתכן שישוב: <b>לבנה אדמדמת.</b> מעורבת משני העינים או קצתם כן: מלת <b>צרעת</b> מחלה וכן ושלחתי את הצרעה ואין מלת ושלחתי טענה כי הנה ישלח דברו אני שולח את כל מגפותי ישלח בם חרון אפו: <b>והנה מראה.</b> לא יתכן בדקדוק מראה בקמץ גדול תחת האל״ף והה״א במפיק כמו ידה רגלה כי לא נמצא כן בבעלי הה״א הנח הנעלם בסוף המלה ודגשות נו״ן: <b>יראנה</b> כמו יסגירנה לחסרון הה״א הנוסף וכן מלת ממנה וממנו: <b>ואם תחתיה.</b> אם עמדה במקומה כי יש נגע שיסע ממקום אל מקום: <b>צרבת.</b> כמו ונצרב׳‎ בו כל פנים כטעם מוקד וחום ולהבת: <b>או לבנ׳‎.</b> לבדה: <b>ואם תחתיה תעמוד הבהרת. והיא כהה.</b> כאשר פירשתי ולא הזכיר כן בפסוק ואם תחתיה תעמוד הבהרת הראשון בעבור שעמדה הבהרת כאשר היתה: וטעם להזכיר <b>ואיש או אשה.</b> בעבור הזקן ועוד כי הוא צריך לאמר על הקרח והגבח איש ולא אדם סלל להוציא האשה והנה פירוש (פי׳‎ מ״ח ואיש או אשה ר״ל אחר שלקח לשון איש שאינו כולל לאשה כמו מלת אדם. הוצרך לומר אשה בעבור הראש לא בעבור הזקן כי הזקן שב לאיש ולא לאשה ובקרח ובגבח אמר כמו שאמר ואיש כי ימרט ראשו ולא הזכיר בו אשה כי לא תמצא קרחת וגבחת באשה מפני הלחות שבה כמו שמפרש למטה. ומה שאמר ולא אדם. ר״ל ולא אמר אדם שהוא כלל לאיש ולאשה עד כאן) כי יהיה בו נגע בראש או בזקן לאיש: <b>צהוב.</b> בלשון ישמעאל קרוב מעין הלובן: <b>נתק הוא.</b> מגזרת כאשר יונתק פתיל הנעורת והטעם על השער: <b>והתגלח.</b> הראש או הזקן ומקום הנתק לא יגלח: <b>וכבס בגדיו.</b> ואין צורך לאמר שירחץ במים: <b>לא יבקר הכהן.</b> הטעם יבקש וכן ובקרתם וקרוב מלשון הבדלה וכן לא יבקר בין טוב לרע: <b>בהק הוא.</b> זאת המלה ידועה בלשון חז״ל ואין ריע לו במקרא: <b>ימרט.</b> כמו ולחיי למורטים בעבור השער שהוא סביב הלחיים: <b>קרח.</b> מגזרת לא תשימו קרחה וטעם <b>ראשו.</b> כלו: <b>גבח.</b> אין לו חבר חוץ מהפרשה הזאת והוא שם התאר ולפי דעתי שקרח הוא במעלה של הראש ולא הזכיר האשה בעבור הלחה הרבה שיש בה לא יקרח ראשה כי השער הוא כדמות עשב: <b>כמראה צרעת עור בשר.</b> שאר הגוף: <b>בגדיו יהיו פרומים.</b> כמו קרועים להכירו ללכת במנהג משונה או טעמו כענין אבל על כן בגדיו יהיו פרומים וראשו פרוע והטעם שיתאבל על רוע מעשיו כי בעבור מעשיו בא לו זה הנגע: <b>ועל שפם.</b> למעלה מהשפם והמ״ם מהשורש, והעד ולא עשה שפמו: <b>יעטה.</b> בבגדיו מגזרת עוטה אור והטעם שלא יזיק ברוח פיו: <b>וטמא.</b> פעמים שיאמר כן תמיד בעברו במסלה שיש שם ישוב שישמרו בני אדם ולא יגעו בו: <b>כל ימי אשר הנגע בו יטמא.</b> כי טמא הוא באמת: מלת <b>בדד.</b> מפורשת במגלת איכה: <b>או בשתי או בערב.</b> ידועים ויתכן להיות גזרת בשתי מגזרת וחשופי שת שהוא יסוד והעד כי השתות יהרסון: וטעם <b>ערב</b> שיתערב עם השתי: <b>או בעור.</b> כאשר הוא: <b>בכל מלאכת עור.</b> כמו מכבר ונאד: <b>ירקרק.</b> מגזרת ירק כי העין כמוהו וזה כפול לחסרון וכן שחרחר׳‎ ויש אומרים הפך הדבר: <b>ממארת.</b> כמו סלון ממאיר ואחר שסלון כמו קוץ יהיה ממאיר כמו מכאיב והמ״ם הב׳‎ במלת ממארת שורש ואינה מגזרת מארה. וטעם שלא הזכיר משי וצמר גפן יתכן שדבר הכתוב על ההוה הנמצא כטעם כי תראה חמור שונאך וכן משפט הסוס והפרד או יתכן שלא יארע הנגע כי אם לצמר ופשתים: <b>הכבס את הנגע.</b> שם הפעל שלא נקרא שם פועלו מהבנין הכבד הנוסף: <b>פחתת.</b> אין לה אח במקרא והיא ידועה בלשון חז״ל וטעמו חסרון הוא שאירע בקרחת הבגד או בגבחתו והגאון אמר שפירש בקרחת הפאה האחרת כי בגבחת היא מפאת פני הבגד אם כן יהיה קרח מאחור הראש ויפה פירש: <b>ואם תראה עוד.</b> הפחתת וכן פורחת היא ואחר שאמר תשרפנו באר כי מקום הנגע לבדו ישרף: <b>וכבס שנית.</b> מצוה לכבסו פעמים: <b>וסר מהם הנגע.</b> וכבר סר מהם הנגע וכבר הראיתיך רבים כמוהו: ומלת <b>וכבס<b> פעל שלא נקרא שם פועלו:</b></b> <b>זאת תורת נגע צרעת בגד הצמר.</b> ארבע סמוכים ויש במקרא חמש גבורי חיל מלאכת עבודת בית ה, וכלם סמוכים אל השם שהוא סומך לכל הנופלים: אמר <b>וידבר ה׳‎.</b> כי יחל תורת המטהר ואמר ר׳‎ יונה הספרדי המדקדק כי נרפא נגע הצרעת מן הצרוע הוא הפוך והיה ראוי להיותו נרפא הצרוע מנגע הצרעת ולמה נהפוך דברי אלהים חיים בעבור חוסר דעתנו והלא שם כתוב כי נרפא הנתק טהור הוא ועוד כי נרפא הנגע: וטעם <b>והובא.</b> כמו חביריו כי אחר שיסור נגע הצרעת לא ירצה להביא מה שמחוייב: <b>ויצא הכהן אל מחוץ למחנה.</b> אף על פי שטהרו הכהן לא יכנם אל המחנה או במדינה עד שיתן טהרתו וישלם כל אשר צוה: <b>ויצא הכהן.</b> איננו כהן גדול והנה נתברר פירוש או אל אחד מבניו הכהנים: <b>ולקח למטהר.</b> הכהן יקח משלו ויש אומר המצורע יתנם ותי״ו התפעל מובלע בדגשות הטי״ת והוא על משקל איש מתהלל: <b>שתי צפרים.</b> כל עוף יקרא צפור והנה יקח כל עוף שימצא: <b>חיות.</b> ולא מתות: <b>טהורות.</b> שלא יקח מהטמאות: <b>ועץ ארז ואזוב.</b> הוא הגדול וקטן במיני הצמחים והעד מדברי חכמת שלמה ואין צורך לחפש על האזוב כי הוא ידוע בקבלה. והנה המצורע והבית המנוגע וטומאת המת קרובים והנה גם הם כדמות פסח מצרים: <b>וצוה הכהן ושחט.</b> כהן אחר או ישראל ויש אומרים המצורע והוא רחוק: <b>אל כלי חרס.</b> כמו על, וכן אל הנער הזה התפללתי: <b>מים חיים.</b> לקוחים ממקום נובע: <b>וטבל אותם.</b> הארז והשני והאזוב: <b>על המים.</b> שהדם מעורב עמם: <b>והזה.</b> מהדם המעורב אחר טבול גם הצפור החיה והנזכרים: <b>על פני השדה.</b> מקום שאין שם יישוב שלא תדבק הצרעת. וההזיה בשלשתן או באזוב לבדו כטומאת המת: <b>וכבס. וגלח את כל שערו.</b> כלל: <b>ורחץ במים וטהר.</b> בערב כמשפט ואחר כן שב לפרש כי זה יהיה אחר ימים שבעה וכן היה משפט שבעה של מרים ופרט כי יגלח את כל שערו ביום השביעי וביאר כל שערו את ראשו ואת זקנו ואת גבות עיניו וזאת המלה קרובה מגזרת גב: <b>ואת כל שערו.</b> שער הרגלים ויש אומרים אף זרועיו ושוקיו והחזה: <b>שני כבשים וכבשה אחת.</b> בעבור היות נגע הצרעת מוסר על מעשה הלשון על כן יקריב כבש אחד לעולה כמשפט כל העולה על הרוח ואחד אשם כמשפט כל אשם ונקבה לחטאת כמשפט כל חטאת ושלשה עשרונים כמשפט עשרון לכבש: <b>ולוג אחד.</b> מדה ואין לו אח וטעם אותם הכבשים והכבשה גם זה האשם גם זאת החטאת לכהן חוץ מהאמורים: <b>על תנוך.</b> טעמו ידוע ממקומו והנה המטהר מהצרעת שהוא בגוף כמו הכהן שימלא ידו כי העון כמו הצרעת בנפש והבהן מקום חבור והוא עקר כל המעשים והימנות בעבור כח הצד הימין והתנוך זכר לשמוע אשר צוה: <b>על כף הכהן השמאלית.</b> היא כף הכהן המטהר רק כן דרך צחות בלשון הקדש והעד הפסוק הבא אחריו: <b>לפני ה׳‎.</b> אל פתח אהל מועד: <b>על דם האשם.</b> שהוא תנוך ובהונות: <b>ועשה הכהן את החטאת.</b> היא הכבשה כתורת כל חטאת: <b>והעלה. את העולה.</b> הוא הכבש ומנחתו שהוא עשרון ויש אומרים שכל המנחה יקריב לעולה ובתחלה האשם שהוא החמור: <b>וטהר.</b> אז יהיה טהור ככל הטהורים: <b>דל.</b> יש בגוף כמו דלות ורעות אשרי משכיל אל דל ככה דל בן המלך ויש דל שאין לו ממון: <b>וידבר ה׳‎ אל משה ואל אהרן.</b> החל לבאר צרעת הבית: וטעם <b>כי תבאו אל ארץ כנען.</b> כי זה נוהג בארץ לבדה בעבור גודל מעלת הארץ כי המקדש בתוכם והכבוד בתוך המקדש: <b>ונתתי.</b> הדבר תלוי בנתינת ה׳‎: <b>ובא אשר לו הבית.</b> מצוה שיבא אל הכהן: <b>ופנו את הבית.</b> בעל הבית וכל אנשי ביתו. וטעם לשון רבים לפנותו מהרה: <b>בטרם יבא הכהן.</b> כי עוד יסגיר הבית בעבור הספק וטרם בואו ספקו: <b>שקערורות.</b> אין אחות למלה הזאת ולא נדע אם היא מרובעת כפולה האות האחרון או מחמשת אותיות ופירושיה לפי טעם המקום יש אומרים כדמות סימנין או חוטין ויש אומרים שהיא מלה מורכבת מטעם ותשקע האש. ורורות מגזרת רר בשרו וזה רחוק: <b>ומראיהן.</b> ומראה כל אחד מהם שפל: <b>וחלצו את האבנים.</b> יסירו וכן חלצני ה׳‎ מאדם רע: <b>אל מקום טמא.</b> שלא יקחם משם אדם שיהיו ניכרים שהם טמאים: <b>ואת הבית יקציע.</b> מגזרת מקצעות וכן מר ואהלות קציעות וטעמו פצולות ויש אומרים שיפצלו המקצוע ואין זה נכון כי כבר פשה נגע בבית רק יקציע כל הבית: וטעם <b>מבית.</b> מבפנים: <b>הקצו.</b> מגזרת קצה כי קצתו ההו׳‎ למעלה הסירו לבדו: <b>וטח.</b> הפך יקציע והוא מגזרת טחים אותו טפל: ומלת <b>ולקחו והביאו.</b> רבים במהרה: <b>ועפר אחר יקח.</b> בעל הבית שירצה לדור בו: ואם הנגע ישוב ובא הכהן <b>אחר חלץ.</b> אחר שחלץ ואחרי הקצות את הבית בתחלה: <b>ונתץ את הבית.</b> בצווי. וכן והוציא והקרוב שסגור יהיה שבעת ימים רק הכתוב אחז דרך קצרה והעד והבא אל הבית כל ימי הסגיר אותו בראשונה ובשנייה: <b>יטמא עד הערב.</b> אחר שירחץ בשרו כמשפט: <b>והשוכב.</b> חמור על כן יכבס בגדיו ורחץ במים וטמא עד הערב ולא הזכירו הכתוב כי כל שוכב ואוכל הוא בא בבית: <b>ולקח.</b> בחבירו: <b>ביום הטמא.</b> ביום שיהיה האדם או הבגד או הבית טמא או טהור: <b>וידבר יי אל משה ואל אהרן.</b> כי הכהנים יפרישו בין זבה לנדה כאשר אחז\"ל בין דם לדם ועתה יחל לבאר הטמאים מדבר נסתר כי הצרעת נגע גלוי: <b>זב.</b> כמו זבת חלב כדמות טפות נוטפות: <b>מבשרו.</b> כנוי לערות הזכר: <b>זובו.</b> שם: <b>וזאת תהיה טומאתו.</b> הטעם כי הזוב הוא על ב׳‎ דרכים: <b>רר בשרו.</b> מגזרת ויורד רירו על זקנו: <b>או החתים.</b> כמו נסגר מגזרת כי חתום הוא והטעם שהתחבר הזוב ונקרש ולא יצא הקרי בשכבו עם האשה: וגזרה אחת למשכב ולמושב וכן הנוגע באחד מהם משפט אחד לו: <b>והנוגע בבשר הזב.</b> באיזה אבר שיהיה: <b>ירק.</b> ידוע מפעלי הכפל והעד דגשות קו״ף רוקי הנה גם רוקו יזיק כי הזוב מהחליים הנדבקים ואין מנהג האדם שירוק בפני חברו רק איננו בכוונה כי הזב זרק רוקו ונפל על הטהור: <b>וכל המרכב.</b> שהוא מקבל טומאה כדברי המעתיקים: <b>בכל אשר יהיה תחתיו.</b> תחת המרכב יטמא טומאה קלה וטומאה הנושא אותם יותר חמורה: <b>וידיו לא שטף במים.</b> היה נראה לנו כי כל מאכל והדומה לו שיגע בו הזב והנגיעה היא בידים וידיו שטופות איננו טמא בעבור שלא נגע במקום הזוב רק כאשר ראינו כל אבותינו פירשו וידיו כגופו קבלנו דבריהם ועל דרך הפשט כי כל טהור שיגע בו הזב וידיו שטופות הוא יטמא ולא בגדיו ואם לא היו שטופות יטמאו בגדיו וזה כמו הנוגע בכל אשר יהיה תחתיו: <b>לטהרתו.</b> מיום טהרתו: והקרבן עולה וחטאת בעבור כי הזוב מוסר על עון: <b>כי תצא ממנו.</b> שלא ברצונו: <b>שכבת זרע.</b> כמו שכבת הטל מגזרת מי ישכיב: היה נראה לנו שצריך רחיצ׳‎ הבגד או העור אם היה בו זרע לח או יבש והאמת כדברי הקבלה: והשלים דבר הזכר ועתה יחל בנקבה: <b>בבשרה.</b> ערות האשה וטעו המפרשים בבעל קרי את כל בשרו האבר לבד והעד כל: ופירוש <b>ואם על המשכב הוא</b> שב אל הכלי אשר תשב עליו והנה הכלי על המשכב או כלי על כלי על כן הטומאה קלה ולא הזכיר לאשה מרכב כי (בהמ׳‎) (ס״א בהווה) דבר הכתוב והמשפט אחד: <b>ואם שכב איש אותה.</b> בלא זדון רק שוכב עמה בשוגג והנה באה נדתה והיתה עמו וזה טעם עליו כי כרת יש על השוכב עם נדה בזדון וכן הוא משפט הזבה ואם לא נזכר: <b>וכל המשכב אשר ישכב עליו יטמא.</b> כי הוא טמא טומאת שבעה וגם יטמא אחרים ואם לא נכתב: <b>ימים רבים בלא עת נדתה.</b> לכל אשה עתים ידועות או יארע לה זוב על נדתה: <b>והביאה אותם.</b> מלרע והיא מלה זרה: <b>והזרתם.</b> יש מפרשים בו והזרתם בחסרון הה״א וזה לא יתכן כי הה״א איננו מאותיות המשך כי לא יהיה נח נעלם כי אם בסוף המלה רק פירושו כמו ונזרו מקדשי בני ישראל כעין והרחקתם וממנו נזיר שהרחיק נפשו מתאות העולם ומשקלו והפלתם את הארץ כי הנו״ן מובלע בדגש: <b>בטמאתם.</b> בעבור טומאתם ופירושו בטמאם את משכני: <b>לטמאה בה.</b> שמצוה היא שישב טמא ועוד אפרש זה: וטעם <b>לזכר.</b> פירושו זאת תורת הזב: וטעם <b>עם טמאה.</b> זבה או נדה: <b>אחרי מות.</b> אחרי שהזהיר את ישראל שלא ימותו אמר השם למשה שיזהיר גם לאהרן שלא ימות כאשר מתו בניו וזאת הפרשה לאות כי בני אהרן הכניסו הקטורת לפנים מהפרכת: ומלת <b>בקרבתם</b> שם הפעל וה״א לקרבה אל המלאכה שבה תי״ו כמנהג ה״א הנקבה וטעה רבי ישועה שאמר שהוא שם במשקל חכמתם: <b>אל הקדש.</b> כנגד אהל מועד: <b>כי בענן.</b> הטעם שלא יכנס כי אם בקטרת שיעשה ענן ולא יראה הכבוד פן ימות. והנה טעמו לא אהיה נראה אליו כי אם בענן ויש אומרים כי פירוש כי בענן בעבור כי אני דר בענן על הכפורת כטעם ה׳‎ אמר לשכון בערפל: <b>בפר בן בקר.</b> אין פירושו שיביא הפר אל הקדש רק שיתן משלו בתחלה פר חטאת לכפר עליו ועל הכהנים ויש אומרים גם הלוים בעבור שמצאו ואת שם אהרן תכתוב על מטה לוי והוא רחוק רק הלוים יחשבו עם ישראל: <b>כתנת בד קדש.</b> ולא הזכיר האפוד והחשן ומעיל האפוד כי כבר הזכיר ונשמע קולו בבואו אל הקדש ומזה הכתוב למדו אנשי בית שני ששמשו בלא אורים ותומים גם נביאים היו שם: וה<b>קריב אהרן את פר החטאת.</b> אל פתח אהל מועד כמשפט: וטעם <b>וכפר בעדו.</b> כי בו יכפר בעדו ובעד ביתו אחר שישחטנו ויש אומרים כי העמדתו היא כפרה: <b>גרלות.</b> ידועים מדברי קבלת אבותינו. אמר הגאון כי עזאזל שם הר ונקרא כן בעבור שהוא תקיף כי טעם זכר השם כטעם הררי אל יקותיאל והגאון הלוי תפשו כי האל״ף במלת עזאזל הוא בין זי״ן לזי״ן ויש אומרים שהוא הר סמוך אל הר סיני והשם צוה להוליך השעיר ולהעלותו שם עד שישחט ואחר כן היו מוליכים אותו בבית המקדש להר אחר והעד שאמר ויעש אהרן וכן בחג שבועות לפי דעתי כאשר אפרש במקומו ויש אומרים כי עבודת בית שני לא היתה כראשון כי היה הכהן מחוסר בגדים ואין כפרת וזה המפרש אמר כי השעיר ישלח במדבר כי כן כתוב ושלח את השעיר במדבר וטעמו כטעם צפור המטהר מהצרעת שהוא על פני השדה מקום שאין שם ישוב והעד אל ארץ גזרה ואנחנו השיבונו כי השעיר ישלחו במדבר כאשר הוא כתוב וירדוף אחריו עד שיברח ויעל אל הצור על כן אמרו חז״ל ודוחפו ואמר רב שמואל אף על פי שכתוב בשעיר החטאת שהוא לשם גם השעיר המשתלח הוא לשם ואין צריך כי המשלח איננו קרבן כי לא ישחט ואם יכולת להבין הסוד שהוא אחר מלת עזאזל תדע סודו וסוד שמו כי יש לו חברים במקרא ואני אגלה לך קצת הסוד ברמז בהיותך בן שלשים ושלש תדענו: <b>ועשהו חטאת.</b> שישחטנה: <b>יעמד חי.</b> מהבנין הכבד הנוסף שלא נזכר שם פועלו והיה היו״ד ראוי להיותו מאוסף בשור״ק רק נרחב בעבור אות הגרון וכן יחרם כל רכושו: <b>לכפר עליו.</b> כי הכפור יהי עליו ופירושו לשלח אותו: <b>והקריב אהרן.</b> בעבור שארכו דברי השעירים הוסיף לבאר אחר שהקריב הפר ושני השעירים אל אהל מועד יחל לשחוט את הפר שלו: <b>המחתה.</b> ידועה היא: <b>חפניו.</b> שניהם: <b>קטרת סמים.</b> היא הנזכרת: היה נראה לנו כי על פני הכפרת ולפני הכפרת כמשמעו והמעתיקים אמרו כי על פני הכפרת הוא על בין הבדים ולפני הכפורת ידוע מדבריהם והוא אמת: <b>ושחט את שעיר החטאת אשר לעם.</b> ועתה ישחטנו בצאתו כי יש אומרים שהוא ישחט קודם הפר ואיננו אמת: <b>וכפר על הקדש.</b> הוא קדש הקדשים: <b>וכן יעשה לאהל מועד.</b> שיזה שבע פעמים לפני הפרוכת ועל קרנות מזבח הקטורת: וטעם <b>וכפר על הקדש.</b> להיות הדם כופר שלא ישחת בעבור טומאת הטמאים: <b>וכל אדם.</b> מהכהנים: <b>לכפר בקדש.</b> בפנים: <b>וכפר בעדו ובעד ביתו.</b> בפר חטאתו: <b>ובעד כל קהל ישראל.</b> בשעיר חטאתם: <b>ויצא אל המזבח.</b> הוא מזבח העולה: <b>ונתן אותם.</b> אחר שיסורו מישראל כאילו נתונים הם אל ראש השעיר והולכים אל מקום שלא יזכרו עוד והכתוב דבר להבין הכל: <b>עתי.</b> מזומן לעתו או מנהגו ללכת בכל עת בכפורים והיו״ד להתיחס לעת כמו פנימי והמפרשים אותו חכם איננו נכון בעיני וחז״ל אמרו שהנושא הוא כהן ודבריהם אמת: <b>במקום קדוש.</b> בחצר אהל מועד וסדין היו פורשין לו: <b>בגדיו.</b> ששמש בהן בכל יום ויש אומרים שהם הנזכרים והעד שלא נכתב ולבש בגדים אחרים: <b>עלתו.</b> הוא האיל ואיל העם ופר העם ושבעה כבשיהם כי כן כתוב: <b>ואת חלב החטאת.</b> חלב פר החטאת וחלב שעיר החטאת גם חלב שעיר העזים שהוא חטאת לכהן כמשפט ואינו נשרף וזה בפרשת פנחס: <b>ורחץ את בשרו במים.</b> ודי לו כי לא יטמא עד הערב: <b>יוציא אל מחוץ למחנה.</b> בצווי: <b>ושרפו.</b> הכהנים וכל אחד מהשורפים ירחץ במים ומיד יבא אל המחנה והעד שאמר ואחרי כן יבא אל המחנה כי מה צורך לאמרו: <b>והיתה לכם לחקת עולם.</b> זאת העבודה: <b>בחדש השביעי בעשור לחדש תענו את נפשותיכם.</b> אחר שהכתוב אומר ותתענג בדשן נפשכם ידענו כי הענוי הפך התענוג והוא הצום ועוד ונפש נענה תשביע שטעמו כמו ותפק לרעב נפשך כי דרך דברי הנביאים להכפל ואחר שיש לנו קבלה אין צורך לחפש ואין עניתי בצום נפשי ראיה בעבור זכר צום והכלל כל עינוי שימצא במקרא דבק עם נפש הוא הצום: <b>האזרח והגר הגר בתוככם.</b> לא נעזבנו לעשות מלאכה ולא נכריתנו על הצום: <b>יכפר עליכם.</b> הכהן על כן אמרו המפרשים על השעיר המשתלח כי יעמד חי לכפר עליו כי העמדתו היא כפרה: <b>מכל חטאתיכם.</b> כאשר פירשתי ששם חטאת שם כלל על כן תמצא על השגגה ועל הזדון: <b>שבת שבתון.</b> יש אומרים שביתה לנפש ולגוף ואחרים אמרו שהוא שביתת השביתה שאין למעלה ממנה ושניהם שמות פעם יבא זה קודם זה והם שוים ואינו רחוק: <b>חקת עולם.</b> להתענות: <b>וכפר הכהן.</b> שב עתה לפרש על כל מה שיכפר: <b>אשר ימשח אותו.</b> המושח בשמן המשחה אחר שמלא את ידו: <b>ולבש.</b> הוא הלובש אלה בגדי קדש כי אחר לא ילבשם: <b>את מקדש הקדש.</b> היא מבית לפרכת: <b>ועל הכהנים ועל כל עם הקהל יכפר.</b> עמם הלוים כי הם לא יקראו הכהנים רק כל כהן הוא לוי ואין כל לוי כהן: <b>והיתה זאת לכם.</b> וכבר אמר כן להוסיף אחת בשנה: <b>ויעש.</b> אהרן: <b>דבר אל אהרן ואל בניו.</b> כי הם השוחטים לישראל: אילו היה כתוב במחנה מותר לשחטו מחוץ למחנה וזו המצוה תלויה גם בבית המקדש רק בכל מקום שהוא קרוב לירושלים והקרוב ידענו מדברי קבלה כי אם היה המקום רחוק יזבח ויאכל בשר כי כן כתוב ורבים אמרו כי הבשר אסור בגלות ויפרשו בשר ויין לא בא אל פי בשר דג ולא דברו נכונה ואיני רוצה להאריך להשיב עליהם: <b>למען אשר יביאו.</b> זה הטעם על המצוה הזאת ופירוש על פני השדה ולא יזבחו עוד את זבחיהם: <b>לשעירים.</b> הם השדים ונקראו כן בעבור שישתער הגוף הרואה אותם והקרוב בעבור שיראו אותם המשוגעים כדמות שעירים ומלת עוד תורה שכן היו ישראל עושין במצרים: <b>אשר הם זונים.</b> כי כל מי שמבקש אותם ומאמין בהם הוא זונה מתחת אלהיו שיחשוב כי יש מי שייטיב או ירע חוץ מהשם הנכבד והנורא. ובזו הפרשה לא הזכיר הגר כי המצוה על ישראל בזבחים ובעולות והזכיר הגר שלא יעזבו ישראל שיזבח הגר לעבודת כוכבים בארץ ישראל וכן משפט כל דם שהוא אסור בעבור שהוא הנפש כי הבשר בדם והאמת כי הנפש שבה יחיה האדם הוא בדם הלב: <b>בנפש יכפר.</b> בנפש שיש בו יכפר. והטעם נפש תחת נפש ויש מפרשים כמו על נפשותיכם ואין לו טעם אחר שאמר לכפר על נפשותיכם: <b>אשר יצוד ציד חיה.</b> כאיל וצבי: <b>או עוף אשר יאכל.</b> גם מזה הכתוב נלמוד שלא נעזוב הגר שיאכל בארצנו חזיר או סוס או עוף דורס שהוא טמא ויתכן בעבור שצוה שלא יאכל דם ולא יראה דם נשפך חוץ מהמזבח השם צוה לכסות כל דם שאינו קרב לגבי המזבח שלא יחשוב הרואה בראותו והוא דם איל וצבי או עוף כי זבח נזבח לעבודת כוכבים ובפרשת ראה אנכי אפרש סוד זה הפסוק: <b>דמו בנפשו.</b> הוא דבק עם הנפש כי ידוע שהגידים היוצאים מפאת שמאל הלב מחולקים בחצי לדם ולרוח כדמות שמן זית עם האור: <b>ואמר לבני ישראל.</b> טעמו וכבר אמרתי והיא הפרשה הנזכרת: ובעבור שהזכיר חיה שאיננה קרבה וכן עוף הזכיר <b>כל נפש אשר תאכל נבלה</b> שאיננה קרבה גם היא גם הזכירה בעבור הציד אם בזדון הוא עובר בלאו וילקה ואם בשגגה יביא חטאת. ואם טען טוען והלא הכתוב אמר לגר אשר בשעריך תתננה ואכלה התשובה כי זה גר תושב וכן כתוב והגר הגר בתוככם לא נעזבנו שיאכל נבלה רק הנכרי שיבוא בשערינו נתן אותה לו ויאכל אותה לחוץ: <b>ונשא עונו.</b> תמיד והוא יסלח עונו בעונש שיביא השם עליו ובעבור שהזכיר דברי השעירים שהיו עושים במצרים נסמכה זו הפרשה והעריות על מעשה ארץ כנען כי כן מפורש בסוף: וטעם <b>אני ה׳‎ אלהיכם.</b> על זה התנאי אהיה אלהיכם: <b>ובחקתיהם לא תלכו.</b> שלא ירגיל אדם ללכת בדרך הזה עד שיהיה לו חק: ו<b>מעשה ארץ מצרים.</b> על המשפטים והראיה את משפטי תעשו הם הכתובים על ספר הברית המפורש בפרשת אלה המשפטים: <b>אני ה׳‎ אלהיכם.</b> אז אהיה אלהיכם: וטעם <b>ושמרתם את חקתי ואת משפטי.</b> לבאר שהם חיים לעושיהם בשני עולמות כי המבין סודם חי העולם יחיינו ולא ימות לעולם על כן כתוב אני ה׳‎ אלהיכם כאשר פירשתיו: <b>איש איש.</b> כל איש ואיש ובעבור שלא הזכיר מבית ישראל לא נעזוב הגר שיעשה אחת מהתועבות הנזכרות בארצנו שלא יטמא את הארץ: <b>אל כל שאר בשרו.</b> שם כלל לכל העריות ואחר כן פרט. ורב אהרן הכהן אמר שפירושו להוציא שכבת זרע לבטלה: <b>לא תקרבו.</b> כנוי לשכיבה וכן ואקרב אל הנביאה וקרוב ממלת אל תגשו אל אשה: <b>ערוה.</b> דבר מגונה נחשף צריך להתכסות: וטעם <b>אני ה׳‎.</b> שהשם אוהב הנבדל לעבדו ולשמוע דברו והר סיני לעד גם הראשון והוא סוד האדם ובעבור שיצר לב האדם כבהמות לא יתכן לאסור כל הנקבות והנה אסר כל הנמצאות עמו בכל עת ובפרשה כי תצא מחנה אגלה לך סוד סתום וחתום והנה כל המתגאל ירחק משם השם המקובל על כן הזכיר אני ה׳‎: <b>ערות אביך.</b> והחל מהאב שהוא קודם הבן ואמר שאסור הוא כל מי שהיא ערות אב ואם והנה היא האם בראש ואחר כך ערות אשת אב ואיננה אם ואחר כך האחות שהיא בת אביו או בת אם: <b>מולדת בית</b> שנולדה על משפט בית ישראל אחר אירוסין וקדושין: <b>מולדת חוץ</b> חוץ מהמנהג ויש אומרים כי פירוש מולדת כמו יולדו על ברכי יוסף שגדלה עמך בבית או היא במקום אחר ומדינה אחרת וגדלה בחוץ מבית האב עמך ואחר כך הזכיר בת בנך: <b>ערות בת אביך.</b> יש אומרים שהיא האחות מאב ואם ואנחנו ידענו כי השוכב עמה עובר על שני לאוין ויש אומרים כי זה הפסוק לחזוק והצדוקים אמרו שאיננה בת אם ויפרשו מולדת אביך שגדלה אביך והטעם שלקח האב אשה והיתה לה בת קטנה וכן יפרשו על תמר וראייתם כי לא ימנעני ממך רק לא היתה מולדת דוד ואחר שהמעתיקים אמרו כי בת אשת אב מותרת אין צורך להשיב על הבודאים מלבם ויתכן להיות בת אשת אביך בת אנוסה: ומלת <b>שאר</b> ובשר קרובים בטעם: <b>דודתך היא.</b> חשובה היא כדודתך וכן הנה חנמאל דודי והנה מה יעשו הסומכים במצות על התורה לבדה כי לא אסר הכתוב אשת אחי האם ולא אם האב ולא אם האם על כן אנחנו צריכים לקבלה ויתכן שלא הזכיר אשת אחי האם כי נלמוד מאשת אחי האב והזכירה בפרשת קדושים גם הנזכרות שלא הזכירם הכתוב דבר על ההוה: <b>ערות אשת אחיך.</b> בפרשת כי ישבו אחים: והאומר למה לא הזכיר הכתוב הבת והיא מפורשת ערות אשה ובתה בתו או שאיננה בתו כי אחר ששכב עם האם נאסרה הבת: <b>שארה הנה.</b> הם שני שמות שאר עם שארה. היה האל״ף ראוי לנוח כלמ״ד שלמה לולי שהיא מהגרון: <b>לצרור.</b> מגזרת וכעסתה צרתה והנה לא הזכיר בפרשת קדושים עונש השוכב עם שתי אחיות כאשר לא הזכיר עונש השוכב עם בת בנו ועם בת בתו וטעם המפרש כי רחל ולאה לא היו אחיות וראייתו כי את כל התועבות האל וזו איננה ראיה גמורה והשואל איך יעניש השם על דבר שלא הזהיר יש משיבים כי בני נח נצטוו על העריות האלה ואחרים אמרו אף על פי שהכתוב אמר כל התועבות האל בשם כלל אין הפירוש על כולם כי אם על רובם ודעתי תדענה בפרשת וילך משה: והשוכב עם הנדה חשוב מהעריות: <b>ואל אשת עמיתך.</b> להוציא השבויה ויש אומרים כי כבר היתה אסורה ואשר גברה תאות יצרם על דעת לבם תעו בפירוש לזרע וידענו כי המשגל נחלק לג׳‎ חלקים האחד לפריה ורביה בלא תאוה והשני להקל מלאות הגוף והשלישי לתאוה הנמשלת לתאות הבהמה ואחר שאמר הכתוב לזרע שטעמו אפילו לזרע הנה היא אסורה אסור חמור ומזרעך לא תתן הבא אחריו לעד. והוסיף לטמאה בה כי לא ינקה כל הנוגע בה והוא טמא לעולם ובפרשה הזה לא אסר הנכרית כלל ואין טענה מהשבויה כי היא מתייהדת: <b>למלך.</b> שם צלם ודרשו חז״ל שהוא שם כלל כל מי שימליכנו עליו ויתכן שהוא תועבת בני עמון: ומלת <b>להעביר.</b> כמו לשרוף כי זאת היתה עבודתו ויש אומרים כי יעביר הבן על האש ויש מי שיחיה ויש מי שימות ואחרים פירשו בעבור שאין בפסוק זכר אש להעביר מתורת השם לדת המולך וחללת השם שהוא נקרא עליך שהוא אלהיך בתתך מזרע קודש למולך. והגאון אמר כי הנאוף על שמנה מעלות והקשה שבכלם הבהמה שהיא ממין אחר ואחריה הזכר שכל המין אסור ואחריה ערות אשת אב וחביריה שהן אסורו בכל עת ולא אאריך כי לא יועילו אלו הדברים כי הכתוב אמר על כלם ונכרתו הנפשות העושות: <b>ואת זכר.</b> אחר שמצאנו הן שכבתי אמש את אבי הנה אזהרה לשוכב ולנשכב ויאמר רב חננאל ז״ל כי יש מי שיחדש בגופו כצורת בשר אשה וזה לא יתכן בתולדה ויש אומרים אנדרוגינוס וכל הצער הזה בעבור היות משכבי אשה לשון רבים ודברי יחיד שני משכבים והנכון בעיני כי המצוה כפשוטה גם אנשי התושיה חייבו מיתה עליה והכתוב אחז דרך כבוד לאמר כמו לא תקרב ואחר שהזכר נברא לעשות והנקבה להעשות הזהיר הכתוב שלא תהפוך דברי השם ויש משכב להוציא הזרע על כן מלת משכבי לשון רבים. ואין ראוי להאריך: והזכיר <b>תועבה היא.</b> כי הוא דבר נתעב לנפש קדושה אפי׳‎ לו בתולדה: ומלת <b>שכבתך.</b> כבר פירשתיה ויתכן להיותו שכבתך משכיבה כי עם השכיבה יקרה קרי וכמו שאמר באשת איש לטמאה בה כן אמר בבהמה: <b>ובכל בהמה.</b> נקבה: <b>ולפני בהמה.</b> זכר: <b>לרבעה.</b> שב אל הבהמה כי האשה היא הנרבעת וזאת המלה מגזרת אדבעה: <b>תבל הוא.</b> אנשי הדקדוק אמרו שזאת המלה מהכפל כמו תמס יהלוך והתי״ו נוסף ואמרו כי טעמה כמו השחתה ויש אומרים כי גם מבול ממנו וקרוב מגזרת בלל ה׳‎ שפת כל הארץ וזה הכלל אסר הכתוב כל מין שיוכל האדם להתייחד עמם אשת איש ונכריה ואשר לא יוליד כי מין לא יוליד כי אם ממינו וכמינו: <b>אל תטמאו.</b> דגשות הטי״ת להתבלע תי״ו התפעל ולא נו״ן בנין נפעל והעד דגשות הטי״ת להתבלע תי״ו התפעל ולא נו״ן בנין נפעל והעד דגשות המ״ם כמשפט והנה הזכיר כל כלם שהם מטמאים הנפש: <b>משלח מפניכם.</b> טעמו מהארץ הטהורה מתים או מגורשים: <b>ותקיא הארץ.</b> כי מה שיקיא האדם הוא נתעב בעיניו ואליו לא ישוב: <b>ושמרתם את חקתי.</b> אלה שאמרתי לכם אלה תהיינה אסורות: <b>ואת משפטי.</b> שתעשו המשפט שאצוה על העובר על אחת מהן וטעם ולא תעשו מכל התועבות האלה שנית להכניס הגר כי זאת המצוה היא שוה לאזרח ולגר בעבור שהוא דר בארץ ישראל ואם יש לך לב תוכל להבין כי בימי יעקב שלקח שתי אחיות בחרן ואחריו עמרם שלקח דודתו במצרים לא נטמאו בהם: וטעם <b>כי את כל התועבות האל.</b> שתדעו זה גם אתם גם בניכם שתשמרו אותם ותהיה הארץ טהורה ולא תקיא הארץ אתכם: <b>האל</b> עם האלה שוה כמו ההם ההמה ואין זאת דעת הגאון: <b>כאשר קאה.</b> פועל עבר מגזרת שתו ושכרו וקיו כי אותיות אהו״י מתחלפים ויש ארץ לשון זכר נעתם ארץ ולא נשא אותם הארץ או חסר מלת היא כאילו הוא כאשר היא קאה כמו באה עם הצאן: <b>ונכרתו הנפשות העשת.</b> בפרהסיא שתמיתום ואת בסתר אני אכריתם: <b>ושמרתם את משמרתי.</b> זאת המשמרת והיא לבלתי עשות: וטעם <b>אשר נעשו לפניהם.</b> שלא יאמר אדם הואיל ועשו כן הקדמונים אעשה כן גם אני: וטעם <b>אני ה׳‎ אלהיכם.</b> דבק עם משמרתי שלא ישאל חסר לב למה זאת המשמרת כי אני ה׳‎ אלהיכם עשו כל אשר אצוה אתכם: טעם <b>אל כל עדת בני ישראל.</b> להכניס את הגרים בעבור שהם נזהרים על העריות כישראלים: וטעם להזכיר זאת הפרשה אחרי העריות שלא יחשבו כי בעבור שמירת העריות לבדם יעמדו בארץ אמר להם שגם יש מצות אחרות אם לא תשמרום תגורשו מן הארץ והם עשרת הדברים הנזכרים כי הנה הזהיר על עבודת כוכבים אחר שאמר כי קדוש אני ה׳‎ כי הוא כנגד הדבור הראשון על דעת רבים ולא תשבעו בשמי הוא דבור לא תשא ואת שבתתי תשמרו זכור את יום השבת גם איש אמו ואביו תיראו הוא דבור כבד את אביך ואת אמך גם לא תעמוד על דם רעך דבור לא תרצח. ודבר השפחה הנחרפת אזהרת לא תנאף עם שהיא חפשית. גם לא תגנובו ולא תכחשו ולא תשקרו ולא תעשוק את רעך כנגד השלשה הנשארים: וכבר אמרתי לך בפרשת ואלה המשפטים שכל מצוה ומצוה עומדת בפני עצמה לכן יש כדמות סמך להדביק הפסוקים. והנה פרשת קדושים תחלתו איש אמו ואביו תיראו והנה אמר כי יאריכון ימי המכבד אם כן יקצרון ימי המקלה על כן אמר תיראו וטעם להזכיר האם קודם האב כי הקטן איננו מכיר בתחלה כי אם אמו ואחר כן אביו ואחר כן שבת כי מצוה על הקטן לשמור את השבת ואין ככה שאר המועדים ואחר כן יכיר אלהיו ששבת ביום השביעי ואחריו אל תפנו אל האלילים ומורא האבות ידוע מהקבלה. ואמר איש פעם אחת דרך קצרה. ואמר תיראו לשון רבים כי חייבים הרואים ללמדו ולהכריחו וכן בשמירת שבת: וטעם <b>אני ה׳‎ אלהיכם.</b> שתעשו כמוני ששבתתי מכל מלאכה: <b>אל תפנו.</b> אפילו בלב להסתכל: <b>האלילים.</b> הם הפסילים ונקראו כן כי הם דבר שקר כמו רופאי אליל כלכם ויתכן להיות מגזרת אל והטעם שאיננו יש: <b>ואלהי מסכה.</b> לקבל כח העליונים כי אין צורך לאלוה אחר עמי על כן כתוב אני ה׳‎ אלהיכם ובלשון רבים תפנו גם תעשו כי הרואה ולא יגלה הדבר הוא משתתף עמו: <b>וכי תזבחו זבח שלמים.</b> דבק עם הכתוב למעלה בעבור שלא יזבחו לשדים לא אלוה כי אם לשם לבדו. וטעם לשון רבים תזבחו כי על הרוב דבר הכתוב שיתחברו אנשים על זבח אחד: וטעם <b>לרצונכם.</b> שיביאו הזבח ברצונם ולא בהכרח: <b>ואכליו.</b> כל אחד מאוכליו וכן וצדיקים ככפיר יבטח: <b>כי את קדש ה׳‎ חלל.</b> אחר שהקריב האימורים לגבוה הנה כל הבשר קדש. וחלל מגזרת חול שאין לו טעם כדמות חלל. ובפרשה הזאת באר עונש העון ונכרתה הנפש ההוא: וטעם <b>ובקצרכם.</b> אחר זבח שלמים כאשר נתת לשם האימורים כן תתנו מקציר ארצכם לכבוד השם לעני ולגר. ודקדוק בקצרכם זר והוא שם הפעל מן הקל: <b>פאת שדך.</b> שיעזוב פאה בשדה: <b>ולקט.</b> ידוע: <b>תעולל.</b> תכרית העוללות הם הקטנים כמו עולל גם יקראו יונקות וזאת המלה כמו ושרשך מארץ חיים שטעמו יכרית השרש וכן מסעף פארה יכרות הסעיף: <b>ופרט.</b> ידוע בדברי קבלה מגזרת הפורטים על פי הנבל: <b>לעני.</b> ישראל: <b>ולגר.</b> הגר אתכם: וטעם <b>לא תגנבו.</b> אחר כך. כי כן צויתיך שתתן משלך אל העניים לכבוד השם אף שתקח מה שהוא לאחרים: וטעם <b>תגנובו.</b> כי הרואה ומחריש גם הוא גנב: <b>תכחשו.</b> בפקדון מופקד אצלך והיודע ואיננו מעיד גם הוא מכחש: <b>תשקרו.</b> שיבקש ממון ממי שאין לו אצלו כלום: וטעם <b>ולא תשבעו בשמי לשקר.</b> אחר לא תגנובו כי החשוד בגנבה ופקדון ישבע. וטעם <b>תשבעו.</b> להכניס המשביע: וטעם <b>וחללת.</b> שהנשבע לשקר מכחש השם כאשר פירשתיו: <b>לא תעשק את רעך.</b> בסתר: <b>ולא תגזול.</b> בגלוי בחזקה: <b>פעלת.</b> כמו שכירות וכן ופעולתו לפניו ויתכן היותו דרך קצרה והטעם שכר פעולתו ורבים פירשוהו על שכיר יום שיאמרו לו גם תעשה בבקר ובבקר אתן לך שכר שני ימים והמעתיקים אמרו כי הוא שכיר יום כי שכיר לילה לא תבוא עליו השמש.  וכן <b>לא תקלל חרש</b> בעבור שיש לך כח. וכן ולפני עור: <b>ויראת מאלהיך.</b> שהוא יכול להענישך לשומך חרש ועור: <b>לא תעשו עול.</b> על הדיינים והעדים ידבר: <b>פני גדול.</b> בממון כברזילי: <b>רכיל.</b> כמו רכולתך מכל אבקת רוכל והטעם המלשין כי הרוכל מעתיק יקנה מזה וימכור לזה והרכיל יגלה לזה מה ששמע מזה: <b>לא תעמד על דם רעך.</b> שלא יתחבר עם אנשי דמים וידוע כי כמה נרצחו ונהרגו בעבור המלשינות ודואג האדומי לעד: וטעם <b>אני ה׳‎.</b> רואה מה שאתה עושה בסתר: <b>לא תשנא את אחיך.</b> הפך ואהבת לרעך והנה אלה המצות כולם נטועות בלב ובהשמרם ישבו בארץ כי על שנאת חנם חרב בית שני: <b>הוכח תוכיח.</b> שמא תחשדהו בדבר ולא היה כן וזה טעם ולא תשא עליו חטא כי עונש יהיה לך בעבורו: <b>לא תקם ולא תטר.</b> מפורש בדברי חז״ל: <b>ואהבת לרעך.</b> על דעת רבים שהלמ״ד נוסף כלמ״ד לאבנר ועל דעתי שהוא כמשמעו שיאהב הטוב לחברו כמו לנפשו: וטעם <b>אני ה׳‎.</b> כי אני אלוה אחד בראתי אתכם: וטעם להזכיר אחר אלה המצות <b>בהמתך לא תרביע כלאים.</b> להזהיר אחר היותך קדוש שלא תעשה חמס לבן אדם כמוך גם לא תעשה לבהמה לשנות מעשה השם על כן כתוב את חקתי תשמרו לשמור כל מין שלא יתערב מין עם מין: <b>כלאים.</b> שני מינים ועוד אפרש מלת כלאים. וטעם השדה והבגד להיות לזכרון כי יש מצות רבות לזכר כחג המצות וסוכות וציצית ושופר ומזוזה ותפילין. ופה ארמוז לך סוד דע כי השלם שלם מאד על כן כתוב באברהם וישמור משמרתי מצותי חקותי ותורותי: <b>שעטנז.</b> המעתיקים אמרו שהיא שלש מלות או מחומשת ופירושה מעורב והוא שם לבדו במקרא: <b>והוא שפחה.</b> אמרו המכחישים כי איננה יהודית והנכון על דרך הפשט שהיא הנזכרת בפרשת וכי ימכור איש את בתו לאמה והיא ישראלית והטעם שהוא יעדה שיקחנה אדוניה או בנו ואיננה מאורסה וזה טעם כי לא חפשה איננה חפשית עד שתהיה מאורסה כמשפט הבנות: ומלת <b>נחרפת.</b> על דעת רבים יעודה ולפי דעתי שהמלה מגזרת חרפה בעבור היותה שפחה והיא בתולה ברשות אחר ואינה מאורשה: <b>והפדה.</b> שם הפעל מהבנין שלא נקרא שם פועלו מהכבד הנוסף והטעם שלא פדאה אביה או אחד ממשפחתה קודם היותה בוגרת: <b>או חפשה.</b> השורק מקום קמץ חטף כי האחד חופש והטעם שהיה המנהג לכתוב לה גט חופש אם מכרה האב עד זמן קצוץ והמעתיקים אמרו שחציה חפשית וחציה אמה והוא האמת: <b>בקרת תהיה.</b> יש אומרים שפירושו כמו פילגש ואמרו כי כן בנות מלכים ביקרותיך ולא פרשו נכון כי ביקרותיך טעמו השפחות היקרות ונעלם היו״ד בעבור האות המשרת בחיר״ק והיה בחיר״ק בעבור התחברות שני שואי״ן נעים האחד תחת האות המשרת והשני תחת האות הראשון של השרש בלשון נקבות ואין כח בלשון להזכיר ככה וכן משפט כל הלשון ואין מלה זרה חוץ ממלת ורבים מישני אדמת עפר יקיצו על קריאת בן נפתלי. ויש אומרים בקורת מגזרת לא יבקר הכהן והטעם שיחפש הדבר והמעתיקים אמרו כי יש עליו מלקות ברצועה של בקר וזה אמת מדברי קבלה והמלה כדמות אסמכתא. וטעם להזכיר זאת הפרשה כי הוא עושק אדני השפחה על כן יביא איל אשם ועוד על דרך דרש שזאת השכיבה כמו כלאים חפשי עם שפחה: <b>ונסלח לו.</b> אפרשנו עוד: וטעם להזכיר ערלת הפרי. בעבור שהזכיר זרע השדה וזרע האשה שהיא כארץ הזכיר גם הנטוע וידוע כי הפרי הבא עד שלש שנים אין בו תועלת ומזיק כאשר יזיק לגוף כל דג שאין לו סנפיר וקשקשת ויזיק לנפש החכמה בשר כל עוף דורס והבהמות הטמאות והמשכיל יבין: וטעם <b>וערלתם ערלתו.</b> שאותו הפרי הוא חשוב כערלה שהיא מזקת ולא תועיל כערלת שפה ואוזן וערלת בשר: וטעם <b>וערלתם.</b> שיהיה נחשב בעיניכם כדבר ערלה גם יפה הוא מתורגם בארמית: <b>יהיה לכם ערלים</b> פירוש וערלתם: <b>קדש הלולים.</b> להלל השם והכהן יאכלנו: וטעם <b>להוסיף לכם תבואתו.</b> דבק עם קדש הלולים ואם הוא רחוק וכן שלם ישלם ואם אין לו דבוק עם חמשה בקר ישלם תחת השור ורבים כמוהם: וטעם <b>אני ה׳‎ אלהיכם.</b> שאוסיף ברכה בתבואה: <b>לא תאכלו על הדם.</b> דבוק עם הכתוב למעלה כי הזהיר על עץ נטוע שלא יאכלו מפריו עד השנה החמישית גם כן כל בשר טהור לא יאכל עד שיזרוק דמו על מזבח השם אם היה קרוב אל מקום הקדש והעד הנאמן דברי שאול כי הארון היה עמו כי כן כתוב הנה אוכלים על הדם כאילו אוכלים זבחים לשעירים כאשר פירשתי שהיה כן מנהגם במצרים לזבוח בשם השדים כי אחר שלא נזרק הדם על המזבח לשם השם הנה הדבר ברור על כן דבק עמו לא תנחשו כי במצרים היו אוכלים על הדם וזונים אחרי השדים ובארץ כנען מנחשים ומעוננים כי כן כתוב גם זה כמעשה ארץ מצרים וכמעשה ארץ כנען. ומלת מנחש מנסה כמו נחשתי ויברכני ה׳‎ כי נחוש בצורות ובמקלות ובמעשים ובתנועות ובימים ושעות: <b>תעוננו.</b> יש אומרים מלשון ענה שיחשוב בלבו דבר ויטה אזניו לשמוע מה יענה המדבר ולא אבה הדקדוק ויש אומרים מעונן לשון ועונתה לא יגרע והנכון בעיני מגזרת ענן כי ידוע כי יש מי שיעונן שיסתכל בעננים ובדמותם ובתנועתם ויתכן להיות תעוננו מפעלי הכפל כמו תסובבו כי מצאנו ועוננים כפלשתים כי יתכן היותו מבנין הכפול והעד ומעונן ומנחש: וטעם להזכיר <b>לא תקפו פאת ראשכם.</b> כמעשה הגוים להיות מובדלים מהם ואחר ששער הראש והזקן לתפארת נברא אין ראוי להשחיתו ויש אומרים כי זה הפסוק דבק עם ושרט לנפש כי יש מי שישחית פאת ראשו גם פאת זקן בעבור המת: <b>ושרט.</b> גם הפאה בראש ובזקן ידועים מדברי קבלה: ומלת <b>לנפש.</b> הגוף המת וכן מתורגם והוא האמת ולא נדגש הנו״ן להקל על הלשון: <b>וכתבת קעקע.</b> יש אומרים שהוא דבק עם ושרט לנפש כי יש מי שירשום גופו בצורה הידועה באש על המת ויש עוד היום רושמים בנערותם בפניהם להיות נכרים. ומלת <b>קעקע.</b> כפולה כמו רוקע הארץ וצאצאיה והוא מגזרת והוקע אותם ועל דעת המתרגם גם היא מלה זרה גם הוא הנכון: וטעם להזכיר <b>אל תחלל את בתך.</b> בעבור שרט לנפש שלא תתגלה לעיני הכל כי קול שבאשה ערוה ואף כי שרט: <b>ולא תזנה הארץ.</b> הטעם זנות אנשי הארץ כמו ארץ כי תחטא לי: וטעם להזכיר <b>את שבתתי תשמרו.</b> בעבור המת שאין אבל בשבת: וטעם <b>ומקדשי תיראו.</b> על הכהן הגדול שלא יהיה כשאר האבלים וכן אזהרה על כל אנשי המקדש: וטעם <b>אני ה׳‎.</b> שאם לא ייראו ממקדשו ויתנו לו כבוד יענישם: וטעם להזכיר האובות וידעונים. בעבור המת וכן כתוב בישעיה בעד החיים אל המתים. <b>האבת.</b> מגזרת וכאובות חדשים כי הם עיקר זאת האומנות: <b>והידענים.</b> מגזרת דעת שיבקשו לדעת העתידות וריקי מוח אמרו לולי שהאובות אמת גם כן דרך הכשוף לא אסרם הכתוב ואני אומר הפך דבריהם כי הכתוב לא אסר האמת רק השקר והעד האלילים הפסילים ולולי שאין רצוני להאריך הייתי מבאר דבר בעלת אוב בראיות גמורות: וטעם <b>אל תפנו.</b> ליודע האומנות: וטעם <b>אל תבקשו.</b> לשאול כשאול: וטעם <b>אני ה׳‎ אלהיכם.</b> שלא תבקשו כי אם השם לבדו והנה הזכיר לטמאה כי נפש הפונה והמבקש טמאה היא כי איננה דבקה בשם: וטעם להזכיר <b>מפני שיבה תקום.</b> בעבור המת כי הזקן קרוב למיתה כי גופו כמת נחשב והנה טעמו כל זקן וכל איש שיבה: וטעם <b>ויראת מאלהיך.</b> שיענישך בימי הזקנה: <b>וכי יגור אתך גר.</b> הזכירו אחר הזקן והטעם כאשר הזהרתיך לכבד הזקן הישראלי בעבור שאין לו כח כך אזהירך על הגר שכחך גדול מכחו או בעבור שאין לו כח שהוא בארצך ברשותך: <b>ואהבת לו.</b> מפורש: וטעם <b>לא תעשו עול.</b> בעבור הגר כטעם ושפטתם צדק בין איש ובין אחיו ובין גרו וכן במדה שלא תעשה מרמה במדת האמות גם האמות משתנות ויתכן להיות פירוש כמשפט הידוע בארץ: <b>מאזני צדק אבני צדק.</b> פירוש במשקל: <b>איפת צדק.</b> ביבש: <b>והין צדק.</b> בלח פירוש במשורה: וטעם <b>אני ה׳‎ אלהיכם אשר הוצאתי אתכם.</b> בעבור שהזכיר כי גרים הייתם בארץ מצרים על כן אתם חייבין לשמור חקותי ומשפטי בלבבכם ועשיתם אותם: וטעם <b>אני ה׳‎.</b> שתרדפו אחרי החקות ששמתי בכם כי כלם צדק: וטעם <b>וידבר ה׳‎ אל משה לאמר.</b> בעבור כי אלה המצות חיוב על כל ישראל ואין גר עמם על כן כתוב בתחלה אל כל עדת ישראל ועתה יחל להזכיר עונש הזנות על כל מי שהוא דר בא״י אזרח או גר תושב והחל מהקשה שבכלם והוא אשר יתן מזרעו למולך והטעם לשכב עם עובדת עבודת כוכבים: וטעם <b>עם הארץ.</b> ארץ שהוא דר בה אזרח או גר וזה בפרהסיא: <b>ואני אתן את פני באיש ההוא.</b> אם היה בסתר ויש אומרים כי טעמו להכרית זרעו: <b>למען טמא את מקדשי.</b> שהוא בתוך ארץ ישראל: <b>ולחלל את שם קדשי.</b> שישמעו הגוים: והיה נראה לנו כי טעם באבן שם המין כמו ויהי לי שור וחמור ודברי הקבלה נכונים והם אמת. ויאמר רבי יונה המדקדק הספרדי נ״ע כי פירוש ובמשפחתו הדומה אליו ומי הביאנו בצרה הזאת רק פירוש כמשמעו כי עם הארץ יעלימו עיניהם בעבור שהם ממשפחתו: וטעם <b>ואת כל הזונים אחריו.</b> שאם לא יומת יזנו אחרים: <b>והנפש אשר תפנה אל האבת.</b> טעמו כאשר אכרית הנותן מזרעו למולך בסתר או בגלוי אם לא ימיתוהו עם הארץ כן אכרית הזונה מאחרי לפנות אל האובות ומצאנו נפשים גם כל נפש ארבעה עשר וכן והכרתי אותו: <b>והתקדשתם כי אני ה׳‎ אלהיכם.</b> קדש ונתתי לכם חקת לשמרם כדי לקדשכם וכבר הזכיר זה הכתוב והטעם להכניס את הגרים התושבים עם ישראל שהם חייבים להיותם קדושים בעבור שידורו בארץ קדושה: והחל להזכיר עונש הכתובים בתחלת הפרשה מהאב כאשר החל איש אמו ואביו תיראו. וטעם להזכיר האב קודם האם בעבור כבודו ואיננו כמו איש אמו ואביו תיראו כי לא יומת אם לא היה בר מצוה: <b>אשר יקלל את אביו.</b> מושך עצמו ואחר עמו וכן הוא ואשר יקלל את אמו. וטעם <b>אביו ואמו קלל.</b> כאומר תועבה גדולה עשה: <b>דמיו בו.</b> כמו דמו בראשו והנסקלים גם הנחנקים דמיהם בם וכלל אומר בכל המיתות כי צריכים אנחנו למסורת אבותינו כי לא נוכל להוציאם להמיתם מהכתוב גם כן לא נכתב בן כמה שנים יהיה בר מצוה ואחר כן הזכיר ואיש אשר ינאף את אשת איש כי אסורה היתה: וטעם <b>אשר ינאף את אשת רעהו.</b> כמו אביו ואמו קלל כי עשה דבר רע: <b>והנואפת.</b> אם היתה אנוסה לא תקרא בשם הזה: <b>ערות אביו גלה.</b> דבר גדול עשה: <b>כלתו.</b> אשת בנו: <b>תבל.</b> פירשתיו: <b>תועבה עשו.</b> אם הנשכב איננו אנוס: <b>ואיש אשר יקח את אשה וגו׳‎ זמה הוא.</b> כטעם זנות במחשבה: <b>ואתהן.</b> זאת או זאת אם היתה האם אשתו תשרף הבת וכן הפך הדבר: <b>ואת הבהמה תהרוגו.</b> שלא תחטיא אחר ויש אומרים להסתיר הקלון: <b>לרבעה.</b> שם הפעל ואם הוא בחיר״ק כמו בשברי לכם כי משקלי שמות הפועלים הם משתנים: <b>ואיש אשר יקח את אחותו.</b> במקום שאינם יודעים בו ואח״כ נודע הדבר: וטעם <b>וראה את ערותה.</b> או ראה כמו אביו ואמו קלל וראה כמו גלה: וטעם <b>והיא תראה את ערותו.</b> שהסכימו שניהם על זה: <b>חסד הוא.</b> מגזרת פן יחסדך שומע וטעמו תוספת בזנות: <b>ערות אחתו גלה.</b> באונס: <b>עונו ישא.</b> לבדו. וטעם להזכיר אלה הדברים באחות בעבור שגדלו יחד והם נערים משחקים וכל עת יתייחד עמה ולא הזכיר הכתוב עונש בת הבן או בת הבת כי סמך על תורה שבעל פה גם יתכן שלא הזכירם בעבור חוסר תאות האב כי הוא בא בימים הזמן שתהיה לו בת בוגרת ועל כן לא הזכיר הכתוב אם האב ואם האם כי הן זקנות: <b>דוה.</b> היא חולה בעבור הדם: וטעם <b>מקרה הערה.</b> שעשה תועבה גדולה: וטעם <b>והיא גלתה.</b> ברצונה כי אם היא אנוסה לבדו יכרת: <b>וערות אחות אמך.</b> טעמו כבר הזהרתי לא תגלה והנה המגלה את הערוה הערה שארו: <b>עונם ישאו.</b> אם הדבר ברצונם לא הזכיר עונש אחות האב גם לא הזכיר כלל עונש שתי אחיות והמשכיל יבין גם דברי הקבלה אמת: <b>את דדתו.</b> היא אשת דודו: <b>ערירים ימותו.</b> אמרו הצדוקים שהוא כמו ערומים ופירוש ימותו כמו יומתו ולא אמרו אמת והנכון שהוא כדברי המתרגם ארמית וכבר פירשתי כתבו את האיש הזה ערירי כי הוא כמו הולך ערירי: ואמר על אשת אח <b>נדה</b> והטעם ראוי שירחק ממנה וכן אמרו אחיכ׳‎ שונאיכם מנדיכם והנה אין בעריות זכר נדה כי אם באשת אח והנדה אסורה גם תבוא עת להיות מותרת גם כן יתכן באשת האח כאשר אפרש בפרשת כי ישבו אחים יחדו ואשר אמרו כאשר היא אחות האב אסורה כן אסור לאשה שתנשא לדודה לא זה הדרך כי העריות הזכרים הם המכריחים ואין מי יכריחם ואם בדרך שקול דעתם החסרה יראה לנו למה לא נקבל עדות שתים נשים ואם על הערכים תהיינה ארבעת נשים כמו שני עדים על כן אנחנו צריכים לקבלה: <b>ושמרתם את כל חקתי.</b> שלא לעבור על אלה העריות: <b>ואת כל משפטי.</b> משפטי העונש: וטעם <b>ולא תקיא הארץ.</b> אפרש בפרשת וילך: <b>ואקץ בם.</b> דרך משל כמו ותקצר נפשו: וטעם <b>ארץ זבת חלב.</b> שאין כמוה: <b>אשר הבדלתי אתכם מן העמים.</b> באלה החקים ועוד שתבדילו בין הבהמה: וטעם <b>הטהרה.</b> העשרה הנזכרים וכל האחרים טמאים: וטעם <b>העוף הטמא.</b> הנזכר וכל האחרים טהורים: וטעם <b>לטמא.</b> שתדעו שהוא טמא במחשבה ובדבור וכן תשקצו מן העוף על כן גר תושב לא יאכל טמא בארץ טהורה כי על זה התנאי ידור בתוכנו: ואם תשמרו כל אשר צויתי אתכם אז תהיו קדושים כי חייבים אתם ללכת אחרי כי קדוש אני: וטעם <b>ואיש או אשה.</b> בעבור שאמר על האובות לטמאה בהם אמר היו קדושים והמיתו אשר יטמא נפשו באוב ובידעוני כי עד כה לא הזכיר עונש פונה אל אוב בפרהסיא. וטעם להזכיר האשה כי זאת האומנות ביד הנשים יותר וכן מכשפה לא תחיה: <b>אמר אל הכהנים.</b> אחר שהזהיר ישראל ובני אהרן בכללם להיותם קדושים הזהיר בני אהרן שהם חייבים להשמר מדברים אחרים בעבור שהם משרתי השם ויתכן להיות פירוש אמור אל הכהנים כל הפרשה הנזכרת כי התורה בידם: <b>ואמרת אליהם.</b> טעמי המצות שהם חייבים לשמרם לבדם: <b>לנפש.</b> הוא המת: מלת <b>יטמא.</b> מבנין התפעל ודגשות הטי״ת להתבלע התי״ו: וטעם <b>בעמיו.</b> בכל ישראל שהם עמיו: <b>כי אם לשארו הקרוב אליו.</b> היה נראה לנו כי פירושו כמו איש איש אל כל שאר בשרו שם כלל ואחר כן פרט לאמו ולאביו: וטעם <b>בעל בעמיו.</b> שלא יטמא הבעל באשתו וכאשר ראינו שהעתיקו רבותינו כי יטמא לאשתו ושמו לשארו כדרך אסמכתא כאשר פירשתי במלת לעם נכרי ואמרו כי פירוש בעל גדול שהעם ברשותו כמו בעליו אין עמו בטל הפירוש הראשון. וטעם להזכיר אמו קודם האב כי הזכר חי יותר מהנקבה ברוב: <b>הקרובה אליו.</b> להיותה אחותו מאב ואם והנה לא יטמא בעל בעמיו בכהנים או בישראלים חוץ מהנזכרים: <b>להחלו.</b> דגשות הלמ״ד להתבלע אחר והוא שם הפעל מבנין נפעל: <b>לא יקרחה קרחה בראשם.</b> על המת: <b>ופאת זקנם.</b> על המת כמנהג מקומות בארץ כשדים והנה התברר פירוש את פאת זקנך: וטעם <b>שרטת.</b> אפילו אחת וכבר נזהרו ישראל על אלה. וטעם הזהירם כי ראש מוקרח וזקן מגולח ובשר שרוט לא ישמש לפני השם: <b>ולא יחללו שם אלהיהם.</b> פירוש כי את אשי ה׳‎: <b>אשה זונה.</b> לא מצאנו על דרך הפשט בכל המקרא זונה כי אם כמשמעה גם כן ויתנו את הילד בזונה כאשר פירשתיו: <b>וחללה.</b> שאינה מפורסמת כזונה ולפי הפשט היה נראה מדברי יחזקאל כי אלמנות כהן מותרות לכהנים לכן דברי הקבלה הוא הנכון: <b>וקדשתו.</b> במחשבה ובדבור: <b>לחם אלהיך.</b> מאכל שהוא קרב לשם: <b>אני ה׳‎ מקדשכם.</b> כלכם: <b>כי תחל.</b> לדעת רבים מגזרת תחלה ולפי דעתי מלשון חלול רק הוא מהבנין הכבד הנוסף כמו לא יחל דברו ועל שני הפירושים המלה היא מפעלי הכפל רק היא זרה ויתכן שתהיה זרה החל גם תחל שלא יתערבו עם טעם תחלה בעבור היות התי״ו קמוץ בקמץ קטן וכן לבלתי החל: <b>ובת כהן.</b> אם חללה עצמה בזנות בעבור שחללה כבוד אביה: <b>באש תשרף.</b> בעולה. או ארוסה: <b>את הבגדים.</b> והם בגדי קדש: <b>את ראשו לא יפרע ובגדיו לא יפרם.</b> מזה הכתוב נלמוד מה שהעתיקו חז״ל במשפט האבלות: <b>ועל כל נפשות מת לא יבא.</b> גוף מת והגוף חסר כי מת שם התאר וכן ועשיר יענה עזות ומאכלו בריאה תחסר שה: וטעם <b>לא יבא.</b> באהל או בבית ששם המת: וטעם <b>לאביו ולאמו.</b> שהיא מצוה עליו לכבדם בחייהם ובמותם ואף כי לאחיו ולבנו: <b>ומן המקדש לא יצא.</b> אמרו המעתיקים אחר המת והוא הנכון ויש אומרים בשבעת ימי המלואים וזה לא יתכן כי כבר באר ומלא את ידו גם כן יתכן שלא יצא מן המקדש כי אם לדבר מצוה: <b>בבתוליה.</b> יש שמות בלשון הקדש לא יפרדו לעולם כמו נעורים וזקונים ועלומים ובתולים ויש שמות בלשון הקדש שלא יתחברו נטף ושכם וזהב וברזל: <b>אלמנה וגרושה.</b> כלל מכהן או מישראל: <b>וחללה זנה.</b> חסר וי״ו הדבק כמו שמש ירח עמד זבולה: וטעם להוסיף <b>כי אם בתולה.</b> להזכיר עמיו כי הבתולה השבויה והמתייהדת אסורה לו: <b>ולא יחלל זרעו.</b> פירוש אלמנה וגרושה בסתר כי את כל אלה לא יקח בגלוי ואחר שהזכיר קדושת הכהנים החל להזכיר המומין: <b>לחם אלהיו.</b> הוא קרבן המזבח ואלה הכהנים הדיוטים על כן אמר כל מי שהוא מזרע אהרן הכהן: <b>חרום.</b> הפך שרוע והנה חרום מגזרת חרם: <b>שרוע.</b> מגזרת מהשתרע: <b>או גבן.</b> קרוב מגזרת הרים גבנונים והנו״ן שרש והוא שם התאר: כן <b>דק</b> והוא כמשמעו להיות דק קצר קומה: <b>תבלול בעינו.</b> יש אומרים מגזרת תבל עשו השחתה ויש אומרים מגזרת בלולה בשמן והתי״ו על שני הפירושים נוסף: גם <b>גרב</b> בעין על דעת רבים כן: <b>ילפת.</b> כטעם דבק מגזרת וילפת שמשון ויש אומרים עוות מגזרת ויחרד האיש וילפת והיו״ד נוסף כיו״ד יצהר: <b>מרוח.</b> שם התאר מגזרת רוח: <b>אשך.</b> הביצה ואחר שפרט אמר כלל כל איש אשר בו מום: <b>וטעם מום בו.</b> כמו אביו ואמו קלל: <b>לחם אלהיו.</b> לחם הפנים והאשם והחטאת שהם קדשי הקדשים כנגד השלמים כי גם השלמים קדש: <b>ומן הקדשים.</b> המעשר והבכור: <b>אך אל הפרכת לא יבא.</b> להיותו כהן גדול גם אל המזבח לא יקרב: וטעם <b>ואל כל בני ישראל.</b> שלא יזבח להם שלמים בעלי מום לולי הקבלה ובעבור שהזכיר כי בעל מום יאכל קדש הזהיר שיהיה האוכל טהור: <b>וינזרו.</b> כמו והזרתם והוא מבנין נפעל והטעם ירחקו ויבדלו מגזרת נזיר: <b>ולא יחללו.</b> מושך עצמו ואחר עמו וכן הוא ולא יחללו אתם שם קדשי ולא יחללו אשר הם מקדישים לי: וטעם <b>אני ה׳‎.</b> קדוש: וטעם <b>מלפני אני ה׳‎</b> כי אחר שיכרת מלפני השם לא יעמוד כאשר פירשתי בסוד השם: <b>עד אשר יטהר.</b> ימי טהרתו: <b>אשר יטמא לו.</b> בשבילו כמו אמרי לי אחי הוא כל אלה הנזכרים יטמאו עד הערב: <b>ובא השמש וטהר.</b> ידוע כי וטהר שב אל הטמא כמו וכפר עליה הכהן וטהרה כי אין בפסוק זכר יום רק חז״ל העתיקו אפילו שיבא השמש לא יאכל עד סור האור ושמו זה הפסוק לאסמכתא כאשר פירשתי בפסוק לעם נכרי על כן אמרו טהר יומא: <b>כי לחמו.</b> מאכלו וכבר פירשתיו: וריקי מוח יפרשו הפסוק שהוא בספר יחזקאל והוא כל נבלה וטרפה מן העוף ומן הבהמה לא יאכלו הכהנים כל מה שנבלוהו וטרפוהו עופות או בהמות וזה הבל כי הנה בתורה כתוב <b>כל נבלה וטרפה לא יאכל</b> והטעם שאם יאכל לא ישמש: <b>ושמרו את משמרתי.</b> רמז למקדש על כן ולא ישאו עליו חטא ומתו בו: <b>וכל זר.</b> שאינו מזרע אהרן: <b>הם יאכלו בלחמו.</b> זכרים ונקבות: <b>בתרומת הקדשים.</b> השוק והחזה: <b>מלחם אביה תאכל.</b> כמו בראשונה: <b>וכל זר לא יאכל בו.</b> על בן אם יש לה ובעבורו לא תאכל היא: <b>ונתן לכהן את הקדש.</b> טעמו עם הקדש או תהיה מלת ונתן לכהן מושכת עצמה ואחרת עמה וכן פירושו ויסף חמשיתו עליו ונתן לכהן ונתן את הקדש ולפי דעתי שאין צורך בעבור מלת עליו: <b>והשיאו אותם.</b> פעל יוצא לשנים פעולים והטעם שיזהירום ויורום עד שלא ישגו: ואחרי שהזכיר קדשי בני ישראל הזהיר שלא יביאו הקדשים מבעלי המומין: וטעם <b>ומן הגר.</b> כי משפט אחד לנודר ולמתנדב לישראל ולגר כי כן כתוב וחכמים הפרישו בין נדר ובין נדבה וכל נדר נדבה ואין כל נדבה נדר וכל קרבן שיעלה כלו על המזבח ראוי להיותו בלא מום:: <b>לפלא.</b> לפרש: <b>עורת.</b> שם התאר לעין: וי״א כי <b>שבור</b> ביד וחרוץ ברגל וחרוץ מגזרת כן משפטך אתה חרצת כמו גזור: <b>יבלת.</b> כמו תבלול וכללו של דבר אנחנו נסמוך על הקבלה ולא נשען על דעתנו החסרה: <b>לא תקריבו אלה לה׳‎.</b> לפלא נדר ולא יקח מאלה האמורים: <b>שרוע.</b> כראשון: <b>וקלוט</b> הפכו והוא מגזרת עיר מקלט: <b>ומעוך.</b> מגזרת מעכו שדיהן: <b>וכתות.</b> מגזרת ואכות אותו טחון ושניהם בביצים: <b>ונתוק.</b> מגזרת כאשר ינתק פתיל הנעור׳‎: <b>ובארצכם לא תעשו.</b> לשנות מעשה השם: <b>ומיד בן נכר.</b> שלא יחשוב בלבו הואיל והוא קרבן בן נכר לא אחוש להקריבו: <b>משחתם.</b> המ״ם נוסף והתי״ו שרש מגזרת השחתה ומ״ם להיות להם משחתם שרש והתי״ו נוסף: <b>ירצו.</b> מבנין נפעל ואחר שהזכיר לא ירצו הזכיר כי כל קרבן שיקרב קודם יום השמיני גם הוא לא ירצה: <b>שור או כשב או עז.</b> נקראים על שם סופם כמו ובגדי ערומים תפשיט. יומת המת כי יפול הנופל או הטעם זכר המין: וטעם <b>ומיום השמיני.</b> כמו הנמול עד המרובע: <b>והלאה.</b> אחריו והעד חץ יהונתן: <b>ושור או שה.</b> פירשתיו והמצוה על זכר ונקבה: וטעם <b>וכי תזבחו זבח תודה.</b> שיאכל ביום אחד בעבור שהזכיר שור או שה שלא ישחט ביום אחד והוסיף על הפרשה הכתוב בצו את אהרן מלת לרצונכם: וטעם <b>אני ה׳‎.</b> להיות התודה שלימה: <b>ושמרתם מצותי.</b> בלב: <b>ועשיתם אתם אני ה׳‎.</b> שאחקור מה שיש בלב ואראה כל העשוי: וטעם <b>ולא תחללו את שם קדשי.</b> עם בני אהרן ידבר כי הפרשה דבקה והם המצווים שלא ישחטו להם או לישראל אם ובן ביום אחד גם יתכן שמצוה וכי תזבחו זבח תודה לכהנים והעד שהחל בפרשה אחר כן דבר אל בני ישראל ועד שני ונקדשתי בתוך בני ישראל: <b>המוציא אתכם</b> ובסוף אני ה׳‎ שהוא הדבור הראשון והוא עיקר כל המצות ואחר שהזכיר קדשי בני ישראל הזכיר הימים שיקריבו בהם העולות והחל מהשבת: וטעם <b>אלה הם מועדי.</b> בעבור היות שבתות רבות בשנה: <b>בכל מושבותיכם.</b> בארצכם וחוץ מארצכם בבית ובדרך: וטעם <b>שבת הוא לה׳‎.</b> פירשתיו: ואחר כן הזכיר המועדים ואמר בשבת אלה הם מועדי ובמועדים אמר במועדם והטעם באיזה יום שיהיה מהשבוע והנה אני נותן לך כלל בדברי המועדים כי בזמן שבית המקדש קיים היו המועדים נמסרים לבית דין הלא תראה כי אמר על פסח חזקיהו ויועץ המלך ואחר שקבע ראש חודש ניסן עבר השנה ובזה תפשוהו חכמינו ז״ל כי היה ראוי שלא יעבר ניסן בניסן והמעתיקים אמרו כי בית דין היה מסתכל בדברים רבים בקביעות השנה ואמרו על רבי עקיבא שקבע שתי שנים מעוברות שנה אחר שנה לפי צורך השעה ואין בכל המקרא ראיה איך היו ישראל קובעים החדשים והמועדים ומה שאמר הגאון כי על חשבון העיבור היו נסמכים איננו אמת כי במשנה גם בתלמוד ראיות שהיה פסח בבד״ו גם שני מעשיות שם ועבור השנים קרוב מתוספת שנת החמה על הלבנה ואיננו על דרך הקדמונים ותחלת החשבון וי״ד פי׳‎ שים עם לבהר״ד ד״ח תתע״ו יבא המולד וי״ד כי שנה נוספה להחל מחשבון בהר״ד בעבור חמשה הימים שהיו קודם בריאת האדם ויום בשנה חשוב שנה וזה לא יזיק על כן לא תוכל לקחת תוספת שנה נוספה כי לא היתה והנה העבור אחר שנה וחצי שנה והעבור בנוי על המהלך התיכון על כן אמרו פעמים שבא בארוכה ובקצרה ואין הקביעות רודף אחר ראית הלבנה בירושלים או בקצה מזרח או במערב כלל והעד מקום המחברת התיכונה כי הנה היא על ירושלים ועוד שראינו פעמים רבות הלבנה בחדש ניסן בליל שני וכן היתה נראית בכל העולם וקביעות החדש היה ליל שלישי וכן אירע לשלשה חדשים קודם ניסן וזה נתקן בשנת גטר״ד בעבור הדחיה גם פעמים היה הקביעות בתשרי יום חמישי ולא נראית הלבנה בליל שבת והיה האויר זך וזה יקרה בכל שנה שהמולד קרוב מחצי היום והיתה הלבנה בחצי גלגל הגבוה גם אין הקביעות בנוי על עת התחברות המאורות אפילו במהלך האמצעי כי הנה בטור״ד גם גטר״ד יוכיחו ולולי שלא אאריך הייתי מפרש סוד העיבור וסוד ההלכה החמורה שהוא נולד קודם חצות והכלל שחז״ל העתיקו לנו שנסמוך על העיבור בגלות וכן קבלנו מפי נביאים ולא נוכל לעשות דבר אחר טוב ממנו וזה ששמו ב׳‎ ימים בגלות והוא על דבר ספק והמתענים יום הכפורים שני ימים מה יועילם בעבור הדחיות כי בשנת גטר״ד אם על המולד היה ראוי שיתענה בשמונה לקביעתנו וכי למה נעוות אנחנו חשבון שנתנו בעבור שנה אחרת וכן יקרה להם עם הראיה: <b>בין הערבים.</b> פירשתיו: <b>אשה לה׳‎.</b> בפרשת פינחס: וטעם להזכיר <b>כי תבאו אל הארץ.</b> בעבור שישמרו כל השבתות במדבר ופסח בהר סיני כי זו הפרשה סמוכה להקמת המשכן: וטעם <b>דבר אל בני ישראל.</b> שיתחברו ואחר כן ואמרת אליהם: <b>ממחרת השבת.</b> אמרו חז״ל ממחרת יום טוב והמכחישים אמרו שהוא כמשמעו והמאמינים הביאו ראיות משנת השמטה והיובל והצום הגדול ויום תרועה שכתוב בו שבתון וכן שבתון נאמר בא׳‎ של סוכות ובשמיני ואמרו כי שבע שבתות שבועות וכמוהו באי השבת עם יוצאי השבת והם שנים פירושים בפסוק אחד והנה שלשים עיירים וראייתם תמימות וחכם ברומי הביא ראיה ממחרת הפסח מצות וקלוי ולא ידע כי בנפשו הוא כי הפסח ביום ארבעה עשר וממחרתו יום חמשה עשר וכן כתוב ויסעו מרעמסס בחדש הראשון ולאכול קלי אסור עד עבור תנופת העומר והגאון אמר ששני פסחים הם פסח ה׳‎ ופסח ישראל ופסח ה׳‎ בליל חמשה עשר והנה ממחרת הפסח ביהושע יום ט״ז ויהיה פירוש ממחרת הפסח הכתוב בתורה ממחרת זבח הפסח ולא אמר כלום כי לא נקרא החג פסח רק בעבור שפסח השם על הבתים וממחרתו הוא לבקר יום ט״ו וכן כתוב כל היום ההוא וכל הלילה וכל יום המחרת. ועוד אמר הגאון שמצות וקלוי היה מהישן וזה איננו רחוק כי הכתוב אמר על תנופת העומר שתהיה מהחל חרמש בקמה ואם תנופת העומר היתה יום חמשה עשר מתי קצרו ועשו מצות ועוד כי אין קציר כי הוא ראשית קציר שעורים גם יש כדמות ראיה על פירושו שאמר מעבור הארץ ויתכן שזה השם נקרא על התבואה שיש להשנה שעברה. וטעם מעבור הארץ ארץ סיחון ועוג והעד שאמר אחר כן מתבואת ארץ כנען ועוד כי קלוי איננו כמו קלי והכתוב אמר ולחם וקלי וכרמל לא תאכלו ואין פסוק קלוי באש טענה כי הוא תאר המעשה כי אביב קלוי באש יקרא קלוי ועוד יש להשיב מאין נדע כי הניף הכהן בעבר הירדן תנופת העומר כי הכתוב אמר אשר אני נותן לכם ועוד לא נתנה להם ולא בא הכתוב להזכיר מצות וקלוי רק בעבור ששבת המן וכן טעם כל הפסוק ועוד אמר הגאון אם השבת כמשמעו מאיזה שבת נחל לספור וישועה השיב כי שמנה עשר ימים הם שיש בהם קרבן ונקראו מועדים מלבד השבתות ואחר שיש קרבן ביום תנופת העומר לאות ולעד כי התנופה באחד מימות מועד האביב והנה שכח קרבנות ראשי חדשים שלא נזכרו ועוד כי הכתוב אמר כאלה תעשו ליום שבעת ימים והיה ראוי שיאמר מלבד תנופת העומר גם זאת איננה טענה עלינו כי אנחנו נסמוך במצות על הקבלה והנה ביום שבועות לא הזכיר בפרשת פנחס מלבד כבשי השלמים ולמעלה פר בן בקר אחד ואילים שנים ובפנחס פרים שנים ואיל אחד גם יוכל המאמין להשיב כי בדרך נבואה ידע היו׳‎ שיהיה בו תנופת העומר שיום השבת יהיה הקכיעות והעד מערך הלחם שהיה בשבת והזכיר הכתוב איך יחשבו בשנה הראשונה ואז הקריבו שלמים והעולה הנזכרת ואחר כן הנזכר׳‎ בפנחס ואחר כך אמר בשבועותיכם שבעה שבועות ולא אמר שבתות ואין ראיה כי תחלת השבוע יום ראשון וטמאה שבועים יוכיח והנה ארמוז לך סוד אחד שכל המועדים תלוים ביום ידוע מהחדש ולא נאמר בחג השבועות (מספר) (ס״א יום מועד) בעבור הספירה שהיא מצוה וחז״ל העתיקו כי בחג שבועות היה מתן תורה ועליו נאמר כי חג ה׳‎ לנו: יש אומרים כי כל <b>לרצונכם</b> פירושו להיות לכם לרצון בעבור והניף את העומר לפני ה׳‎ לרצונכם וטעמו שתניפו ברצונכם והטעם שתתנו כבש בן שנתו כדי שתהיו נרצים: והמכחישים אמרו כי בן שנה איננו כבן שנתו כי בן שנתו עוד אין לו שנה ובן שנה שיש לו שנה תמימה והנה לא קראו בחנוכת המזבח כבש אחד בן שנתו לעולה ובפרשה אחרונה כבשים בני שנה שנים עשר: <b>ולחם.</b> מחדש והעד כי הפסח יאכלו על מצות ומרורים: לולי הקבלה היה נראה כי ספירת הימים כשנות היובל והמכחישים אמרו כי טעם תמימות שלא תעלה במספר השבת הראשונה שיחל ממחרת׳‎: <b>תספרו חמשים יום.</b> כי כן מספר התורה וכן וביום השמיני בכל מקום: מלת <b>תביאו.</b> זרה בעבור דגשות האל״ף כי לא נדע לו טעם: <b>ממושבתיכם.</b> צריכים אנו לקבלה מאיזה מקום יוקח ומתי יבוקש: <b>לחם תנופה.</b> לכהן עם כבשי הלשמים: ויתכן ששנה הכתוב בשנה הראשונה בעבור שהיא תחלת ההתחלה ויש אומרים כי יקרב פר ואילים שנים או שני פרים ואיל אחד כרצון הכהן ועוד לא ראינו מצוה כזאת ובפנחס אפרש האמת: ואחר ששחיטת השלמים ביום חג שבועות והוא יום מקרא קדש הנה מותר לשחוט בכל מועדים הפך דברי הצדוקים: וטעם להזכיר <b>ובקצרכם את קציר ארצכם.</b> פעם שנית בעבור כי חג שבועות בכורי קציר חטים הזהיר שלא תשכח מה שצויתיך לעשות בימים ההם: וטעם להזכיר <b>וידבר ה׳‎</b> עם יום התרועה בעבור היותו מועד בפני עצמו כי חג שבועות תלוי מיום תנופת העומר וכן הזכיר עם הצום גדול ועם חג הסוכות: <b>בחדש השביעי.</b> כי תחלת החשבון מניסן כי בו יצאנו ממצרים ועוד כי אביב השעורים תחלה ואחר כן בכורי קציר חטים ואחר כך באספך את מעשיך ואלה המועדים תלוים להיותם בימים הנזכרים: ואחר שאמר לתקוע בחצוצרות בכל חדש הנה <b>זכרון תרועה</b> גם יום תרועה מצוה לתקוע בשופר וכן ביום הכפורים ואני הנה ארמוז לך סודות ושים לבך אולי תבינם אמרו המעתיקים שיום ראש השנה יום הדין וטעם התרועה זכר למלכיות השם ואחר שהעיקר כל ר״ח היה ראש חדש ניסן נכבד כי בו הוקם המשכן ובעתיד אמר יחזקאל בראשון באחד לחדש וכן תעשה בשבעה בעבור המרובע והנה חמשה עשר לנכח ויום שביעי גם מרובע ופסח שני יתחלפו הגדול והקטן על כן יום ראש השנה גדול מכולם אף על פי שהוא יום דין אסור להתענות בו ועזרא יוכיח ויום הכפורים הקטן במחברת והנה סכות כחג פסח רק שמיני ואין שביעי ומזה יתברר לך הסוד וסוד השבת: וטעם <b>אך בעשור.</b> בעבור שיום מקרא קדש יום שמחה וכן כתוב בספר עזרא לכו אכלו משמנים ושתו ממתקים: <b>ועניתם.</b> פירשתיו: <b>לכפר עליכם.</b> פירוש כי יום כפורים עליכם לבדכם: <b>כי כל הנפש אשר לא תעונה.</b> זה מהבנין שלא נקרא שם פועלו וזה אות כי מי שנדע שאינו שומר זו המצוה כאשר נשמרנו נכריחנו להתענות וטעם שלא יעשו מלאכה. שלא תהיינה הנפשות מתעסקות חוץ מבקשת כפור העונות: <b>והאבדתי.</b> יש הפרש בינו ובין ונכרתה ולא אוכל לפרש: וטעם <b>כל מלאכה לא תעשו.</b> פעם אחרת להוסיף חקת עולם לדורותיכם: <b>תשבתו שבתכם.</b> זה יום השבת לא יקרא שבת ישראל כי אם שבת ה׳‎: <b>שבעת ימים תקריבו אשה.</b> ואם איננו שוה כאשה חג הפסח: <b>עצרת הוא.</b> יש אומרים שטעמו קהלה כטעם עצרת בוגדים והטעם התחברות כל ישראל לשלש רגלים ולא דברו נכונה כי הנה כתוב בפסח וביום השביעי עצרת וכתיב ופנית בבקר והלכת לאהליך והקרוב שהוא כמו נעצר לפני ה׳‎ שיהיה בטל מכל עסקי העולם ופירוש עצרת הוא כל מלאכת עבודה לא תעשו וכן כתוב בעצרת מועד הפסח: <b>אלה מועדי ה׳‎.</b> שאתם חייבים להקריב בהם אשה ופירוש כי בכולם יש בהם עולה ומנחה זבח ונסכים כי עד עתה לא הזכיר רק אשה לבדו ויתכן להיותו עולה לבדה או מנחה לבדה: <b>מתנותיכם.</b> בג׳‎ רגלים ונדרי הצבור והיחיד ונדבותיהם: וטעם <b>אך.</b> בעבור שהזכיר בפרשה שהיא קודם זאת ענוי הנפש אסר להתענות בחג הסכות כי בו כתובות ושמחת ושמחתם והיית אך שמח: <b>באספכם את תבואת הארץ.</b> שדות וכרמים: <b>תחגו.</b> מפעלי הכפל וטעם על הזבחים: <b>ביום הראשון שבתון.</b> שם ויחסר יהיה לכם ואילו הי׳‎ שם התאר היה ה״א תחת בי״ת: <b>ולקחתם לכם.</b> אנחנו נאמין בדברי המעתיקים כי לא יכחישו הכתוב אף על פי שמצאנו ויקחו להם איש שה לבית אבות. גם הם העתיקו כי פרי עץ הדר הוא אתרוג ובאמת כי אין פרי עץ יותר הדר ממנו ודרשו בו הדר באילנו בדרך אסמכתא כאשר פירשתי בפסוק לעם נכרי והצדוקים אמרו כי מאלה תעשו סוכות והביאו ראיה מספר עזרא ואלה עורי לב הלא יראו כי אין בספר עזרא ערבי נחל ולא פרי עץ כלל רק עלי חמשה מינים ואין זכר לעלי הדס ועלי עץ עבות טענה על קדמונינו וכן מין הדס אין אילנו גבוה והנה הם שני מינים גבוה ונמוך והגולה מארץ קדר לארץ אדום אם יש לו עינים ידע סוד המצוה זאת: <b>כי בסכות.</b> שהיו עושים אחר שעברו ים סוף סוכות ואף כי במדבר סיני שעמדו שם קרוב משנה וכן מנהג כל המחנות והנה גם זה המועד זכר ליציאת מצרים ואם ישאל שואל למה בתשרי זאת המצוה יש להשיב כי ענן ה׳‎ היה על המחנה יומם והשמש לא יכם ומימות תשרי החלו לעשות סוכות בעבור הקור: <b>אל בני ישראל.</b> ולא כל בני ישראל כי לא יוכל לדבר עם כולם וכן כתוב דבר אל בני ישראל ואין טענה מפסוק אל כל עדת בני ישראל כי כל ישראל לא יקרא עדה: וטעם להזכיר פרשת <b>שמן זית זך</b> בעבור שהזכיר אשה כל מועד והוא צריך להזכיר הלחם והמנורה כנגד השלחן: והוסיף בפרשה הזאת <b>על המנורה הטהורה</b> היא הידועה (עטו) [צ״ל זהב] כלה מעשה בצלאל ולא אחרת ואשר עשוה מברזל בשעת הצורך על פי הנביאים עשוה: <b>ולקחת סלת.</b> בצווי וכך ואפית אותה ובאה זו המלה מלרע והיא זרה: <b>ב׳ מערכות.</b> במספר השבטים כסוד האפוד והחשן או שני עשרונים כמספר המערכות: <b>על השלחן הטהור.</b> כנגד שלחנות אחרים שיש שם והוא לבדו מצופה זהב וזרו זהב: והלבונה שהיתה עם הלחם הוא אשה לה׳‎ והלחם לכהן ויתכן שהזכיר זאת הפרשה בעבור שיש חיוב על ישראל לתת עולות המועד ושמן ולחם תמיד: <b>לאהרן ולבניו.</b> כל בני ביתו: <b>ויצא בן אשה ישראלית.</b> מאהלו כמו יצאו נצבים פתח אהליהם: <b>בן איש מצרי.</b> מתיהד: <b>ואיש הישראלי.</b> כמו לאיש העשיר את יום השביעי ולא נדע למה נסמכה זאת הפרשה אולי דבר המקלל דברים אשר לא כן בעבור הלחם והשמן והקרבנות: <b>ויקב.</b> יש אומרים שפירושו ויפרש כמו אשר פי ה׳‎ יקבנו אשר נקבו בשמות ויש אומרים שהוא כמו מה אקוב והראשון קרוב לפי דעתי: <b>במשמר.</b> במקום ידוע במחנה: <b>וסמכו כל השומעים.</b> בעבור כי על פי עדותם יסקל: <b>כל העדה.</b> הם גדולי הארץ שהם גדולי ישראל ויש אומרים כי יקלל אלהיו בסתר והנכון שמלת אלהים שם התאר והמלאכים יקראו אלהים וכן הדיינים ומי יוכל לדעת מה יש בלב המקלל אך אם יפרש השם הנכבד שאינו שם התאר ולא יתערב עם שם כי הוא לבדו והנה הטעם בעת שיקלל אם יפרש השם יומת בנקבו שם כאשר עשה בן המצרי ולמען כבוד השם לא נזכר. ואמר <b>כגר כאזרח. יומת.</b> ויתכן שהכו אלה הנצים זה את זה על כן נכתבה זאת הפרשה וכבר הזכירה רק הוסיף כגר כאזרח יהיה והחל כי יכה כל נפש אדם בזדון ולא במלחמה מגר או אזרח: <b>ומכה בהמה ישלמנה.</b> והנה נפש תחת נפש משמש לשני׳‎ הפסוקים: <b>כן יעשה לו.</b> ואמר שמשון כן עשיתי להם: והגאון הביא ראיות משקול הדעת כי לא יתכן להיות שבר תחת שבר כמשמעו כי הראשון בא בלא כוונה ואיך יתכן לעשות שבר כמוהו ואם הוא במקום מסוכן הנה ימות וכן בעין ומי שסר שלישית אור עינו איך יוכל לעשות כן בעין החובל על כן דברי הקבלה אמת כי פירוש כל אלה שיש עליו כופר וראוי להוציא עינו אם לא יפדנו ואם טענו עלינו אם היה החובל עני ותשובתינו כי על הרוב דבר הכתוב ושמא יעשיר העני גם זאת התשובה על הטוענים אם היה חובל העין עור <b>כן ינתן בו.</b> יש בי״ת תחת על כמו אשר אני רוכב בה ורבים כן או פירושו כן ינתן בו אם לא יפדה: וטעם <b>ומכה בהמה.</b> פעם אחרת להזכיר הגר כי נתינת המום הוא בישראל כי כן כתוב בעמיתו רק מכה אדם ובהמה <b>משפט אחד להם כגר כאזרח</b> וכבר הודעתיך כי בהתחבר שני כפי״ן הוא דרך קצרה גם הכתוב אחז דרך קצרה שלא הזכיר עם מכה אדם ומת כי ידוע הוא כי המכה לא יומת עד מות המוכה. ופירוש אחר הזכיר בתחלה נפש והטעם שהכהו במקום מסוכן ואחר כן אמר כלל מי שימית יומת בין שיכה במקום מסוכן או שאינו מסוכן על כן לא הזכיר נפש: וטעם <b>אלהיכם.</b> אלהי האזרח ואלהי הגר: <b>ובני ישראל עשו.</b> מאותו היום כמשפט הזה בחובל: <b>בהר סיני.</b> אין מוקדם ומאוחר בתורה וזו הפרשה קודם ויקרא וכל הפרשיות שהם אחריו כי הדבור בהר סיני ועתה כרת הברית הכתובה בפרשת ואלה המשפטים והזכירה במקום הזה לחבר תנאי הארץ וכאשר אמר על העריות כי בעבור׳‎ תקיא הארץ אותם כן אמר בפרשת אם בחקתי על שבתות הארץ והזכיר בתחלה פי׳‎ השבתות: <b>ושבתה הארץ שבת לה׳‎.</b> מצוה על ישראלי שלא יעזוב גר לזרוע שנת השבת כאשר לא נעזבנו לעשות מלאכה בשבת כי הוא ברשותנו: וטעם <b>שבת לה׳‎.</b> כיום השבת וסוד ימי עולם רמוז במקום הזה: <b>את תבואתה.</b> שב אל הארץ הנזכרת בפסוק הראשון: <b>שבת שבתון.</b> פירשתיו: <b>ספיח.</b> ידוע שהוא מגזרת ספחני נא גם נזירך ידוע שהוא מגזרת נזיר: <b>שנת שבתון.</b> הטעם כי שנת שבתון היא לארץ והטעם שהארץ אינה ברשותך בשנה הזאת: <b>והיתה שבת הארץ.</b> הטעם כל מה שהוציאה מעצמה: וטעם <b>לכם.</b> לכל העולם: וטעם <b>לך.</b> שיש רשות לבעל האדמה לאכול הספיחים: <b>ולבהמתך.</b> שהיא ברשותך: <b>ולחיה.</b> שאיננה ברשותך: <b>והעברת שופר תרועה.</b> יש מחלוקת אם נברא העולם בניסן או בתשרי ואין צורך להאריך כי מעתיקי הדת תקנו לנו בתפלות ראש השנה זה היום תחלת מעשיך זכרון ליום ראשון והנה ראינו תקיעת שופר בשנת היובל בתשרי בתחלת השנה ועוד בפרשת הקהל את העם לקרוא בתורה בחג הסוכות וכתוב למען ישמעו ולמען ילמדו ולא יתכן להיות אחר חצי השנה (ועוד וחג האסיף בצאת השנה וכן תקופת השנה) (במ״ט אינו) והעד הנאמן שנת השבת שכתוב לא תזרעו ובמרחשון יחלו בארץ ישראל לזרוע ואם היתה תחלת השנה מניסן הנה לא יקצרו אשר זרעו בשנה הששית ולא יזרעו כי הנה שנת השמטה היא ואחר שלא יקצרו זרע שנה ששית לא יזרעו פעמים והכתוב אמר לא תזרעו בשנה השביעית לבדה ויהודה הפרסי אמר כי ישראל היו מונים בחשבון השמש ואילו היה זה נכון הנה לא פירש משה מהלך שנה תמימה כי חכמי המזלות לא יכלו עד הנה להוציאה לאור כי חכמי הודו מוסיפים על רביע היום חומש שעה ותלמי וחביריו אומרים כי יחסר חלק משלש מאות ביום והוא קרוב ממהלך העבור והבאים אחריו אמרו חלק ממאה ושש ואחרי׳‎ מאה ועשר ואחרי׳‎ מאה ושלשים גם מאה ושמונים כי יש מי שהיא שנתו להשלמת המזלות מנקודה נראית ויש מנקודת הגלגל הנטוי לימין ולשמאל ואנחנו צריכים לקבלה ועוד כי פירוש חדש יכחיש הפרסי והצדוקים אומרים שהדת על שנת הלבנה. דע כי אין ללבנה שנה כלל רק בקשו המחשבים מספר חדשים קרובים לשנת החמה ומצאום י״ב כאשר אין לחמה חדש והמחשבים בקשו מספר לחדש שיהיה נחלק קרוב לחדש מימות חדשי הלבנה על כי חדשינו הם ללבנה ושנותינו ישובו בסוף לשנות החמה על כן העתיקו חז״ל כי לעולם היה בית דין עושה שבעה עבורים בכל מחזור הלכה למשה מסיני אף על פי שהיו קובעים בכל חדש על פי ראיית הלבנה וסוד המחזור ידוע מחכמת המזלות: וטעם <b>תעבירו.</b> שיתקעו שופר בכל המזלות: <b>וקדשתם את שנת החמשים.</b> בעבודת הארץ וכל יושביה: <b>דרור.</b> ידועה שהוא כמו חפשי וכדרור לעוף עוף קטן מנגן כשהוא ברשותו ואם הוא ברשות אדם לא יאכל עד שימות: <b>יובל.</b> כמו שלוח וחז״ל אמרו שפירוש יובל כבש והראיה שופרות היובלים ונקראה השנה בשם השופר: וטעם <b>תהיה לכם.</b> לישראל לבדם: <b>ושבתם איש אל אחזתו.</b> כאשר יפרש כי בשנת היובל תשוב הארץ הנמכרת לבעליה: <b>ואיש אל משפחתו.</b> העבד הנמכר לישראל: <b>יובל היא.</b> אחר שהיא שנת יובל לא תזרעו: <b>קדש תהיה לכם.</b> כי היא מפורש׳‎ בינות השנים: <b>מן השדה תאכלו.</b> מה שיוציא השדה מעצמו תאכלו כלכם ככתוב בשנת השמטה: <b>בשנת היובל הזאת.</b> טעמו בתחלת השנה: <b>או קנה.</b> שם הפעל ויחסר מקום קניתם קנה וכן זכור את יום השבת ורבים כמוהם: וטעם <b>תמכרו.</b> לשון רבים על פי עדים. וכן טעם <b>אל תונו.</b> רק כמספר שנים: <b>תרבה מקנתו.</b> הפך תמעיט: וטעם <b>אל תונו איש את עמיתו.</b> אזהרה למוכר כי הראשון לקונה: <b>כי אני ה׳‎ אלהיכם.</b> ואחר שאני אלהיכם אפרע משניהם מאשר יונה עמיתו. ואם תעשו חקותי תתן הארץ פריה וטעם להזכיר זה בעבור מספר תבואות: אמרו הצדוקים כי <b>תבואתנו</b> ראיה כי תחלת השנה מניסן ואין זו ראיה כי יתכן להיות פירוש תבואתנו מה שתוציא הארץ מעצמה ואם אמרו לא תקרא תבואה כי אם ספיח הנה לנגדם מן השדה תאכלו את תבואתה ועוד יודיענו איך יעשו בשנת היובל כי לא יזרעו בששית ובשביעית ובשמינית רק יזרעו בתשיעית ויקצרו בעשירית ולמה לא הזכיר הכתוב זה כי אמר לשלש השנים לבדם והנכון בעיני שפירוש ועשת את התבואה שאתן ברכה בששית שיספיק ויוסיף עוד שנה ובשנת היובל יהיו שלש שנים בלא תוספות: ומלת <b>ועשת</b> זרה כמו משרת את המלך כי בעבור התחברות שני תוי״ן חסרו האחד להקל על הלשון: <b>ישן.</b> שב על מן וטעמו כעצם וכן מן הכפרת תעשו את הכרובים: <b>לצמיתות.</b> כמו כריתות והתי״ו שרש מגזרת יצמיתם ה׳‎ אלהינו: <b>כי לי הארץ.</b> זה טעם נכבד וכן אמר משה בתפלתו ה׳‎ מעון אתה היית לנו אתה כמו מעון עומד ודור הולך ודור בא: <b>ארץ אחוזתכם.</b> שירשתם בארץ כנען גם בארץ האמורי: <b>ימוך.</b> מהפעלים השניים הנראים ונח נעלם ביניהם וטעמו כמו דל ואביון: <b>הקרוב אליו.</b> ממשפחתו: <b>וחשב.</b> מהבנין הכבד הדגוש: <b>ויצא.</b> הממכר. והנה שם תחת תאר השם ורבים כמוהו ואחר שהזכיר בית מושב ידענו כי ומכר מאחזתו שדה או כרם: <b>עיר חומה.</b> עיר מוקפת: <b>ימים.</b> שנה עד שוב הימים מקור וחום וקיץ וחורף כאשר היו כי סבתם שוב השמש למקומה והנה אנחנו צריכים לקבלה על שנה תמימה אם לחמה אם ללבנה ואם מעוברת: <b>על שדה הארץ יחשב.</b> כמו ויבואו האנשים על הנשים ופי׳‎ עם: <b>גאולה תהיה לו.</b> לכל בית ובית כמו בנות צעדה עלי שור וכמו על בניה כי איננו: <b>גאלת עולם.</b> נצחי: ובעבור שאמר גאלת עולם אמר ואשר יגאל והטעם כמו יקנה ויש אומרים אפילו אם היה הגואל לוי. וי״ו <b>ויצא</b> כפ״א רפה בלשון ישמעאל. בית או עיר המשפט אחד: <b>ומטה ידו.</b> מגזרת לא ימוט והמ״ם שרש וכמוהו אם אמרתי מטה רגלי: <b>אחיך.</b> ישראל: <b>עמך.</b> שאתה חייב לנמצא עמך שאתה רואה: <b>והחזקת בו.</b> הפך ומטה ידו שלא יפול: <b>גר ותושב.</b> ואם הוא מארצך או גר ותושב  <b>וחי.</b> כמו יחיה: <b>נשך ותרבית.</b> מפורש בדברי הקבלה. תי״ו תרבית נוסף כמו תרמית והוא מגזרת רב רק הוא מהפעלים שהלמ״ד שלהם נח נעלם כמו תכלית שנאה ואחר כן פי׳‎ הנשך והתרבית גם מ״ם מרבית נוסף כמו מ״ם ואבן משכית: וטעם <b>אני ה׳‎ אלהיכם אשר הוצאתי אתכם מארץ מצרים.</b> שהייתם גרים והנה נתתי לכם אחוזה והטעם דבק עם גר ותושב וחי עמך גם עם כל הפרשה הנזכרת בעבור גאלת הארץ. והזכיר פרשת ומטה ידו עמך בעבור שיזכיר הישראלי שיהיה לו צורך רב עד שימכור עצמו שיצא ביובל והנה כל פרשת הסדר דבקה: <b>ונמכר לך.</b> הוא מעצמו או גנב ממך ומכרוהו בבית דין: <b>הוא ובניו עמו.</b> זה שהעתיקו חכמים ועבדו לעולם: וטעם <b>כי עבדי הם.</b> כי אני קניתים מבית עבדים: <b>תרדה בו.</b> כטעם ממשלה: <b>בפרך.</b> כדברי המתרגם ארמית: <b>מאת הגוים אשר סביבותיכם.</b> כעמון ומואב ואדום וארם: <b>וגם מבני התושבים.</b> הדרים בארץ כנען שהיא ארצכם והם מהגוים הנזכרים או מצרים וכל עם חוץ משבעת הגוים כי הכתוב הזהיר עליהם לא תחיה כל נשמה והנה אסור אפילו להאכילם ויתכן שחז״ל אמרו עבד כנעני על הגר הגר בארץ כנען ואיננו כנעני בייחוסו או הם ידעו להוציא זה הדבר לאמתו כי דעתינו נקלה כנגד דעתם: <b>והתנחלתם.</b> מבנין התפעל וכמוהו והתאויתם לכם: <b>לעולם בהם תעבודו.</b> מותרים רק כאשר מצאנו חז״ל שאמרו כי היא מצוה קבלנוה: וטעם <b>ובאחיכם בני ישראל.</b> שתעשה הפרש בין אחיך ובין הנכרי: <b>או לעקר.</b> כמו שרש והטעם ששב לדת ישראל והוא ממשפחת גר ואין ריע לו רק הוא כמו מלת ושרשך הפך וכן ואת סוסיהם תעקד: <b>או השיגה ידו.</b> שמצא אבדה או ירש ממון מת ממשפחתו. והזכיר בתחלה האח והמשפחה כי הוא הדבר הנמצא ברוב: <b>קנהו.</b> בה״א ובלא ה״א שוה: <b>המכרו.</b> שם הפעל מבנין נפעל והשנים שיעמוד עמו כימי שכיר יהיה: וי״ו <b>ואם</b> מעט נשאר בשנים. כפ״א רפה בל׳‎ ישמעאל והטעם בין היות השנים הנשארות רבות או מועטות: <b>לפיהן ישיב גאלתו.</b> על כסף מקנתו כן יחשב לו: <b>כשכיר שנה.</b> להוסיף לא ירדנו בפרך לעיניך לא נעזוב הגר לרדות בו בפרך: <b>ואם לא יגאל באלה.</b> בשנים הנשארות ליובל ויש אומרים על ידי אלה הנזכרים: <b>כי לי בני ישראל.</b> טעם שתודיעו כן הגר הקונה העבד הישראלי: <b>לא תעשו לכם אלילם.</b> בעבור שנמכר לגוי הזהיר על עבודת כוכבים שלא ישמש אדוניו בפסל ולא יעבוד אדוניו בשבת ובזה יקנהו הנכרי: <b>ומקדשי תיראו.</b> שיבא למקדש שלש רגלים ויתכן להיות טעם לא תעשו לכם אלילים בעבור שאמר עבדי הם ואחר שהם עבדי יעבדו אותי לבדי ולא אחרים: <b>ופסל.</b> ידוע: <b>ומצבה.</b> לפסל: <b>משכית.</b> שם כמו מרבית וטעמו אבן מצויירת מגזרת עברו משכיות לבב שכיות החמד׳‎: <b>לא תתנו בארצכם.</b> זה משפט עבודת כוכבים במרקוליס: <b>כי אני ה׳‎ אלהיכם.</b> לי תשתחוו. ובתרגום ירושלמי כן.  <b>את שבתותי תשמרו.</b> שנות השמיטה: <b>ומקדשי תיראו.</b> שנת היובל. כי כן כתוב קדש תהיה לכם ולפי דעתי שהזכיר את שבתותי מטעם ומדי שבת בשבתו יבא כל בשר להשתחוות לפני ולא בעבור שהזכיר להשתחוות עליה והטעם שתבואו בכל שבת להשתחות לפני ולא על אבן משכית רק מקדשי והנה הזכיר היום הנבחר כי הוא נבחר לעבודת השם כאשר פירשתי וגם הזכיר המקום הנבחר: וטעם <b>אני ה׳‎.</b> ששבתי מכל מלאכה בשבת וכבודי דר במקדש על כן הזכיר מלת תיראו: <b>אם בחקתי. תשמרו ועשיתם.</b> מצוה ללמוד וללמד ולעשו׳‎: וי״ו <b>ונתתי</b> כוי״ו והארץ היתה תהו ובהו ולעולם כאשר המלה מלרע עם וי״ו הטעם הוא לעתיד ואם מלעיל עבר חוץ ממתי מעט: <b>יבולה.</b> מן כי בול הרים ישאו לו ולא נדע אם היו״ד שרש או אינו שרש כמלת יקום: <b>דיש את בציר.</b> והנה התבאר באספך את מעשיך מן השדה וכרם: <b>לשבע.</b> שם הפועל: <b>לבטח.</b> בלמ״ד ובחסרונו שוה וכן מלת לבדד והנה הזכיר בתחלה השובע שהוא עיקר: וטעם <b>וישבתם לבטח.</b> כי בימי הרעב יגלו בני אדם ממקומם כטעם לא תוסף תת כחה לך נע ונד: <b>ונתתי שלום בארץ.</b> ביניכם: <b>ואין מחריד.</b> לא מחיה רעה ולא מאויב רק אתם תרדפו האויב ויפול לפניכם: והתמה כי מתי מעט מכם ירדפו מתי רב מהאויבים וכבר הודעתיך בספר מאזנים כי עשרה ומאה ואלף ורבבה שהיא עשרת אלפים סך חשבון ומנהג המרבה לומר אחד לעשר כמו כי עתה כמונו עשרת אלפים ופה הוסיף כי המאה ירדפום חמשה והנה כפל מנהג המרבה וכל אחד מהמאה ירדוף מאה ויש אומרים כי בעבור התחברות האחדים יוסיף המספר וכן איכה ירדוף אחד אלף. ואין צורך: <b>ונפלו אויביכם.</b> פעם אחרת שיפלו פעם אחר פעם בלי תקומה: <b>ופניתי אליכם.</b> להרבות עשרכם ולהפרות ולהרבות אתכם בבנים ובבנות והנכון בעיני להיות והפריתי הפך עוצר רחם: <b>והקימתי את בריתי אתכם.</b> להיותכם ככוכבי השמים לרוב וכעפר הארץ: <b>ואכלתם ישן נושן.</b> התמה שתהיו רבים ומרוב התבואה יאכל מי שירצה ישן גם נושן יותר מהישן והוא מבנין נפעל ויש מי שיוציא הישן מביתו מפני החדש כי אין לו מקום לשומו שם ומפרש אמר כי טעם <b>תוציאו.</b> אל השדה: <b>ונתתי משכני.</b> ולא תפחדו שתבואו לעולם לידי חסרון כי כבודי דר עמכם ואיננו כבן אדם שתגעל נפשו לשבת כלי במקום אחד והנה אני אהיה לכם לאלהים ואתם עמי כי על כן הוצאתי אתכם מארץ מצרים ועוד כי בלכתכם אל ארץ אויביכם והמקדש איננו עמכ׳‎ יתהלך כבודי בתוככם: <b>מטת עולכם.</b> משל כפר החורש שיעבוד אדמת בעליו וישראל השתעבדו בבנין האדמה כי כן כתוב: <b>קוממיות.</b> בקומה זקופה: וריקי מוח אמרו כי הקללו׳‎ רבות מהברכות ולא אמרו אמת רק נאמרו הברכות כלל ונאמרו בקללות פרטים לירא ולהפחיד. השומעי׳‎ והמסתכל היטב יתברר לו דברי: <b>את כל המצות.</b> אלה הכתובים: <b>להפרכם.</b> מלה זרה בדקדוק כי משקלי שמות הפעלים משתנים: <b>והפקדתי עליכם.</b> כאדם פקיד על אחר יעשה חפצו בו: <b>בהלה את השחפת ואת הקדח׳‎.</b> חליים ידועים. וטעם <b>את.</b> עם: וטעם <b>בהלה.</b> שתבהלו ולא תדעו מה תעשו וי״א כי בהל׳‎ כפתאום ורבים אמרו כי השחפת והקדחת שנים חליים בזרע כמו השדפון והירקון כי כן כתוב בעבור וזרעתם לריק ואין צורך כי פירושו שיבואו להם חליים ואם באו שוללים לכפרים יאכלו הזרע כי אין מי שיצא אליהם לגרשם: וטעם <b>מכלות עינים.</b> שאלה החליים יחשכו עינים וידאבו הנפש והאל״ף חסר ממלת ומדיבות נפש וכן ממלת שקר מזין וי״א כי העינים מן הגוף בעבור ומדיבו׳‎ נפש ואין צורך: <b>ונתתי פני.</b> קצפי ואפי כמו ופניה לא היו לה והטעם כי הנשארים שאין להם חליים אם יצאו אל האויבים ינגפו לפניהם ופעם ינוסו ואין רודף כטעם מחנה ארם: <b>ואם עד אלה.</b> המכות: <b>שבע.</b> בעבור היותו חשבון שלם נאמר על לשון רבים וכן כי שבע יפול צדיק וקם עד עקרה ילדה שבעה ואין על חטאתיכם להוסיף שבעה רק ויספתי פעם אחרת כמו קול גדול ולא יסף: וטעם <b>על חטאתיכם.</b> בעבור חטאתיכם וי״א שהחשבון כמשמעו והראשון נכון כי אם נחשוב ושברתי אחד שמיכם כברזל שנים וארץ כנחושה ותם לריק ויבול הארץ ופרי העץ הנה שש ומכת חית השדה הנה שבע: <b>גאון עוזכם</b> השובע כטעם וישמן ישורון והגאה אם ישבר יפול וישח: <b>ותם לריק כחכם.</b> שיגעתם בעבודת האדמה: <b>קרי.</b> אמרו רבים שפירושו גבורה ונצוח כאיש שיחזק לבו ולא יפחד למען שלא ינוצח ואין ריע לו וי״א שהוא מגזרת כל הקורו׳‎ והטעם שאמר בדברי הפלשתים כי לא ידו נגעה בנו מקרה הוא ועל ב׳‎ הפירושי׳‎ יחסר בי״ת כמו כי ששת ימים או יהי כן תלכו עמי הליכת קרי כאשר הראיתיך רבים כאלה והנה כתוב כחטאתיכם ולא יוסיף עליכם ועל חטאתיכם דבק עם ליסרה אתכם הטעם בעבור חטאתיכם: <b>והשלחתי בכם.</b> מגזר׳‎ הנני משליח בך: <b>ושכלה אתכם.</b> בהריגת קטנים: <b>והמעיטה אתכם.</b> בהריגת הגדולים: <b>ונשמו דרכיכם.</b> כי אין דרך בטוח מפחד החיות שאינם ברשות אדם כאשר פירשתי: <b>תוסרו.</b> עתיד מבנין נפעל: <b>על חטאתיכ׳‎.</b> דבק עם והכיתי: <b>נקם ברית.</b> על כן אמרתי כי זאת הברית הכרותה בסיני הכתובה בפרשת אלה המשפטי׳‎ יום קבלו על נפשם ואמרו נעשה ונשמע אז נכרתה הברי׳‎ ואמר. להם כל הפרשה הזאת: <b>ונאספתם אל עריכם.</b> מפני החרב ושם אשלח הדבר והרעב עד שתרצו להנתן ביד האויב וזה טעם <b>ונתתם ביד אויב</b> והיא מלה מבנין נפעל: <b>בשברי.</b> שם הפעל ובא שבור כמו בשכבה ובקומה וטעם השבר בעבור מטה לחם והוא דרך משל ובישעיה משען לחם כי הלחם לבב אנוש יסעד: <b>עשר נשים.</b> כי הוא סך חשבון כי מנהג ישראל היה לאפות כל בית תנור לעצמו שיאכלו כל השבוע ומערכ׳‎ השבת תוכיח: <b>והשיבו לחמכם במשקל.</b> בעבור שהיא מעט: <b>ואכלתם ולא תשבעו.</b> יש רעב וישבע האוכל ממעט ואתם מאוכל הרבה לא ישבעו: <b>ואם בזאת.</b> במכה הזאת. וכן ואם באלה באלה המכות הנזכרו׳‎: <b>על חטאתיכם.</b> דבק עם ויסרתי: <b>ואכלתם בשר בניכם ובשר בנותיכם.</b> אין למעלה מן הרעב הזה: ולא יהיה לכם מקום לזעוק ולהתפלל להושע מהרעב כי אשמיד במותיכם מקום הזבחים: <b>חמניכם.</b> מגזר׳‎ חמה בתים העשויי׳‎ להשתחו׳‎ לשמש והנו״ן נוסף כנו״ן נשים רחמניות: <b>פגריכם.</b> גופותיכם כמו פגר מובס. <b>גלוליכם.</b> שם גנאי לעבודת כוכבים מגזר׳‎ כאשר יבער הגלל והטעם כי בהתחברכם לבתי עבוד׳‎ כוכבים שם תהרגו וישחיתו אויביכם צורת גלוליכם ואני לא אושיעכם: <b>וגעלה נפשי אתכם.</b> שתסור השכינה: אז תחרבנה <b>עריכם</b> ונשמו המקדשים שלכם והטעם בתחלה היו מקדשי: <b>ולא אריח בריח.</b> והטעם כי כבוד השם מלא שמים וארץ וכתוב על נח וידח ה׳‎ את ריח הניחוח והטעם שלא אקבל עולה אחרי כן מכם: ואחר שאמר <b>עריכם</b> ו<b>מקדשיכם</b> אמר את הארץ כל ארץ ישראל: <b>ושממו עליה.</b> כל כך תהיה שממה שגם האויבים הדרים ישומו עליה הפך משוש לכל הארץ: <b>אזרה.</b> מבנין הכבד הדגוש ולא די שתזרו עד אשר אריק אחריכם חרב: וטעם <b>אריק.</b> מנדנה: <b>והיתה ארצכם.</b> דבק עם הפסוק הבא אחריו והטעם כאשר תהיה ארצכם שממה: <b>אז תרצה הארץ</b> וזאת המלה כמו תשלי׳‎ וכן עד ירצה כשכיר יומו כי נרצה עונה: <b>שבתותיה.</b> שמיטות ויובלים וכן כתוב עד רצתה הארץ את שבתותיה ושם פירשתיו: <b>השמה.</b> שם ומשקלי השמות משתנים: וטעם <b>כל ימי השמה ואתם בארץ אויביכם.</b> שתהיה שממה מכם אז תשבת ותמצא מנוחה למלא׳‎ שבתותיה: וטעם <b>כל ימי השמה תשבות.</b> מספר השנים שתשבות וביחזקאל מפורש: <b>הנשארים בכם.</b> בעבור שאמר והריקותי אחריכם חרב: <b>מורך</b> מפעלי הכפל וכן במועל ידיה׳‎ מגזרת ורך הלבב ויפחדו עד שירדפם קול עלה נדף והוא שם התאר מבנין נפעל ונו״ן השרש מובלע: <b>איש באחיו.</b> שהוא אוהבו: ת<b>קומה.</b> מבנין כבד נוסף מנחי עי״ן וי״ו בעבור התי״ו וכן תרומה: <b>ואכלה אתכם.</b> מנהג כל הגולים למקום אחר בהשתנות האויר עליהם והמים ימותו רובם: <b>והנשארים.</b> מהנשארים: <b>ימקו בעונם.</b> על משקל יסבו ושניהם מפעלי הכפל מגזרת המק בשרו מק יהיה: <b>ואף בעונות אבותם אתם ימקו.</b> כטעם אבותינו חטאו ובמגלת איכה פירשתיו: <b>והתודו.</b> מבנין התפעל: <b>במעלם אשר מעלו בי.</b> אבותם: <b>ואף אשר הלכו עמי.</b> אלה בניהם בקרי: <b>אף אני.</b> כן עשיתי עמהם ויסרתים להביאם אל ארץ אויביהם עד שיכנע לבבם הערל ועוד אפרשנו: ואז ירצו את <b>עונם.</b> ישלימו ויפרעו: <b>וזכרתי את בריתי.</b> מושך עצמו ואחר עמו וכן הוא וזכרתי את בריתי את ברית יעקב כמו והנבואה עודד הנביא שהוא כמו והנבואה נבואת עודד הנביא ראשיכם שבטיכם שהוא ראשיכם ראשי שבטיכם ויאמר הגאון כי טעם להזכיר בתחלה יעקב בעבור היות שנותיו כלם בברית: <b>והארץ תעזב מהם.</b> טעמו אזכור גם הארץ שפרעה את השבתות ונעזבה מהם וגם אזכור שהם הרצו את עונם: <b>יען וביען.</b> האחד כנגד משפטי מאסו והשני ובחקותי געלה נפשם והבי״ת נוסף כבי״ת בראשונה: <b>ואף גם זאת.</b> לשון צחות והאחד יספיק וכל המקרא כך וכן הרק אך במשה המבלי אין קברים: <b>לא מאסתים לכלותם.</b> רק ליסרם עד שיכנע לבם: <b>געלתים.</b> סרתי מהם או בחלה נפשי מהם: <b>להפר בריתי.</b> שנשבעתי להם ואף אם הם הפרו את בריתי כי כן כתוב. אני לא אפר בריתי אתם כי אלהים אני: <b>וזכרתי להם.</b> לעולם: <b>ברית ראשונים.</b> זאת הברית הכרותה בסיני וקרא זה הדור ראשונים כנגד הבנים שיגלו בארץ אויביהם ויש אומרים על אבות העולם. וטעם <b>אשר הוצאתי אתם.</b> אותם שנשבעתי לאבותם להוציא בניהם מעבדות והראשון נכון בעיני: <b>אלה החקים והמשפטים.</b> הם הכתובים בפרשת וישמע ואלה המשפטים ופרשת בהר סיני: <b>אשר נתן ה׳‎ בינו ובין בני ישראל.</b> רמז לברית הר סיני כי אחר שנעשה המשכן והיה הכבוד באהל מועד לא עלה משה בהר סיני גם הזכיר הפרשה של הערכין בעבור שנאמרה בהר סיני כי כן כתוב באחרונה כי תחלת ספר וידבר ה׳‎ אל משה במדבר סיני באהל מועד בספר ויקרא: <b>יפליא.</b> יפריש ויבאר: <b>בערכך נפשות.</b> הטעם שידור נדר לאמר אם השם יעשה לי כך אפדה נפשי כדי ערכי או ערך בני או ערך בהמה וכ״ף בערכך על דעת כל המדקדקים נוסף והטעם בערך ויש אומרים כי הכ״ף לנכח הכהן ויפרש כערכך הכהן כערכך אתה והה״א יקרא לו ה״א הקריא׳‎ ואמר על הערכך שהיא מלה זרה כמו בתוך האהלי ולפי דעתי שהוא האהל שלי וכן הערכך: וטעם <b>נפשות.</b> כלל לאדם ולבהמה: <b>מבן עשרים שנה.</b> החל משהוא נכנס בפקודים: <b>בן ששים.</b> זקן ודעת רבים כי זו גזרת מלך כי מבן חדש עד חמש שנים יתן חמשה שקלים אלו עבר יום אחד נוסף על חודש יתן חמשה שקלים ולפי דעת הגאון שיתן בכל שנה שקל עד חמש שנים שלימות כי אמרו רבים שהם ארבע כחלקי השנים ואחר כן תשע עשרה שלמות ואחר כן תשע וחמשים לשוב אל המקום שהחל ממנו וחמשה עשר להשלמת חמשת ושבעים כנגד הד׳‎ החלקים ולפי האמת שכל אלה שלמות או יום אחד בשנה חשוב שנה ולא נסמוך רק על דברי הקבלה כי מה צורך לחלוק מבן חדש עד חמש ומחמש עד עשרים אחר שיתן לכל שנה שקל ויש להשיב על דבר החדש והנה מי שהוא פחות מחדש ימים אין לו ערך ואחר ששים שב לאחור. ועוד מה יעשה אחר הששים שנה אם יתן כך תמיד וכל אלה שבושים והכלל כי הוא גזרת הכתוב כי אילו היה על דרך תוספת הזכר על הנקבה הנה אחר ששים יוסיף השלישית והנה מחמש עד עשרים יוסיף החצי ומחדש ועד חמש ומעשרים ועד ששים יוסיף על החצי עשיריתו: <b>והעריך.</b> שיושם הנערך במערכה אחת עם כך וכך וכמוהו אין ערוך אליך ומלת העריך מהבנין הכבד הנוסף וכן יעריכנו הכהן להפריש בינו ובין יערכנו לפני ה׳‎: <b>והעמידו הכהן.</b> כאילו אמר והעמידו הכהן לפני הכהן כאשר פירשתי ויצק על כף הכהן השמאלית ויהיה דרך צחות או יהיה והעמידו שיעמיד הנודר נפשו: <b>כן יקום.</b> כמו יעמוד: <b>ואם משדה אחזתו.</b> שיירש עם ישראל: <b>חמר שעורים.</b> וכתוב כי עשרת הבתים חומר ושם כתוב האיפ׳‎ והבת והנה זרע איפת שעורים בחמשה שקלים וזו גזרת המלך כדמי העבד: <b>אם משנת היובל.</b> בעצם השנה: <b>ונגרע מערכך.</b> מה שהלך אחר היובל: וי״ו <b>ואם גאול יגאל</b>, כפ״א רפה בלשון ישמעאל והוא דבק בטעם הפסוקים שהם למעלה כי הערך עיקר אם יגאל השדה ואם לא יגאל: <b>ואם מכר.</b> טעמו או מכר, ולא יוכל בעל שדה אחוזה שיגאלנו בעבור שמכרו לה׳‎: <b>בצאתו ביבל.</b> הזכיר הכתוב על דרך כל שדה כי ביובל יצא: <b>כשדה החרם.</b> שידור נדר להחרימו גם הוא לכהן והעריך לכהן כי הוא מעריך ואין צורך להיותו כהן גדול: <b>מכסת.</b> כמו מכסת נפשות: <b>לאשר קנהו מאתו.</b> הוא המוכר והוא מפורש לאשר לו אחזת הארץ: <b>יבכר לה׳‎.</b> נודע שהוא לשם וזאת המלה מהבנין שלא נקרא שם פועלו ופירושו האומר אתן הבכור לשם: <b>ואם בבהמה הטמאה ופדה בערכך.</b> הבכור עם התוספות חמישית בעבור שהקדישו גם יתן שה כי כן כתוב אם לא יקדישנו ונמכר. ופטר חמור. בערך גם השה יתן ורבים אומרים לא כן: <b>מכל אשר לו.</b> שהוא ברשותו: <b>מאדם.</b> כמו והחרמתי את עריהם: <b>יומת.</b> ומלת <b>יחרם</b> מהבנין שלא נקרא שם פועלו כמו יעמד חי: <b>תחת השבט.</b> שבט הרועה והנה הנבחר הוא הא׳‎ והעשירי שוה כמו זה רק העשירי יגאלנו ואין כן הבכור והנה יתן הבכור והעשירי בבהמה ובזרע הארץ שהיא התבואה הבכורים והמעשר: <b>יבקר.</b> כמו יבדיל וכבר פירשתי שהמלה מגזרת בקר: <b>בהר סיני.</b> פירשתיו בפרשה הזאת ומי שיש לו לב להבין סוד העולם אז ידע סוד הבכור והעשירי והנה אברהם נתן מעשר גם כן יעקב אבינו עליו השלום ועוד אגלה קצת הסוד בזכרי מעשר שני אם יעזרני אחד ואין לו שני:",
    "text": "In the name of God who commandsthat a fire offering be brought before him.I begin to explain the book <i>And The Lord Called Unto Moses</i>.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">1</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Vat. Ebr</i>. 38. This poem is omitted in the printed editions of I.E.</i><br>AND THE LORD CALLED. We find two reasons for the covenant made with an individual.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">2</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hebrew, <i>berit yachid</i>. The reference is to the covenant of circumcision that God made with Abraham (Gen. 17:9). The commentaries on I.E. differ as to what these two reasons are. Scripture tells us that circumcision is a sign that the Lord will be God to Abraham and his seed after him (Gen. 17:7). I.E. believes that circumcision is also a sign not to act promiscuously. I.E. writes, “The excision of the foreskin of the flesh is a sign of the covenant between man and his creator not to defile one’s soul by engaging in an act of sexual intercourse that is not in accordance with the way of truth” (<i>Yesod Morah</i>, (Strickman translation, p. 102).</i> It is also possible for one commandment to have many reasons. The commandment regarding the burnt offering and the sacrifice<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">3</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The other sacrifices.</i> are examples of the latter, for when the officiant offers each part<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">4</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Of the sacrifice.</i> in its proper time, then the part<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">5</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The person. The individual Jew is a part of the people of Israel and of the human species. Hence I.E. refers to the individual as a part.</i> which has a part<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">6</sup><i class=\"footnote\">A portion.</i> in the world to come is saved.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">7</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to I.E. the sacrificial animal serves as a substitute for the celebrant. “All these acts are performed in order that when they are done, a person should realize that he has sinned against his God…and that his blood should really be spilled and his body burned, were it not for the loving-kindness of the Creator, Who took from him a substitute and a ransom, namely, this offering, so that its blood should be in place of his blood, its life in place of his life, and that the chief limbs of the offering should be in place of the chief parts of his body” (Nachmanides, Chavel translation, Lev. 1:9, p. 21).</i> Therefore the meaning of <i>le-khapper</i> (to make atonement) (v. 4) is to give ransom. The opening of the Torah portion <i>Ki Tissa</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">8</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Ex. 30:11-16.</i> is proof.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">9</sup><i class=\"footnote\">That <i>le-khapper</i> means to offer a ransom, for we read there that each male Israelite was to give a half shekel as a ransom for his soul (<i>kofer nefesh</i>) (Ex. 30:12). Scripture goes on to say, <i>that there be no plague among them</i>.</i> Scripture therefore reads, <i>lest He</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">10</sup><i class=\"footnote\">God.</i> <i>fall upon us with pestilence</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">11</sup><i class=\"footnote\">If we do not sacrifice to God.</i> (Ex. 5:3). There is also a secret<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">12</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In addition to the one just given.</i> regarding the future in the burnt offering.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">13</sup><i class=\"footnote\">When accepted by God, it ensures one’s future (Weiser).</i> One can also learn from each sacrifice the secret of nature.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">14</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The sacrifices inspire the celebrant. His mind is opened to study the secrets of nature.</i> The purpose of the sin offering<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">15</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Whose flesh was eaten by the <i>kohanim</i>.</i> and the unleavened bread<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">16</sup><i class=\"footnote\">From a thanksgiving offering (Lev. 7:14) or a meal offering (Lev. 2:3; 7:9). Our text reads <i>ve-ha-matzot. Vat. Ebr</i>. 38 and some editions read <i>veha-manot</i> (and the portions), i.e., the portions of the sacrifices which are to be eaten by the <i>kohanim</i>.</i> is to sustain the teachers of the Torah.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">17</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The <i>kohanim</i>, who teach Torah to the Jewish people. See Lev. 33:10; Mal. 2:7.</i> The reason <i>And the Lord called unto Moses</i> follows <i>And Moses was not able to enter</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">18</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The sanctuary.</i> (Ex. 40:35) is that the Glory<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">19</sup><i class=\"footnote\">God’s glory.</i> called to Moses from the tent of meeting and told him to come there, and there He would speak with him.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">20</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The end of the Book of Exodus tells that when the construction of the tabernacle was concluded, Moses could not enter the tabernacle because God’s glory filled it. (Ex. 40:35). Leviticus picks up where Exodus leaves off and tells us at its opening, <i>And the Lord called unto Moses</i>; that is, God invited Moses to the tabernacle.</i> The Glory was on the other side of the curtain<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">21</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The <i>parochet</i> which separated the Holy of Holies from the holy. The Glory was in the Holy of Holies.</i> and Moses entered there.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">22</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Into the Holy of Holies.</i> The latter is clearly stated in Scripture.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">23</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Ex. 25:22.</i> This is the meaning of <i>and the similitude of the Lord doth he behold</i> (Num. 12:8). The reason Scripture mentions the sacrifices before the commandments<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">24</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The Book of Leviticus opens with the laws dealing with sacrifices and then goes on to legislate laws of purity, prohibited sexual relations, interpersonal relations, etc. I.E. raises the question why the laws dealing with the sacrifices are given priority.</i> is that God’s presence will return to its place<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">25</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In heaven. See Hos. 5:15, <i>I</i> (God) <i>will go and return to My place</i>.</i> if Israel does not keep the law of the burnt offering.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">26</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hebrew, <i>olah</i>.</i> The latter came to pass.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">27</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The destruction of the temples, which resulted in the cessation of the burnt offering, signified the removal of the manifestation of God’s presence over Israel (Weiser).</i> Far be it from God to require a burnt offering.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">28</sup><i class=\"footnote\">For His own purposes.</i> Scripture clearly states, <i>If I were hungry, I would not tell thee…</i>(Ps. 50:12).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">29</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The verse continues, <i>For the world is mine…Do I eat the flesh of hulls or drink the blood of goats?</i> These two verses completely dispel the idea that the sacrifices were food for God.</i> On the contrary, it<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">30</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The burnt offering.</i> has a secret meaning.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">31</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to I.E. the burnt offering causes “a power from on high to rest on man,” Gen. 8:21 (Vol. 1, p. 119).</i> OF YOU. The word <i>mikkem</i> (of you) is placed at the end of the clause.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">32</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Our clause reads, <i>adam ki yakriv mikkem</i>. The latter literally reads, when any man bringeth an offering of you. Hence I.E.’s comment.</i> The clause should be read as if written, <i>adam mikkem ki yakriv</i> (when any man of you bringeth an offering). There are many such examples.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">33</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Where a word placed at the end of clause should be read as if placed earlier.</i> On the other hand, the word <i>mikkem</i> might mean from your property.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">34</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In other words, <i>mikkem</i> (of you) means of your property. In this case the word <i>mikkem</i> does not have to be moved, for the meaning of <i>the clause</i> is, when any man bringeth an offering of your (that is, his) property.</i> The term <i>mikkem</i> might also hint that one is not permitted to bring an offering that is stolen,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">35</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In this case our verse is to be read as follows: When any man bringeth an offering of you, that is, it shall be of yours. It shall belong to you.</i> for Scripture states, <i>I hate robbery with iniquity</i> (Is. 61:8).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">36</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hebrew, <i>be-olah. Be-elah</i> may be rendered iniquity or burnt offering. I.E. translates it as burnt offering.</i> OF THE CATTLE. Shall the sacrifice be. This<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">37</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Cattle. Hebrew, <i>behemah</i>.</i> is a general term. Scripture then gives the particulars and states, <i>even of the herd</i>,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">38</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hebrew, <i>bakar</i>.</i> <i>or of the flock</i>.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">39</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hebrew, <i>tzon</i>.</i> The flock refers to the species of the sheep and the goat. <i>Your offering</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">40</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Which concludes our verse.</i> is also a general term. IF HIS OFFERING BE A BURNT–OFFERING. This<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">41</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The term <i>burnt offering</i>.</i> is a particular. The term <i>olah</i> (burnt offering) is self-explanatory.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">42</sup><i class=\"footnote\">It comes from the root <i>ayin, lamed</i>, <i>heh</i>, which means to go up. The term <i>olah</i> is thus connected in meaning to the word <i>oleh</i> (going up).</i> OF THE HERD. Fully grown or young but more than eight days.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">43</sup><i class=\"footnote\">An animal younger than eight days is unfit to be brought as a sacrifice. See Lev. 22:27.</i> The burnt offering is brought from the choicest animals because it is entirely for God. The male is chosen above the female. Therefore a female animal is not brought for a burnt offering. WITHOUT BLEMISH. <i>Tammim</i> means without blemish.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">44</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The word <i>tammim</i> literally means whole. This might be taken to mean not missing an organ. Hence I.E. comments that whole means without blemish.</i> After stating <i>he shall offer it</i>, Scripture goes on to explain the place where the celebrant is to bring it. It states that he is to enter into the courtyard of the tent of meeting.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">45</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>The door of the tent of meeting</i> was located in the courtyard of the tent of meeting.</i> BEFORE THE LORD. This is to be understood as connected to <i>he shall bring it to the door of the tent of meeting</i>.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">46</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Our verse is to be understood as follows: he shall bring it to the door of the tent of meeting before the Lord.</i> THAT HE MAY BE ACCEPTED<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">47</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hebrew, <i>li-retozno</i>. I.E. renders this as, of his own free will. Hence I.E.’s comment.</i>  BEFORE THE LORD. He shall offer it willingly, not by coercion. AND HE SHALL LAY HIS HAND. It would appear from the plain meaning of the text that the celebrant lays one hand<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">48</sup><i class=\"footnote\">For Scripture reads <i>yado</i> (his hand).</i> on the animal about to be sacrificed, for the manner of the scapegoat<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">49</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Literally, the goat which is sent, the scapegoat which is sent into the wilderness on Yom Kippur. Scripture explicitly tells us that two hands are to be laid on the scapegoat. See Lev. 16:21.</i> is unlike all sacrifices.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">50</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The scapegoat is not treated as all other sacrifices. Its blood is not sprinkled on the altar, and none of its flesh is offered on the altar. It is sent away into the wilderness. Hence we cannot generalize from it.</i> Scripture therefore changed [the manner of the laying of the hands with regard to it].<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">51</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Unlike other sacrifices, it requires the laying of two hands.</i> However, we find that the sages who transmitted the laws to us stated that all “laying” is done with two hands.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">52</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Whenever Scripture speaks of laying the hand it refers to the laying of two hands.</i> We rely on them. The body<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">53</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The body of the animal which serves as a sacrifice.</i> which is offered to atone for that which comes (<i>ha-olah</i>) into the mind<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">54</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to the sage, Rabbi Simeon bar Yochai, the burnt offering is brought to atone for improper thoughts. See <i>Va-Yikrah Rabba</i> 7:3.</i> is called an <i>olah</i> (burnt offering). The sacrifices brought for sins and guilt are also called <i>chattat</i> (sin offering) and <i>asham</i> (guilt offering).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">55</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Their names also explain the reason for these sacrifices.</i>  AND IT SHALL BE ACCEPTED<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">56</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hebrew, <i>ve-nirtzeh</i> (literally, he will be favored). Hence I.E.’s comment.</i> FOR HIM. He will obtain favor from God. TO MAKE ATONEMENT FOR HIM.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">57</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hebrew, <i>le-khapper alav</i>.</i> To serve as a ransom for the punishment due him. BEFORE THE LORD. Like the burnt offering of the flock, on the side of the altar northward, opposite the table.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">58</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The table of showbread. The latter was placed in the northern part of the tabernacle.</i>  The meaning of <i>and he shall kill</i> is that the <i>kohen</i> shall kill. One slaughters<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">59</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Ve-shachat</i> (and he shall kill) is in the singular.</i> and many dash the blood.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">60</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Ve-zareku</i> (and dash) is in the plural and thus refers to Aaron’s sons.</i> Scripture clearly states this i.e., <i>and Aaron’s sons delivered unto him the blood</i> (Lev. 9:12).  Scripture states, <i>that is at the door of the tent of meeting</i> because it wants to exclude the altar of incense.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">61</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Which was inside the tent of meeting.</i> AND HE SHALL FLAY. A <i>kohen</i> or a Levite accompanies him.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">62</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In order to assist him.</i> AND THE SONS OF AARON THE PRIEST. Levites shall not approach.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">63</sup><i class=\"footnote\">To perform the service described in our verse.</i> This commandment was given to the <i>kohanim</i>. Not less than two<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">64</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Kohanim</i>.</i> are required.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">65</sup><i class=\"footnote\">For the verse speaks of sons of Aaron.</i> AND THE SUET. Many wise men of the generation explain that the word <i>pader</i> (suet) refers to the carcass. However, in my opinion the <i>pader</i> refers to the fat. Our verse is to be understood as follows: <i>And Aaron’s sons, the priests, shall lay the pieces</i>, that is, the pieces of the carcass;<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">66</sup><i class=\"footnote\">It is possible to read our verse as follows: And Aaron’s sons, the priests, shall lay the pieces, the head, and the suet. In other words, <i>the pieces</i> refers to the head and the suet. Hence I.E.’s comment.</i> <i>and the head, and the suet</i>, that is, the fat. A connective <i>vav</i> is missing from the word <i>ha-rosh</i> (and the head).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">67</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Ha-rosh</i> (literally, the head) is to be read as if written <i>ve-ha-rosh</i> (and the head). In other words, our verse is to be read as follows: And Aaron’s sons, the priests, shall lay the pieces, and the head, and the suet.</i> This is in keeping with the style of the language.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">68</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Scripture occasionally omits the connective <i>vav</i>. However, the text is to be understood as if it were present.</i> Compare, <i>odem pitidah</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">69</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Pitidah</i> is to be read as if written <i>u-pitidah</i> (and carnelian). See I.E. on Ex. 1:4 (Vol. 2, p. 6).</i> <i>u-vareket</i> (carnelian, topaz, and smargd) (Ex. 28:17). <i>And he shall cut it into its pieces</i> (v. 12)<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">70</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>And cut it</i> (the burnt offering) into its pieces. I.E. points out that a parallel verse literally reads, <i>And he shall cut it into its pieces and its head</i> (ve-et rosho) <i>and its suet</i> (v. 12). We thus see that <i>its pieces</i> refers <i>to the</i> carcass <i>of</i> the animal, not to its head and suet.</i> and along with the pieces, its head and its suet. On the other hand, <i>et ha-rosh</i> (and the head) might mean with the head.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">71</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In this case a connective <i>vav</i> need not be placed before <i>ha-rosh</i>, for the meaning of our verse is: And Aaron’s sons, the priests, shall lay the pieces, with the head and the suet.</i> There are many such instances.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">72</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Where <i>et</i> has the meaning of with. See I.E. on Gen. 1:1 (Vol. 1, p. 27).</i> The proof of this<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">73</sup><i class=\"footnote\">That <i>the pieces</i> do not include the head and the suet.</i> is: <i>Moses made the head, and the pieces, and the suet smoke</i> (Lev. 8:20). SHALL LAY THE PIECES. Scripture reads <i>ve-arekhu</i> (shall lay)<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">74</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Ve-arekhu</i> (shall lay) is a plural. It literally means, and they shall lay.</i> because it speaks of a bullock, a large animal.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">75</sup><i class=\"footnote\">And it requires more than one person to handle it.</i> Regarding a sheep,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">76</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Which is a small animal.</i> Scripture states, <i>and the priest shall lay</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">77</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hebrew, <i>ve-arakh</i>, which is in the singular.</i> <i>them</i> (v. 12). SHALL HE WASH WITH WATER. A <i>kohen</i> or a Levite. Scripture therefore has to add the word <i>kohen</i> to <i>shall make the whole smoke</i>.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">78</sup><i class=\"footnote\">For only the <i>kohen</i> may perform this work.</i> A BURNT-OFFERING. The word <i>isheh</i> (burnt offering) is an adjective. It means a fire offering. It describes the word <i>hakol</i> (the whole).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">79</sup><i class=\"footnote\">All of it shall be offered as a burnt offering.</i> A SWEET SAVOUR. The word <i>nicho’ach</i> (a sweet savour) is self-explanatory.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">80</sup><i class=\"footnote\">It is obviously related to the word <i>menuchah</i> (rest). See I.E. on Gen. 5:8 (Vol. 1, p. 118). He explains <i>nicho’ach</i> as meaning that the sacrifice assuages God’s anger, or that it causes a power from on high to rest on man.</i> ON THE SIDE OF THE ALTAR. On the outside.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">81</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In other words, <i>yerakh</i> which literally means side of, at times can mean beyond the side.</i> Similarly [<i>Even mount Zion</i> ], <i>the uttermost part</i> (yarkete) <i>of the north</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">82</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The northern part of Jerusalem. The verse literally reads, <i>Even mount Zion, the side of the north</i>.</i> (Ps. 48:3). For many err and say that the tower of Zion<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">83</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Which was located on Mount Zion. See Ps. 48:13.</i> was in the midst of Jerusalem.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">84</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>The side</i> means on the outside, next to.</i> TURTLE-DOVES. Fully grown, not young. YOUNG PIGEONS. Scripture reads <i>bene yonah</i> (young pigeons) because it wants to exclude fully grown pigeons. It therefore does not say <i>yonim</i> (pigeons).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">85</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Which would indicate fully grown pigeons.</i> PINCH. The word <i>malak</i> (pinch) has no brother in Scripture.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">86</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The word is not found again in Scripture.</i> We know the laws of “pinching” from our tradition.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">87</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The <i>kohen</i> “cuts with his nail against the nape of the neck of the fowl and cuts its neck until he reaches the organs and severs them” (Rashi). Also see <i>Zevachim</i> 65a; <i>Chulin</i> 21b.</i> AND THE BLOOD THEREOF SHALL BE DRAINED OUT. <i>Ve-nimtzah</i> (shall be drained out) is a <i>nifal</i>. It is related to the word <i>matzit</i> (drained) (Is. 51:17). ITS CROP. The meaning of <i>murato</i> (its crop) is known.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">88</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Everybody knows that it refers to the crop.</i> The word <i>more’ah</i> (filthy) in <i>Woe to her that is filthy and polluted</i> (Zeph. 3:1) is similar.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">89</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The contents of the crop are filthy. Hence the term <i>murah</i> (crop).</i> WITH THE FEATHERS THEREOF. The meaning of <i>be-not-zatah</i> is, with the feathers thereof.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">90</sup><i class=\"footnote\">There is an opinion that <i>notzatah</i> means its entrails (see Rashi). Hence I.E.’s comment.</i> The word <i>notzah</i> (feathers) in <i>Full of feathers</i> (Ezek. 17:3) is similar. BESIDE THE ALTAR. On the outside.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">91</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Of the altar.</i> ON THE EAST PART. For it is far from the place of the Glory.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">92</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The altar (Weiser). The crop and its feathers were not placed on the altar, but outside of it.</i> IN THE PLACE OF THE ASHES. They shall also place it there.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">93</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Among the ashes, which were removed far away from the altar.</i> AND HE SHALL REND IT. The word <i>ve-shissa</i> (and he shall rend it) is related to <i>ve-shosa’at shesa</i> (and is wholly cloven) (Lev. 11:3). The meaning of <i>shissa</i> is split. AND WHEN ANY ONE BRINGETH. The word <i>nefesh</i> (anyone) means a person. Scripture mentions <i>nefesh</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">1</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Scripture here refers to a person by the term <i>nefesh</i>. However, in chapter 1, it refers to a person by the term <i>adam</i> (man). See Lev. 1:2. Hence I.E.’s comment.</i> because the meal offering is a free will offering and <i>nefesh</i> is called “willing.”<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">2</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Nefesh</i> also means spirit.</i> Compare, <i>And let a willing spirit uphold me</i> (Ps. 51:14).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">3</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Thus the deeper meaning of our verse is, when a willing spirit brings a free will offering unto the Lord. For another interpretation of why Scripture here employs the term <i>nefesh</i> and not <i>adam</i> see Rashi on verse 1.</i> FINE FLOUR. The meaning of <i>solet</i> (fine flour) is pure wheat flour. It is the same as that which is called <i>samid</i> in Arabic. Look, it is not fitting that a meal offering brought to the Most High come from anything than which nothing better exists.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">4</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In other words, it is unfit that a meal offering brought to the Most High come from anything but the best.</i> What is the value of this work today? From an historical and intellectual view, Ibn Ezra’s commentary on the Pentateuch is most important, as explained previously in the preface to Genesis. His influence can be seen in all subsequent Hebrew Biblical commentaries, particularly that of Nahmanides. His influence is equally apparent on Maimonides both in his philosophical work, the <i>Guide of the Perplexed</i>, and his <i>halakhic</i> work, his <i>Mishneh Torah</i>, extending also to many later Biblical scholars and philosophers. All this is well documented in Dr. Strickman’s forewords to the five books of this set. In spite of all of this, however, the question of the English translation’s value still remains. In his introduction to his commentary on the Torah, Ibn Ezra writes, “With regard to verses which deal with laws, statutes and regulations, if we find two possible interpretations for a verse and one of them in keeping with the interpretation of the transmitters of tradition, all of whom were righteous men, then without reservation and with all our might we will rely on the truth of their words. Heaven forbid that we should join the Sadducees who claim that the traditions of the Rabbinic sages contradict the literal meaning of Scripture and the rules of grammar. The fact of the matter is that our ancient sages are true and all their words are true” (Vol. 1, pp. 18,19). However, it must be noted that the rabbis who posited post-Mosaic changes in the Torah were men of stellar reputation. Abarbanel (Num. 21:1) claimed, though his opinion is very questionable, that Nahmanides held such views regarding Num. 21:1-3. Furthermore, despite the fact that Maimonides’ thirteen principles of Judaism ultimately became part of the liturgy and thus were accepted at face value by all pious Jews, in practice not all of Maimonides’ pronouncements on what constitutes heresy were accepted by post-Maimonidian authorities. There was room for difference. For example, according to Maimonides one who directs his or her prayer to anyone but God is guilty of idol worship. Nevertheless, there are prayers that are directed to angels or to God’s attributes. Thus there had to be another reason for normative Judaism’s rejection of the notion of any post-Mosaic changes in the Torah. AND HE SHALL TAKE. <i>Ve-kamatz</i> (and he shall take) is related to the word <i>li-kematzim</i> (in heaps) (Gen. 41:47).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">5</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to this interpretation, <i>ve-kamatz</i> (and he shall take) means and he shall gather.</i> Our sages explained that <i>melo kumtzo</i> means a handful.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">6</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See <i>Menachot</i> 9a, 18b.</i> Their words are true. OF THE FINE FLOUR THEREOF. A little of it, and so too of the oil. However, he shall burn all of the frankincense. THE MEMORIAL-PART THEREOF. The <i>alef</i> of <i>azkaratah</i> (the memorial part thereof) is superfluous.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">7</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to this opinion <i>azkaratah</i> comes from the root <i>zayin, kaf, resh</i>. The <i>alef</i> serves no purpose.</i> <i>Azkaratah</i> is so called because the meal offering by the celebrant serves as a memorial before God.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">8</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In other words, <i>azkaratah</i> means <i>the memorial part thereof</i>. God recalls the celebrant because of his meal offering.</i> Others say that <i>azkaratah</i> means its scent. It is like scent of the incense.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">9</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The portion of the meal offering offered on the altar is similar to the incense offered on the altar.</i> Compare, <i>The scent thereof</i> (zikhro) <i>shall be as the wine of Lebanon</i> (Hos. 14:8). SHALL BE AARON’S AND HIS SONS’. And to all <i>kohanim</i> equally.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">10</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Unlike the meal offerings that are baked in the oven which belong to the priest who offers them (Lev. 7:9), a meal offering mingled with oil is shared by all the <i>kohanim</i> (Lev. 7:10) (Filwarg).</i> UNLEAVENED CAKES. The word <i>challot</i> (cakes) means thick cakes.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">11</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Thus <i>challot matzot</i> (unleavened cakes) means thick unleavened cakes.</i> Others connect <i>challot</i> to the Rabbinic term <i>chalilah</i> (circle).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">12</sup><i class=\"footnote\">They say that <i>challot</i> means rounded cakes. See <i>Sukkah</i> 5:6.</i> A GRIDDLE. <i>Machavat</i> (griddle) refers to a plate covered with a plate.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">13</sup><i class=\"footnote\">It refers to a pan with a cover.</i> Its <i>tav</i> is in place of a <i>heh</i>,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">14</sup><i class=\"footnote\">A variant of <i>machavah. Machavah</i> comes from the root <i>chet, bet, heh</i>, meaning to hide. A <i>machavah</i> is a utensil in which the food is hidden (Weiser), i.e., covered.</i> like the <i>tav</i> of <i>ve-shavat</i> (it shall return) in <i>then it shall return to the prince</i> (Ezek. 46:17).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">15</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The <i>tav of ve-shavat</i> is in place of a <i>heh</i>, for <i>ve-shavat</i> is a variant of <i>ve</i><i>shavah</i>.</i> THE STEWING-PAN. <i>Marcheshet</i> (the stewing pan) means fried.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">16</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Contra other commentaries, I.E. does not believe that <i>marcheshet</i> (stewing pan) describes a utensil. It refers to a type of meal offering. I.E. renders our clause: And if your offering be a fried meal offering (<i>minchah marcheshet</i>).</i> Some connect the word <i>marcheshet</i> to <i>rachash</i> (speaks) in <i>My heart speaks</i> (Ps. 45:2).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">17</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Translated according to I.E.</i> <i>Marcheshet</i> is so called because it emits sounds.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">18</sup><i class=\"footnote\">When an oil-saturated mixture is fried, it emits sounds.</i> AARON’S AND HIS SONS’. After him.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">19</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The generations that followed Aaron.</i> That is, to the <i>kohen</i> who places it upon the fire, for Scripture states so with regard to the two meal offerings.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">20</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The meal offering baked on a griddle and the one baked in an oven.</i> LEAVEN. <i>Se’or</i> refers to leaven. It is the same case with honey. Some say that our verse speaks of date honey. The same is true whenever Scripture speaks of a <i>land flowing with milk and honey</i>. There is what appears to be proof of their opinion in the Book of Ezra.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">21</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The reference is probably to II Chron. 31:5, <i>viz., the children of Israel gave in abundance the first-fruits of corn, wine and oil, and honey, and all the increase of the field</i>. The latter seems to place honey among the produce of the field. Others say that the reference is to Neh. 10:36.</i> AS AN OFFERING OF FIRST-FRUITS YE MAY BRING THEM UNTO THE LORD. As the two wave-loaves of two tenth parts of an ephah which were waved before God on the festival of Shavu’ot (Lev. 23:17). The meaning of <i>unto the Lord</i> is, even though they are holy <i>unto the Lord</i> they are food for the <i>kohen</i>. THE COVENANT OF THY GOD. God caused you to enter the covenant and made you swear that you would not offer anything which is unsalted and inedible, for that is an insult.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">22</sup><i class=\"footnote\">To God.</i> AND IF THOU BRING A MEAL-OFFERING OF FIRSTFRUITS.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">23</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hebrew, <i>bikkurim</i>. To be understood here as the first grain.</i> Many say that the word <i>im</i> (if) indicates an obligation.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">24</sup><i class=\"footnote\">They render <i>and if thou bring a meal-offering of first-fruits</i> as when you bring a meal offering of the first grain. See Rashi: “<i>Im</i> here has the meaning of <i>ki</i> (when), for this offering is not optional.” Rashi believes that our verse deals with the <i>omer</i> (measure) of barley offered on the second day of Passover. This offering was obligatory. It was offered from the very first of the harvest. See Lev. 23:9-14.</i> I believe that there is no need for this explanation, for there is an obligation to bring the first<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">25</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The very first.</i> of the grain<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">26</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See Deut. 26:1-11.</i> and not the first grain. One who wishes to bring a meal offering from the first grain<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">27</sup><i class=\"footnote\">From the first grain harvest.</i> as a free will offering may do so.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">28</sup><i class=\"footnote\">However, he is not obligated to do so.</i> CORN IN THE EAR. <i>Aviv</i> (com in the ear) is so called because it is first.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">29</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Aviv</i> thus means the first grain.</i> It is related to the word <i>av</i> (father).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">30</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The father comes before the son.</i> GROATS. The meaning of <i>geres</i> (groats) is known. It is close to being related to the word <i>garesah</i> (breaketh) in <i>My soul breaketh</i> (Ps. 119:20).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">31</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to I.E. <i>geres</i> means broken grain. See Rashi: <i>“geres</i> means breaking or grinding.”</i> The latter is so even though the word <i>garesah</i> is spelled with a <i>samekh</i>.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">32</sup><i class=\"footnote\">And the word <i>geres</i> is spelled with a <i>sin</i>.</i> FRESH EAR. The word <i>karmel</i> (fresh ear) is related to the word <i>karmel</i> (fresh ears) in <i>and fresh ears of corn in his sack</i> (II Kings 4:42). PEACE-OFFERINGS. The term <i>shelamim</i> (peace offerings) is self-explanatory.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">1</sup><i class=\"footnote\">It is related to the word <i>shalom</i> (peace). Unlike other sacrifices, <i>shelamim</i> are not offered for sin but rather for the continued peaceful existence of the celebrant. See I.E.’s short commentary on Ex. 29:27.</i> BY THE LOINS. The meaning of the term <i>kesalim</i> (loins) is known. It is related to the word <i>kesilehem</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">2</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to I.E. the literal meaning of <i>kesilehem</i> is, their flanks.</i> (constellations thereof) in <i>and the constellations thereof</i> (Is<i></i>. 13:10).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">3</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to I.E. the reference is to the stars that flank the heavenly north and south poles. This was the current knowledge of astronomy in those days. See I.E. on Is. 13:10.</i> HARD BY THE KIDNEYS. The term <i>al</i> (hard by) means with,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">4</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Its usual meaning is on. Hence I.E.’s comment.</i> as in <i>And they came, both men with</i> (al) <i>women</i> (Ex. 35:22).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">5</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Translated according to I.E.</i> <i>Kelayot</i> (kidneys) are so called because they are the source of lust and sex. The word <i>kelayot</i> is related to the word <i>kaletah</i> (pineth) in <i>My soul yearneth, yea, even pineth</i> (Ps. 84:3). THE FAT THEREOF, THE FAT TAIL ENTIRE. The meaning of <i>chelbo ha-alyah temimah</i> (the fat thereof, the fat tail entire) is, the fat as it is,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">6</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In its entirety.</i> for the tail is called fat.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">7</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In other words, the meaning of <i>chelbo ha-alyah</i> is, the fat thereof, that is, the tail.</i> The Sadducees, as I will explain to you in the next Torah portion,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">8</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The Torah portion <i>Tzav</i>. Literally, in the second portion.</i> err. The Gaon<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">9</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Rabbi Saadiah Gaon.</i> also errs, for he says that <i>chelbo haalyah</i> is to be interpreted as the fat thereof and the tail.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">10</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In other words, Scripture speaks of two organs.</i> The latter is contrary to the rules of grammar, for<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">11</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to Rabbi Saadiah Gaon’s interpretation.</i> the phrase should have read <i>chelbo ve-alyato</i> (its fat and its tail) or <i>hachelev ve-ha-alyah</i> (and its tail and its fat). THE RUMP-BONE. The meaning of <i>atzeh</i> (rump-bone) is known from its context. It has no brother.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">12</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The word is not found again in Scripture.</i> There is a commentator who far-fetchedly connected it to the word <i>etz</i> (tree).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">13</sup><i class=\"footnote\">For the <i>atzeh</i> (rump-bone) is as hard as wood.</i> THE FOOD<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">14</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hebrew, <i>lechem</i>.</i> OF THE OFFERING MADE BY FIRE. I have previously explained that the meaning of <i>lechem</i> is food.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">15</sup><i class=\"footnote\">It does not refer only to bread. See I.E. on Ex.16:4 (Vol. 2, p. 316).</i> It is found in reference to fruit<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">16</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See Jer. 11:19.</i> and meat.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">17</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In our verse.</i> AND IF HIS OFFERING BE A GOAT. Any animal classified as a goat, be it male or female,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">18</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In other words, the term <i>ez</i> (goat) takes in both males and females.</i> as is the case with a sheep.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">19</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hebrew, <i>keves</i>. The term <i>keves</i> applies to both males and females. See verse 7.</i> Scripture does not mention the fat tail with regard to the herd. It only mentions it with regard to the lamb because the tail of a goat or a bull is small. Furthermore, the lambs in the Land of Israel have a large tail.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">20</sup><i class=\"footnote\">A large fat tail.</i> The latter is well known.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">21</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See <i>Sabbath</i> 5:3.</i> ALL THE FAT IS THE LORD’S. This is a general statement. Now, since the fat and the blood belong to God, they are prohibited to you. I will expostulate at length on the phrase <i>a perpetual statute</i> in the next Torah portion. IF ANY ONE SHALL SIN. By inadvertently transgressing one of the negative commandments, the penalty for which is excision<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">1</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Such as eating leaven on Passover (Ex. 12: 15). There are thirty-six transgressions for which the penalty of excision is prescribed. They are listed in <i>Keritot</i> 1:1.</i> or flogging [for a deliberate act].<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">2</sup><i class=\"footnote\">For such a transgression as eating food which is not kosher.</i> The word <i>nefesh</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">3</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Literally, a person or a soul.</i> (any one) takes in Israelites and strangers,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">4</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Non-Jews living in the Land of Israel. See notes on I.E. Lev. 13:3.</i> for it is so stated.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">5</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The term <i>nefesh</i> is used in reference to a stranger in Ex. 23:9. It is widely used in Scripture to refer to Israelites. See Ex. 12:15.</i> Scripture then goes into detail.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">6</sup><i class=\"footnote\">It goes on to describe the sin offerings to be brought by the various strata of society.</i> It begins with the <i>kohen gadol</i>, the anointed <i>kohen</i>. TO BRING GUILT ON THE PEOPLE. The <i>kohen gadol</i> taught incorrectly and the people were guilty, all of them having acted inadvertently.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">7</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The people inadvertently sinned by following the wrong ruling of the <i>ko</i><i>hen gadol</i>.</i> On the other hand, the meaning of <i>leashmat ha-am</i> (to bring guilt on the people) might be, because of the guilt of all of the people.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">8</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The <i>kohen gadol</i> is responsible for the people’s sin. He did not sufficiently admonish the people.</i> It<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">9</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The phrase <i>le-ashmat ha-am</i> (to bring guilt on the people). According to this interpretation our verse reads: If the appointed priest shall sin because of the people’s guilt.</i> is mentioned here<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">10</sup><i class=\"footnote\">After the word <i>yechete</i> (shall sin). In other words, <i>le-ashmat ha-am</i> (to bring guilt on the people) qualifies <i>yechete</i> (shall sin).</i> because the <i>kohen</i> is the bearer of the Torah and he is very careful and holy unto God.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">11</sup><i class=\"footnote\">He himself would not sin inadvertently.</i> FOR HIS SIN. <i>Al chattato</i> (for his sin) means because of his sin.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">12</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Al chattato</i> (for his sin) literally means on his sin. Hence I.E.’s comment.</i> Since the <i>kohen gadol</i> is great he must offer a bullock, which is the largest animal of all that are offered on the altar. AND THE PRIEST SHALL DIP. The anointed <i>kohen</i> himself. You will find the reason for <i>seven times</i> in the Torah portion <i>Va-Yar Balak</i> (Num. 22:2-25:9).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">13</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See I.E. on Num. 23:1, Vol 4, p. 191.</i> The <i>kohen gadol</i> sprinkles some of the blood of the sin offering in front of the veil of the sanctuary<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">14</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The veil (<i>parokhet</i>) separating the holy from the Holy of Holies.</i> and on the incense altar<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">15</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Which stood in the holy.</i> because of his exalted status.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">16</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In the case of other sin offerings the blood is not sprinkled in front of the veil and on the incense altar. Hence I.E.’s comment.</i> The <i>kohen gadol</i> burns the entire bullock, aside from the various fats,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">17</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Which are burned on the altar. See verses 8 and 9.</i> outside [of the camp]<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">18</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Verses 11 and 12.</i> because it is not a burnt offering.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">19</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hence, unlike the burnt offering, it is not burnt on the altar which stood in the temple courtyard. See Lev. 1:13.</i> WHERE THE ASHES ARE POURED OUT. It should be burned in the place where the ashes of the altar are found.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">20</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In the place where the ashes of the altar are put.</i> WHEN THE SIN WHEREIN THEY HAVE SINNED IS KNOWN. The same law,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">21</sup><i class=\"footnote\">A person shall bring a sin offering only after learning that he has sinned. The same law applies to the <i>kohen gadol</i>.</i> even though it is not mentioned,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">22</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Scripture doesn’t state, “when their sin is known” in the law dealing with the <i>kohen gadol</i>.</i> applies to the <i>kohen gadol</i>, for if the sin not be known to the <i>kohen gadol</i>, then he does not bring a sin offering. Others say that the <i>kohen gadol</i> shall bring this sacrifice<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">23</sup><i class=\"footnote\">A sin offering.</i> every year because he may have sinned.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">24</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hence Scripture does not state “when the sin wherein he sinned is known” with regard to the <i>kohen gadol</i>.</i> Scripture mentions <i>the sin…is known</i> with regard to the whole congregation of Israel, for it is possible that the <i>kohen</i> will inform them. However, there is no one to inform the <i>kohen;</i> he informs himself.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">25</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The <i>kohen gadol</i> realizes by himself that he has sinned.</i> The sin offering of the congregation is the same as that of the <i>kohen gadol</i> in all details. The <i>kohen gadol</i> is thus equivalent to all of Israel.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">26</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hence their sacrifices are equal.</i> AND THE ELDERS OF THE CONGREGATION. The elders are the leaders. They will lay their hands<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">27</sup><i class=\"footnote\">On the head of the bullock.</i> on their behalf and on behalf of all of Israel, for it is impossible for all of Israel to place their hands.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">28</sup><i class=\"footnote\">On the head of the bullock.</i> IT IS THE SIN-OFFERING. The bullock.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">29</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The verse reads, <i>chattat ha-kahal hu. Hu</i> is in the masculine. Hence it refers to the bullock, not to the sin offering. Thus our text is to be understood as follows: The bullock is the sin offering of the assembly.</i> If Israel errs and they do not do one of the positive commandments, then they shall bring a bullock as a burnt offering and a he-goat as a sin offering.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">30</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Our text tells us that if the congregation sins in error they then bring a bullock as a sin offering. However, Num. 15:22-24 tells us that if the congregation sins in error they shall bring a bullock as a burnt offering and a he-goat as a sin offering. Hence I.E. points out that our text deals with the violation of a negative precept while Numbers deals with the violation of a positive precept, for the text reads, <i>and do any of the things which the Lord hath commanded not to be done</i> while Num. 15:22 reads, <i>and not observe all these commandments</i>.</i> WHEN A RULER SINNETH. The words are inverted.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">31</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Our verse reads, <i>asher nasi yechete</i> (when a ruler sinneth).</i> Our verse should be read as if written, when the sinner is the ruler.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">32</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In other words, our text should be interpreted as if written, <i>asher yechete nasi</i>. I.E. interprets thus because he believes that <i>asher</i> (when) is connected to the verb (<i>yechete</i>), not to the noun (<i>nasi</i>).</i> It is connected to that which is written above,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">33</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hence our verse does not open with <i>ve-im</i> (and if) but with <i>asher</i> (the one who).</i> that is, <i>And if the whole congregation of Israel…</i> (v. 13). Our verse, as it were, states, and if the one who sins is the ruler of a tribe or the ruler of a father’s house. IF HIS SIN…BE KNOWN TO HIM.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">34</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hebrew, <i>o hoda elav chattato</i> (literally, or if someone made known to him his sin).</i> Scripture employs an abridged style.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">35</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Or, indicates a second possibility. However, Scripture does not record the first possibility. Hence I.E. assumes that Scripture omits the first possibility. It must be supplied by the reader.</i> It is similar to the verse dealing with the <i>kohen</i>.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">36</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The <i>kohen gadol</i>. There too Scripture employs an abridged style. See I.E.’s first comment on verse 10.</i> Its meaning is, if the ruler knows on his own that he has sinned or someone else who has seen him<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">37</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Sin.</i> makes it known to him.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">38</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Our verse is to be interpreted as if written: The ruler realizes that he has sinned or if someone makes his sin known to him.</i> The following is the grammatical explanation of <i>hoda elav</i> (be known to him): <i>Hoda</i> (be known) is a verb<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">39</sup><i class=\"footnote\">A <i>hifil</i>.</i> in the perfect.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">40</sup><i class=\"footnote\">It is a variant of <i>hodi’a</i> (he made known).</i> Compare, <i>ve-hetzar</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">41</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Hetzar</i> is a <i>hifil</i>. It is a variant of <i>hetzir</i>. The same is true of <i>hoda, hodi’a</i>.</i> <i>lekha</i> (and he shall besiege thee) (Deut. 28:52). The one who informs is omitted.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">42</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The subject governing <i>hoda</i> is omitted. Scripture does not read, <i>o</i> <i>hoda ish elav chattato</i>.</i> Compare, <i>whom she bore</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">43</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Translated according to I.E.</i> (Num. 26:59).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">44</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Scripture does not identify who did the bearing.</i> Rabbi Moses the Kohen says that <i>hoda</i> (be known) is a <i>hofal</i>,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">45</sup><i class=\"footnote\">A passive. In other words, <i>hoda</i> should be rendered, be known.</i> for the <i>cholam</i> and the <i>shuruk</i> interchange.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">46</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The usual form of the <i>hofal</i> for this word is <i>huda</i>. Hence I.E. notes that <i>hoda</i> is a variant of <i>huda</i>.</i> <i>Hoda</i> follows the paradigm of <i>hurad</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">47</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Which is a <i>hofal</i>.</i> (was brought down) in <i>And Joseph was brought down to Egypt</i> (Gen. 39:1). The ruler offers a he-goat as a sacrifice in keeping with <i>The greyhound</i>; <i>the he-goat also</i> (Prov. 30:31).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">48</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The complete verse reads: <i>The greyhound; the he-goat also; And the king, against whom there is no rising up</i>. The verse speaks of those who walk haughtily. The he-goat walks with its head held high, as does the king. Hence a goat was chosen as the animal to be offered by the ruler (the king) as a sin offering.</i> The latter is in accordance with the interpretation of the Gaon in the Book of Proverbs. The offering consists of a male, in keeping with the status of the ruler. However, its blood is not brought inside of the sanctuary.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">49</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In contrast to the blood of the bullock brought by the <i>kohen gadol</i> and the congregation.</i> The <i>kohanim</i>, as is stated in Scripture,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">50</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See Lev. 6:19.</i> eat of the ruler’s sin offering to atone for the ruler. The <i>kohen gadol</i> does not eat of his sin offering.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">51</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See I.E. on Lev. 6:16.</i> OF THE COMMON PEOPLE. The reference is to all of Israel, the ordinary <i>kohanim</i> and the Levites. AND BE GUILTY. <i>Ashem</i> (guilty) is a verb in the perfect. It is like <i>zaken</i> (was old) in <i>when Isaac was old</i> (Gen. 27:1). A GOAT, A FEMALE. For his status is lower than that of the ruler.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">52</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hence the sinner brings a female goat, which is on a lower level than a he-goat.</i>  I will explain the meaning of <i>ve-nislach lo</i> (and he shall be forgiven) (v. 26) in the Torah portion <i>Send Thou</i> (Num. 13:1).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">53</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See I.E. on Num. 14:19 (Vol. 4, p. 110).</i> AND IF HE BRING A LAMB. If he brings a sin offering from the lamb species then he shall bring a female, as in the case of the she-goat.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">54</sup><i class=\"footnote\">When one brings a goat as a sin offering, he brings a she-goat. Similarly, when one chooses to bring a lamb as a sin offering he must bring a female.</i>  [AS THE FAT OF THE LAMB IS TAKEN AWAY.] Scripture states the aforementioned because it wants to indicate that one is to offer the fat tail,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">55</sup><i class=\"footnote\">When a lamb is offered.</i> for a she-goat has no fat tail.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">56</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hence Scripture omits the law of the fat tail when it deals with the offering of a she-goat, which does not have a fat tail.</i> AND IF ANY ONE SIN, IN THAT HE HEARETH THE VOICE OF ADJURATION. <i>Alah</i> (adjuration) refers to a curse. Similarly <i>alit</i> (thou didst utter a curse)<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">1</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Alit</i> is the verbal form of <i>alah</i>.</i> in <i>about which thou didst utter a curse</i> (Jud. 17:2). Scripture employs an abridged style.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">2</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Before laying down the law regarding one who refuses to testify, it first should have stated that there is an obligation to bear witness (Filwarg).</i> Scripture warns that the witness is obligated to testify, for if he does not testify then he is liable for punishment from God, for he bears his iniquity. If he forgets and does not testify and then reminds himself [then he brings a guilt offering]. OR IF ANY ONE TOUCH ANY UNCLEAN THING. [WHETHER IT BE THE CARCASS OF AN UNCLEAN BEAST.] The reference is to the carcass of any of the four mentioned,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">3</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The four beasts explicitly mentioned in Lev. 11:4-7.</i> namely, the swine<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">4</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Lev. 11:7.</i> and his compatriots.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">5</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The camel (Lev. 11:4), the rock-badger (Lev. 11:5), and the hare (Lev. 11:6).</i> OR THE CARCASS OF UNCLEAN CATTLE. Unclean for food such as horses or asses.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">6</sup><i class=\"footnote\">These are not explicitly mentioned in the Torah.</i><i>The carcass of unclean swarming things</i> refers to the carcass of the eight swarming things mentioned in Scripture.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">7</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In Lev. 11:29,30.</i> IT BEING HIDDEN FROM HIM. He learned of this<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">8</sup><i class=\"footnote\">That he was unclean.</i> afterwards.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">9</sup><i class=\"footnote\">After coming into contact with what is sacred.</i> [3. OR IF HE TOUCH THE UNCLEANNESS OF MAN.] He touched a man that suffered a flux,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">10</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hebrew, <i>zav</i>. See Lev. 15:2.</i> or someone who was unclean because he touched a dead body,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">11</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See Num. 19:11.</i> or a woman who suffered from a flux,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">12</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See Lev. 15: 25.</i> or a menstruant.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">13</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See Lev. 15:19.</i> UTTER CLEARLY WITH AN OATH. <i>Le-vatte visefatayim</i> (utter clearly) means to utter with the lips.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">14</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Sefatayim</i> means lips. Hence I.E.’s comment.</i> TO DO EVIL. To a guilty person,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">15</sup><i class=\"footnote\">To a person who is guilty of a capital crime or guilty of an offence that is punished by flogging. So Krinsky and Sarim. I.E. comments thus because a person would not be held to be violating an oath to harm an innocent man.</i> or, as the Gaon<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">16</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Rabbi Saadiah Gaon.</i> explains, to fast.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">17</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In other words, to do evil means to do evil to himself. See Rashi.</i> Scripture mentions these sins<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">18</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The point is: Scripture stated earlier that if one sins, he has to bring a sin offering (Lev. 4:27-35). It now lists a number of sins, i.e., refusing to testify, breaking an oath, coming into contact with that which is sacred when one is unclean. It then goes on to say that one who violates the latter brings the same sacrifice as those mentioned earlier in Lev: 4:27-35. The question thus arises: Why list these sins when they are apparently dealt with in Lev. 4:27-35?</i> because the violator is obligated to confess these sins. He is not obligated to confess before the <i>kohen</i> for other sins which consist of the violation of negative commandments.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">19</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In other words, the sins alluded to in Lev. 4:27-35.</i> The sacrifice is the same.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">20</sup><i class=\"footnote\">For the sins alluded to in Lev. 4:27-35 and for those mentioned in verses 1-4.</i> AND IF HIS MEANS<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">21</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hebrew, <i>yado</i> (literally, his hand).</i> SUFFICE NOT.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">22</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Literally, and if his hand does not acquire. Hence I.E.’s comment.</i> For all manner of work is done by the hand. It is the means by which one acquires. The clause<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">23</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>And if his hand does not acquire</i>.</i> alludes to one who does not have the means.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">24</sup><i class=\"footnote\">To buy a lamb or a goat. In other words, <i>And if his hand does not acquire</i> means: And if his means do not suffice.</i> ONE FOR A SIN-OFFERING, AND THE OTHER FOR A BURNT-OFFERING. Rabbi Isaac<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">25</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to Weiser the reference is to Rabbi Isaac Gaon of Sura.</i> says the reason that one bird is brought for a burnt offering is that an unseemly thought may have entered his mind because his means do not suffice.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">26</sup><i class=\"footnote\">He might have been angry at God for his poverty. According to I.E. an <i>olah</i>, a burnt offering, is offered in atonement for improper thoughts. See I.E. on Lev. 1:4.</i> However, I believe that the bird brought as an offering corresponds to the organs of the sacrifice offered on the altar.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">27</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See Lev. 3:9,10; 14:5. The bird brought as a burnt offering takes the place of the organs of the lamb or goat brought to the altar.</i> The second bird is a sin offering, as the law requires.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">28</sup><i class=\"footnote\">For those who sin and repent.</i> THE TENTH PART OF AN EPHAH. The amount of food a person eats in one day.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">29</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See Ex. 16:36.</i> COMMIT A TRESPASS. The reference is to something which covered the offender.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">30</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The offender is compared to a person who covers himself with a garment which does not belong to him.</i> <i>Timol ma’al</i> (commit a trespass) is related to the word <i>me’il</i> (garment).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">31</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Thus, <i>timol ma’al</i> literally means to garment a garment that is, to cover oneself with a garment.</i> The reason why he shall bring a ram<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">32</sup><i class=\"footnote\">And not a lamb or goat, which is a less expensive offering.</i> worth silver shekels<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">33</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hebrew, <i>shekalim</i>.</i> is that he sinned against that which is sanctified to God. The minimum of the plural <i>shekalim</i> (shekels) is two. HE SHALL MAKE RESTITUTION. He shall make restitution for sinning by using a holy object and add a fifth.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">34</sup><i class=\"footnote\">A fifth of its value.</i> This is a guilt offering brought by one who errs at first and then becomes cognizant of his sin. AND IF ANY ONE SIN.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">35</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to Lev. 4:27,28,32 when a person sins he brings a female lamb or a she-goat. However, according to our verse one who sins brings a ram. Hence the interpretations which follow.</i> And violates one of the negative commandments and does not know that what he did is prohibited,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">36</sup><i class=\"footnote\">And then learns that what he did was prohibited. However, if he knows that the act is prohibited but forgets the law and then reminds himself he brings a sin offering.</i> he shall bring a ram.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">37</sup><i class=\"footnote\">As a guilt offering.</i> Many believe<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">38</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This is the opinion of the rabbis. See <i>Keritot</i> 23a.</i> that the ram is brought as a “doubt guilt offering.” He brings a ram if he does not know whether he violated the law or not.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">39</sup><i class=\"footnote\">“This speaks of a person who is in doubt whether he has inadvertently committed an act of such a character as to be punishable with excision. For example, forbidden fat (<i>chelev</i>) and permitted fat (<i>shuman</i>) lay before him, and he believed that both were permissible fat and he ate one of them. Afterwards, however he was informed that one of these was forbidden fat, and he does not know whether he has eaten the forbidden fat. Such a person has to bring a guilt-offering in doubt” (Rashi).</i> A sin offering is brought if he did not know that he sinned and then became aware of it. Observe,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">40</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to the latter opinion (Krinsky).</i> a sin offering is brought if he did not know that a certain act is prohibited until he was informed of it. A guilt offering is brought if he knew that it is prohibited but forgot, and then reminded himself. On the other hand, our verse might be speaking of a “doubt guilt offering.”<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">41</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In other words, if we accept the opinion that a sin offering is brought for ignorance of the law, then we still have two options regarding the guilt offering spoken of in our verse.</i> HE IS CERTAINLY GUILTY BEFORE THE LORD. This explains why it is called a guilt offering. It is so called because he is guilty.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">42</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The offering is called a guilt offering because he is guilty before the Lord.</i> AND COMMIT A TRESPASS AGAINST THE LORD. By violating one of the negative precepts governing the relationship between a man and his neighbor.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">43</sup><i class=\"footnote\">As Scripture goes on to explain.</i> IN A MATTER OF DEPOSIT.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">44</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hebrew, <i>tesumet yad</i> (literally, a placing of the hand). Hence I.E.’s comment.</i> Partnership. He joined hands with him. OR OF ROBBERY.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">45</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hebrew, <i>gazel</i>.</i> Involving force. Compare, <i>and plucked</i> (va-yigzol)<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">46</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Va-yigzol</i> and <i>gazel</i> come from the same root.</i> <i>the spear out of the Egyptian’s hand</i> (I Chron. 11:23). OR HAVE OPPRESSED. In secret.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">47</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Harming his neighbor secretly in any way (Krinsky).</i> HIS NEIGHBOR. <i>Amito</i> means his neighbor. It most probably means the one who is beside him.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">48</sup><i class=\"footnote\">I.E. connects the word <i>amit</i> (neighbor) to the word <i>le-ummat</i> (close by) (Ex. 25:27).</i> AND SWEAR TO A LIE. The meaning of <i>ve-nishba al shaker</i> (and swear to a lie) is, or swear to a lie<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">49</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The <i>vav</i> prefaced to <i>va-nishba</i> means or, rather than and.</i> regarding money that one seeks from him. The fact that Scripture states, <i>or any thing about which he has sworn falsely</i> (v. 24)<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">50</sup><i class=\"footnote\">And then goes on to state that he must return the money regarding which he has sworn falsely.</i> is proof of this. The <i>heh</i> of <i>va-hennah</i> (therein) is superfluous.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">51</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Henneh</i> is a variant of <i>hen</i>.</i> IN FULL. <i>Be-rosho</i> (in full)<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">52</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The word <i>rosh</i> literally means a head. Thus <i>be-rosho</i> literally means for its head.</i> means in itself,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">53</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Head is a metaphor for the entire body. It thus can be taken to mean the entire thing.</i> or its worth. THE FIFTH PART. The minimum of a plural is two. Thus <i>chamishitav</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">54</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Chamishitav</i> is a plural.</i> (the fifth part) means two fifths. I will explain it later.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">55</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See I.E. on Num. 5:7 (Vol. 4, p. 35): “If he confesses on his own (then he adds a fifth part). However, if there are witnesses then he shall add two fifths. Those who transmitted the law say a fifth of a fifth. Their minds are greater than ours.”</i> IN THE DAY OF HIS BEING GUILTY. Its meaning is, in the day that he turns away from his guilt<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">56</sup><i class=\"footnote\">When he repents.</i> he shall bring a ram. ACCORDING TO THY VALUATION. As the first one.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">57</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The ram first mentioned in verse 15, i.e., a ram worth two <i>shekalim</i>. See I.E. on verse 15.</i> Scripture adds fifths<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">58</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See I.E. on v. 24.</i> because this guilt offering is brought for a deliberate sin. There is an individual opinion that this guilt offering is also<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">59</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Like the offering spoken of in verse 17. This opinion apparently accepts that Scripture speaks of one who is not certain whether he swore falsely.</i> a “doubt-offering.” TO BE GUILTY THEREBY. <i>Ashmah</i> (guilty) is a noun in the <i>kal</i>. Scripture employs it in place of the infinite.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">60</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Le’eshom</i>.</i> IT IS THAT WHICH GOETH UP. The burnt offering is called an <i>olah</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">1</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The word <i>olah</i> means goes up. Hence I.E.’s interpretation.</i> because it is entirely consumed (<i>olah</i>) on the altar.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">2</sup><i class=\"footnote\">For another interpretation of the term <i>olah</i>, see I.E. on Lev 1:4. According to Meijler this interpretation complements the one on Lev. 1:4. That is, the <i>olah</i> goes up on the altar to atone for that which enters (goes up on) one’s mind.</i> Scripture here hints that the <i>olah</i> should not be offered at night but rather that it shall be on its firewood until the morning.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">3</sup><i class=\"footnote\">For Scripture states that the <i>olah</i> shall remain on the firewood all night, not that it should be brought upon the firewood at night.</i> The <i>heh</i> of <i>mokedah</i> (its firewood)<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">4</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Mokedah</i> is a variant of <i>moked</i> (fire). Hence I.E.’s interpretation. It should be noted that I.E. renders <i>mokedah</i> “fire” (firewood), not its fire (or firewood), for there is no <i>mappik</i> in the <i>heh</i>.</i> is superfluous. On the other hand, <i>moked</i> and <i>mokedah</i> may be two nouns.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">5</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Both meaning firewood.</i> AND THE FIRE OF THE ALTAR SHALL BE KEPT BURNING THEREBY.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">6</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hebrew, <i>bo</i> (on it). According to I.E. our clause should be rendered: And the fire of the altar shall be kept burning on it (the altar). Hence his interpretation.</i> Not outside. HIS LINEN GARMENT. The word <i>middo</i> means a garment.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">7</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Not his garment. In other words, the <i>vav</i> of <i>middo</i> is not a pronominal suffix. It is rather superfluous. See the word <i>beno</i> (son of) (Num. 24:3).</i> The wise men<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">8</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The sages of the Talmud.</i> said that it is a garment in keeping with his size.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">9</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See <i>Yoma</i> 23:2. The word <i>middah</i> means a measure. According to the rabbis <i>middo</i> means his measure. Also see Rashi: “This is what is elsewhere termed the <i>ketonet</i>; and why then is it here called <i>middo</i>? To intimate that it (the <i>ketonet</i>) must be made to his measure.”</i> UPON HIS FLESH. Flesh alludes to the genitals. Similarly <i>an issue out of his flesh</i> (Lev. 15:2). WHERETO THE FIRE HATH CONSUMED. Which remains from what the fire consumes. BESIDE THE ALTAR. Outside of the eastern side.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">10</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Near the eastern side of the altar. See Lev. 1:16.</i> AND THE FIRE UPON THE ALTAR SHALL BE KEPT BURNING THEREBY. Scripture repeats itself<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">11</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>And the fire upon the altar shall be kept burning thereby</i> repeats what was stated in verse 2.</i> in order to add it shall not go out during the day.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">12</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Repetition indicates continuity.</i>  The meaning of <i>ba-boker ba-boker</i> is, every morning.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">13</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Again, the repetition indicates continuity.</i> The <i>kohen</i> shall first offer the burnt offering and then the organs<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">14</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The organs which Scripture states are to be offered. See Lev. 3:3,4.</i> of the peace offering.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">15</sup><i class=\"footnote\">For our verse states, <i>and he shall lay the burnt-offering in order upon it</i>, and afterwards goes on to say, <i>and shall make smoke thereon the fat of the peace-offerings</i>.</i> FIRE SHALL BE KEPT BURNING UPON THE ALTAR CONTINUALLY. This verse<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">16</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Which once again states, <i>fire shall be kept burning upon the altar</i>.</i> was written in order to add the word <i>continually</i>. SHALL OFFER IT. <i>Hakrev</i> (shall offer) is an infinitive.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">17</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Hakrev</i> might be taken to be an imperative.</i> The meaning of <i>hakrev otah bene aharon</i> is, the sons of Aaron shall offer it. This means that one of the sons of Aaron shall offer it. Scripture therefore reads, <i>And he shall take up there-from</i> (v. 8).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">18</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Since the reference is to one of the sons of Aaron, Scripture employs the singular in verse 8, <i>And he shall take up there-from</i>.</i> This section<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">19</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Verses 7-11, which deal with the laws of the meal offering.</i> adds to that which is written in the portion <i>Va-Yikra</i>.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">20</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Lev. 2:1-16.</i> IT SHALL BE EATEN WITHOUT LEAVEN IN A HOLY PLACE. Note, Scripture adds two commandments.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">21</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Our verse contains two precepts not found in Lev. 2:1-16. The two commandments are: It must be eaten as unleavened bread; and it shall be eaten in a holy place, in the courtyard of the tent of meeting.</i> <i>Every male</i> (v. 11)<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">22</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Only males may eat of the burnt offering.</i> is a third.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">23</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Commandment added here.</i>  [IT SHALL NOT BE BAKED WITH LEAVEN.]<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">24</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hebrew, <i>lo te’afeh chametz</i>. I.E. renders this as it shall not be baked as leavened bread.</i> This is the principal rule regarding the Passover <i>matzot</i>.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">25</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The <i>matzot</i> eaten on Passover must be unleavened. So too the <i>matzot</i> made out of the meal offering.</i> AS THE SIN-OFFERING, AND AS THE GUILT-OFFERING.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">26</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Are holy.</i> So too the meal offering.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">27</sup><i class=\"footnote\">So too is the meal offering holy.</i> WHATSOEVER TOUCHETH THEM SHALL BE HOLY. Whatever touches the meal offering, the sin offering, and the guilt offering shall be holy unto God.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">28</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The term “them” refers to the meal offering, the sin offering and the guilt offering. Any food which comes into contact with the aforementioned shall be considered as they are.</i> THIS IS THE OFFERING OF AARON. Or one of his sons who takes his place. IN THE DAY WHEN…ANOINTED. When the anointing oil is poured upon his head. Some say that the <i>bet</i> of <i>be-yom</i> (in the day) is in place of a <i>mem</i>.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">29</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In other words, <i>be-yom</i> (in the day) should be interpreted as from the day.</i> Its meaning is, from the day that he is anointed he has to regularly bring his meal offering.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">30</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This is the opinion of the rabbis. See Rashi.</i> WHEN IT IS SOAKED. <i>Murbekhet</i> (when it is soaked) has no brother.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">31</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The word is not found again in Scripture.</i> Some say it means soft.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">32</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Murbekhet</i> being a variant of <i>murkhekhet</i>.</i> Others say that <i>murbekhet</i> means quickly. The <i>tav</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">33</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The <i>tav</i> serves as a second person masculine imperfect prefix.</i> of <i>tevi’ennah</i> (thou shalt bring it) is directed at Aaron.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">34</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Mentioned in the previous verse.</i> Similarly the <i>tav</i> of <i>takriv</i> (thou shalt offer).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">35</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Takriv</i> is directed to Aaron.</i> I believe that this is also true of the <i>tav</i> of <i>tufine</i> (in broken pieces).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">36</sup><i class=\"footnote\">It is an imperfect prefix directed at Aaron.</i> It means to fix.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">37</sup><i class=\"footnote\">That is, bake. According to I.E. <i>tufine</i> means you shall bake. See Rashi.</i> It has no neighbor.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">38</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The word is not found again in Scripture.</i> The ancients<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">39</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See <i>Sifra</i> on this verse.</i> said that <i>tufine</i> is a combination of the two words, <i>te’afeh</i> and <i>na</i> (it shall be baked raw).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">40</sup><i class=\"footnote\">It shall not be fully baked.</i> Rabbi Jonah the grammarian<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">41</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Rabbi Jonah ibn Janach.</i> says that <i>tufine</i> follows the paradigm of <i>dukhifat</i> (hoopoe) (Lev. 11:19).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">42</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to Rabbi Jonah <i>tufine</i> comes from the root <i>tav, peh, nun</i>. See <i>Sefer Ha-Rikmah</i>, Vol. 1, p. 137, ed. by M. Wilinsky, Jerusalem, 1964.</i> This is a distorted form.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">43</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Not all the words in this form (<i>po’il</i>) are vocalized with a <i>cholem</i>. See <i>Sefer Ha-Rikmah, Ibid</i>.</i> WHOLLY. The word <i>kalil</i> means wholly. It shall be wholly sacrificed unto God. IT SHALL NOT BE EATEN. As all the meal offerings are, for how can a <i>kohen</i> eat his meal or sin offering.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">44</sup><i class=\"footnote\">It is illogical.</i> The place of the slaughter of all the sin offerings was in the north.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">45</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See Lev. 1:11.</i> IT IS MOST HOLY. It is like one of the other holy things.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">46</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to I.E. <i>kodesh kodashim</i> (it is most holy) does not mean it is most holy but is to be interpreted as if written, <i>kodesh ke-ha-kodashim</i> (holy like the holy; that is, it is one of the holy things).</i> THE PRIEST THAT OFFERETH IT FOR SIN. <i>Ha-kohen ha-mechatte</i> (the priest that offereth it for sin) means the <i>kohen</i> who sprinkles the blood. <i>Ha-kohen ha-mechatte</i> is another way of saying the <i>kohen</i> that removes the sin of the sinner.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">47</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The word <i>mechatte</i> literally means “removes sins.”</i> Many of the commentaries say that <i>ha-mechatte</i> means who washes or cleans. The word <i>techatteni</i> (purge me) in <i>Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean</i> (Ps. 51:9) is similar. WHATSOEVER SHALL TOUCH. Whatsoever shall touch the flesh of the sin offering will be holy unto God, and the <i>kohen</i> shall eat it. The portion of the <i>kohen</i> who sprinkles the blood of the sin offering is therefore<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">48</sup><i class=\"footnote\">For the sprinkling “removes” the sin from the sinner. This comment relates to the previous verse. It is to be understood as follows: The <i>kohen</i> who sprinkles the blood removes the sin from the sinner…the portion of the <i>kohen</i> who sprinkles the blood is therefore equal to the portion of all the other <i>kohanim</i>. (Filwarg).</i> like<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">49</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Is equal to.</i> the portion of all his brothers.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">50</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The other <i>kohanim</i>. According to I.E. the <i>kohen</i> who sprinkles the blood of the sin offering receives half of its flesh. The remainder is shared by the other <i>kohanim</i> (Filwarg).</i> IS SPRINKLED. Rabbi Mosheh Ha-Kohen says that <i>yizzeh</i> (is sprinkled)<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">51</sup><i class=\"footnote\">From the root <i>nun, zayin, heh</i>.</i> is similar to the word <i>yitteh</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">52</sup><i class=\"footnote\">From the root <i>nun, tet, heh</i>.</i> (shall…bend) (Job 15:29).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">53</sup><i class=\"footnote\">It drops the <i>nun</i> in the imperfect and is similarly vocalized.</i> It is a <i>kal</i>. When the <i>yod</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">54</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The <i>yod</i> prefixed to the word in the imperfect.</i> is vocalized with a <i>pattach</i> it is a <i>hifil</i>.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">55</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Literally, from the heavy [conjugation] <i>yazzeh</i> or <i>yatteh</i>.</i> The swallowed letter<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">56</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The letter swallowed by the <i>dagesh</i>.</i> is a <i>nun</i>.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">57</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The first root letter. In other words, the <i>nun</i> of the root <i>nun, zayin, heh</i> is swallowed by the <i>dagesh</i>. Hence the word <i>yizzeh</i>.</i> We similarly find the word <i>va-yiz</i> (and…was sprinkled) in <i>and some of her blood was sprinkled</i> (II Kings 9:33) vocalized with a <i>chirik</i>, and <i>vayaz</i> with a <i>pattach</i>.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">58</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The word appears both in the <i>kal</i> and the <i>hifil</i> in shortened forms. <i>Va-yiz</i> in place of <i>va-yizzeh</i> and <i>va-yaz</i> in place of <i>va-yazzeh</i>.</i> However, the word <i>natah</i> (turned) is vocalized with a <i>tzereh</i> in the <i>kal</i>.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">59</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In the <i>kal</i> imperfect. Compare, <i>yet</i> (stretched) in <i>va-yet moshe et yado</i> (and Moses stretched forth his hand) (Ex. 10:22).</i> We similarly find <i>ve-yez nitzcham</i> (and their lifeblood is dashed) (Is. 63:3).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">60</sup><i class=\"footnote\">I.E.’s point is that the root <i>nun, zayin, heh</i> can be vocalized with a <i>chirik</i> or a <i>tzereh</i> in the <i>kal</i> imperfect.</i> He explained it very well.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">61</sup><i class=\"footnote\">We have followed the reading <i>Vat. Ebr</i>. 38. The reading in the <i>Mikra’ot Gedolot</i> is very difficult to explain and is apparently corrupt (see Filwarg, Weiser, Meijler, Krinsky). It reads, “However, the word <i>natah</i> (turned) in <i>natah mareh el ha-kir</i> is vocalized with a <i>chirik</i>. We find it vocalized with a <i>tzereh</i> in the <i>kal</i>. Compare, <i>ve-yez</i> in <i>ve-yez nitzcham</i> (and their lifeblood is dashed) (Is. 63:3), wherein <i>ve-yez</i> is in the <i>kal</i>. He [Rabbi Mosheh HaKohan] explained it very well.” There is no verse that reads, <i>natah marehah el ha-kir</i>. The above can only be explained by emending the text. For a proposed emendation, see Meijler.</i>  The Lord commanded that the place where some of the blood of the sin offering fell on the garment be washed because the sin offering is holy. [IN A HOLY PLACE.] The reference is to the courtyard of the tent of meeting, for there is a difference between holy and clean.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">62</sup><i class=\"footnote\">A clean place is a place that is ritually clean. Thus if Scripture had read “in a clean place,” it could have referred to any place that is ritually clean. It would not necessarily have meant the courtyard of the tent of meeting.</i> THAT WHEREON IT WAS SPRINKLED.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">63</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hebrew, <i>asher yizzeh alehah</i>, literally (that is sprinkled upon it).</i> The word “place” or the word “or” is missing.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">64</sup><i class=\"footnote\">So Krinsky. The verse literally reads: And when (<i>asher</i>) there is sprinkled of the blood thereof upon any garment, that (<i>asher</i>) it is sprinkled upon it, you shall wash in a holy place. The aforementioned is repetitious and ambiguous. I.E. suggests two possible interpretations. One, our verse is to be interpreted: And when (<i>asher</i>) there is sprinkled of the blood thereof upon any garment, or if one (<i>asher</i>) sprinkles upon it (the flesh of the sin offering), you shall wash it in a holy place. Two: And when (<i>asher</i>) there is sprinkled of the blood thereof upon any garment, the place where (<i>makom asher</i>) something is sprinkled upon it (the garment), you shall wash in a holy place.</i> It means: Or if someone shall sprinkle upon it, that is, upon the flesh, then the <i>kohen</i> shall wash the flesh and then eat it. On the other hand, its meaning might be, the place where the blood is sprinkled shall be washed. In this case the word <i>beged</i> (garment) is both masculine and feminine.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">65</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The word <i>beged</i> (garment) is usually masculine. The word <i>aleha</i> (it) is feminine. Thus if “it” refers to <i>beged</i> (garment) then <i>beged</i> is also a feminine noun.</i> The word <i>yado</i> (his hand) in <i>even as his hand can afford</i> (Lev. 14:31)<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">66</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Translated according to I.E.</i> is similar.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">67</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The word <i>yad</i> is treated as both masculine and feminine. It is treated as feminine in Lev. 13:21, for the noun governing it (<i>tasig</i>) is in the feminine. However, it is treated as masculine in Ex. 17:12, where Scripture employs a masculine adjective to describe the hands of Moses.</i> The <i>tav</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">68</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The <i>tav</i> of <i>tekhabbes</i> is a second person imperfect prefix.</i> of <i>tekhabbes</i> (thou shalt wash) is directed to the <i>kohen</i>.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">69</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In other words, the term <i>thou</i> in <i>thou shalt wash</i> is directed to the <i>kohen</i>.</i> WHEREIN IT IS SODDEN. <i>Bushalah</i> (sodden), <i>morak</i> (scoured), and <i>shuttaf</i> (rinsed) are all <i>pu’als. Morak</i> is vocalized with a <i>cholam</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">70</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Rather than with a <i>kubbutz</i>, as is the case in the <i>pu’al</i>.</i> because of the <i>resh</i> which, except in a few places,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">71</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The <i>massorah</i> records seven instances in Scripture when a <i>dagesh</i> is placed in the <i>resh</i> (Krinsky).</i> does not receive a <i>dagesh</i>.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">72</sup><i class=\"footnote\">A <i>dagesh</i> is placed in the middle root letter in the <i>pu’al</i>. However, the <i>resh</i> does not receive a <i>dagesh</i>. Hence the vowel changes from a <i>kubbutz to</i> a <i>cholam</i>.</i> <i>Morak</i> follows the paradigm of <i>zorak</i> (dashed)<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">73</sup><i class=\"footnote\">A <i>pu’al</i>.</i> in <i>was not dashed against him</i> (Num. 19:13). <i>Morak</i> is related to the word <i>mirku</i> (furbish) in <i>Furbish the spears</i> (<i>Jer</i>. 46:4), for the <i>mem</i> of <i>morak</i> is a root letter. [IT IS MOST HOLY.] Scripture states <i>it is most holy</i> with regard to every male<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">74</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Scripture states that the sin offering is most holy in verse 18. The question thus arises, Why repeat it again in our verse?</i> because only the perfect may eat from a sin offering whose organs are offered and is brought for atonement for sins.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">75</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Scripture repeats <i>it is most holy</i> with regard to all male <i>kohanim</i> in order to teach us that only the “perfect” may eat from the sin offering because it is most holy.</i> Males are more perfect<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">76</sup><i class=\"footnote\">I.E. believed that males are superior to females.</i> than females.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">77</sup><i class=\"footnote\">No female may eat from the sin offering.</i> Even a small child is called a male.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">78</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In other words, a male under the age of 13 may eat of the flesh of a burnt offering.</i> A male who is thirteen years old [is considered an adult] as our fathers have transmitted. AND NO SIN-OFFERING, WHEREOF ANY OF THE BLOOD IS BROUGHT INTO…THE HOLY PLACE. Note, the place of the “veil”<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">79</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The curtain (<i>parokhet</i>) separating the “holy” from the “most holy.” See Ex. 26:33.</i> is called holy,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">80</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The room containing the menorah, the table, and the altar of incense is called the holy.</i> for the courtyard,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">81</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The courtyard of the tent of meeting.</i> even though it is holy, is not holy in comparison to the tent of meeting.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">82</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The room containing the menorah, the table, and the altar of incense is called the holy in comparison with the courtyard of the tent of meeting. It is not called holy in regard to the room containing the ark of the covenant.</i> Observe, the inside of the curtain is called holy in comparison to the tent of meeting. Compare, <i>Herewith shall Aaron come into the holy place</i> (Lev. 16:3).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">83</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The room containing the ark of the covenant.</i> The sin offering spoken of in our verse is the sin offering of the <i>kohen gadol</i> or of the congregation.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">84</sup><i class=\"footnote\">For blood of a sin offering of a <i>kohen gadol</i> or of the congregation is brought into the tent of meeting. See Lev. 4:3-5; 13-16.</i> AND THIS IS THE LAW OF THE GUILT-OFFERING. I have previously<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">1</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See I.E. on Lev. 5:17.</i> explained to you the difference between a sin offering<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">2</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hebrew, <i>chattat</i>.</i> and a guilt offering.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">3</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Asham</i>.</i> [There is a difference between the two] even though Scripture employs the term guilt when referring to a sin offering<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">4</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See Lev. 5:6, <i>And he shall bring his forfeit</i> (ashamo)…<i>for his sin</i>. Also Lev. 4:13, 14, <i>And are guilty</i> (ve-ashemu)…<i>then the assembly shall offer…a sin-offering</i>.</i> and the word sin when referring to a guilt offering.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">5</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See Lev. 5:17,18, <i>And if any one sin…And he shall bring a ram…for a guilt-offering</i>.</i> Scripture records this section<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">6</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The section dealing with the law of the guilt offering (verses 1-7).</i> because it wants to make mention of the fat,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">7</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Of the guilt offering.</i> to which no reference is made when Scripture earlier records the law of the sin offering.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">8</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In the previous Torah portion, <i>Va-Yikra</i>. There the Torah deals with sin and guilt offerings.</i> ANY MAN’S BURNT-OFFERING. The word <i>olat</i> (burnt offering) is penultimately accented<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">9</sup><i class=\"footnote\">It is usually ultimately accented. Hence I.E.’s comment.</i> in accordance with the rules of Hebrew grammar.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">10</sup><i class=\"footnote\">When a word that is ultimately accented is connected to a word that is penultimately accented, it too is penultimately accented.</i> It is so accented because the word that follows<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">11</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Ish</i> (man).</i> has the accent on the first part of the word.  Scripture reads <i>to himself</i> even though it earlier stated <i>even the priest</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">12</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Our verse reads, <i>even the priest shall have to himself. To himself</i> appears redundant. Hence I.E.’s comment.</i> because it wants to further explain that the skin not be given to another <i>kohen</i>. AND ALL THAT IS DRESSED. The word <i>na’asah</i> (dressed) is an adjective<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">13</sup><i class=\"footnote\">I.E. refers to participles as adjectives.</i> in the feminine. It is like the word <i>nirah</i> (seen) in <i>there was no stone seen</i> (I Kings 6:18). The masculine form of the word is found in <i>Now that which was prepared</i> (na’aseh) (Neh. 5:18). OR DRY. As in the case of the “descending” meal offering<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">14</sup><i class=\"footnote\">A meal offering substituted for an animal offering by someone of lesser means. See Lev. 5:11.</i> and a meal offering brought about because of jealousy.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">15</sup><i class=\"footnote\">A meal offering brought by a woman suspected of adultery. See Num. 5:11-31.</i> IF HE OFFER IT FOR A THANKSGIVING. Its meaning is, if he offers it because he wants to give thanks to God for escaping from some trouble. UNLEAVENED CAKE.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">16</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hebrew, <i>challot</i> (literally cakes).</i> As many as he desires.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">17</sup><i class=\"footnote\">He may offer as many cakes as he wishes.</i> However, he cannot bring fewer than two.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">18</sup><i class=\"footnote\">For Scripture employs the plural.</i> The same applies to the unleavened wafers.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">19</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hebrew, <i>rekike matzot</i>.</i> SOAKED. I believe that the best interpretation of <i>solet murbekhet</i> (fine flour soaked) is chosen flour. The unleavened cakes<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">20</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The <i>challot</i>.</i> and the wafers<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">21</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The <i>rekike matzot</i>.</i> were baked. The cakes made from chosen flour were not so treated.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">22</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to the rabbis of the Talmud they were scalded with oil until they were saturated. See <i>Menachot</i> 76b.</i> WITH CAKES. The meaning of <i>al challot</i> is with cakes.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">23</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In other words, the word <i>al</i> should be here rendered as with. The word <i>al</i> usually has the meaning of on. Hence I.E.’s comment.</i> Similarly <i>And they came, both men and</i> (al) <i>women</i> (Ex. 35:22).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">24</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Here too the word <i>al</i> has the meaning of with.</i> AND OF IT HE SHALL PRESENT ONE OUT OF EACH OFFERING. Note, there had to be a minimum of four unleavened cakes.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">25</sup><i class=\"footnote\">A minimum of four unleavened cakes is to be offered by the celebrant, for Scripture says, <i>And…he shall present one out of each</i> (of the four types of unleavened cakes mentioned in verse 12)…<i>for a gift unto the Lord</i>.</i> However, in truth there were ten.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">26</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Of each kind of bread, and one of each was presented <i>for a gift unto the Lord</i>. This is the opinion of the rabbis in <i>Menachot</i> 77a.</i> SHALL BE EATEN ON THE DAY OF HIS OFFERING. The one who offers the sacrifice, his family, and all who are clean shall eat it, for the peace offerings are also holy<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">27</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hence only those who are clean may eat of it.</i> even though they are lesser holy offerings. A VOW. A vow uttered by the lips when in trouble. OR A FREEWILL-OFFERING. His sprit moved him to bring a sacrifice to God, not because he had made a vow, or for thanksgiving. ON THE DAY THAT HE OFFERETH HIS SACRIFICE. The word <i>hakrivo</i> is an infinitive<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">28</sup><i class=\"footnote\">With a pronominal suffix.</i> in the <i>hifil</i>. [AND ON THE MORROW.] On the morrow of that day.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">29</sup><i class=\"footnote\">That he offered the sacrifice.</i> [THAT WHICH REMAINETH.] The <i>vav</i> of <i>ve-ha-notar</i> (that which remaineth)<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">30</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Literally, and that which remaineth.</i> has the same meaning as an unaspirated <i>fa</i> in Arabic.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">31</sup><i class=\"footnote\">It does not mean “and” but rather is a particle introducing the principal part of a sentence. In other words, <i>ve-ha-notar</i> is to be rendered, <i>that which remaineth</i>, not and that which remaineth. So too Rashi.</i> The same applies to the <i>vav</i> in <i>va-ya’azov</i> (left) in <i>left his servants</i> (Ex. 9:21)<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">32</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Va-ya’azov</i> is to be rendered left, not and he left.</i> and the <i>vav</i> in <i>ve-ha-aretz</i> (now the earth) in <i>Now the earth was unformed and void</i> (Gen. 1:2).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">33</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See I.E. on Gen. 1:2 (Vol. 1, p. 30) and the notes thereto.</i> SHALL BE BURNT WITH FIRE. Like the parts of a sacrifice which Scripture designates for burning. However, it should not be burned on the altar. [NEITHER SHALL IT BE IMPUTED UNTO HIM THAT OFFERETH IT.] Its meaning is, since Scripture designates that specific parts of the sacrifice be offered to God, all that remains of the animal is holy. Similarly the stones of the altar.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">34</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The stones used in constructing the altar.</i> Since they are holy, it is unfit that anything that remains from them be used in a non-sacred way. Scripture therefore reads, <i>of unhewn stones</i> (Deut. 27:6).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">35</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The stones used for building the altar were not to be hewn, because when stones are hewn the chips that fall might be employed for non-sacred purposes or might be cast into a filthy place. See I.E. on Ex. 20:22 (Vol. 2, pp. 443-445).</i> ABHORRED. The word <i>piggul</i> (abhorred) is to be rendered as the Aramaic translator does.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">36</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Onkelos renders <i>piggul</i> by <i>merachak</i> (removed).</i> Similarly the word <i>piggulim</i> (abominable things) in <i>And broth of abominable things is in their vessels</i> (Is. 65:4). Some ask, “Since the sweet savor ascended,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">37</sup><i class=\"footnote\">When the sacrifice was first offered.</i> how can it not be accepted?”<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">38</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In other words, since the sacrifice was properly offered, how can it be disqualified three days later?</i> The answer is that it depends on his intention. According to the law, the peace offerings must be holy. However that which is abhorred is not holy.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">39</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The slaughterer of the sacrifice disqualified the offering by intending during the slaughter to eat of the sacrifice on the third day. Thus the sacrifice never “ascended.” See Rashi.</i> Furthermore,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">40</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Even if he did not disqualify the sacrifice by intending to eat of it on the third day when he slaughtered it.</i> the celebrant’s gain<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">41</sup><i class=\"footnote\">For offering the sacrifice.</i> disappears in his loss<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">42</sup><i class=\"footnote\">By eating the sacrifice after the proscribed time.</i> with regard to a peace offering. In the case of a vow offering, there is a new sin<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">43</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Not fulfilling his vow.</i> corresponding to the first<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">44</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Eating the sacrifice after the proscribed time.</i> if he does not fulfil his vow.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">45</sup><i class=\"footnote\">By bringing another animal.</i> SHALL BEAR HIS INIQUITY. His punishment.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">46</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to I.E. the word <i>avon</i> (iniquity) at times has the meaning of punishment. See I.E. on Gen 4:18 (Vol. 1, p. 84).</i> Scripture does not mention the punishment.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">47</sup><i class=\"footnote\">For eating of the flesh of a sacrifice after the proscribed time.</i> One who is unclean and eats sacred flesh is punished with <i>karet</i> (excision).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">48</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In verse 20.</i>  [HAVING HIS UNCLEANLINESS.] This means if his uncleanliness comes from his body, as in the case of a flux<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">49</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hebrew, <i>zav</i>.</i> or a leper.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">50</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hebrew, <i>metzora</i>.</i> Also because of uncleanliness caused by a nocturnal emission, as Scripture states, <i>for he thought: Something</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">51</sup><i class=\"footnote\">A nocturnal emission.</i> <i>hath befallen him</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">52</sup><i class=\"footnote\">And rendered him unclean.</i> (I Sam. 20:26). It also applies to uncleanliness that comes from contact with an outside source<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">53</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Coming into contact with an outside unclean source.</i> such as a dead body, or a living person who experienced a flux or is a leper, or an unclean beast which may not be eaten, or a detestable thing from among the fowl and that which swarms.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">54</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Lev. 1-31.</i> A Sadducee<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">55</sup><i class=\"footnote\">A Karaite.</i> once came to me and asked, “Does the Torah prohibit the fat tail?”<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">56</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The fat of the tail (Hebrew, <i>alyah</i>).</i> I answered that it is true that the fat tail is called “fat” (<i>chelev</i>),<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">57</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Fat is proscribed by Jewish law.</i> for the Torah states, <i>the fat thereof, the fat tail entire</i> (Lev. 3:9). However, while our sages prohibited all fat, they permitted the fat tail.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">58</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This statement was disconcerting among Biblical commentaries, for according to the Talmud all fat is prohibited by the Torah (not the sages), and the violator incurs the penalty of <i>karet</i>. Nahmanides charged that Ibn Ezra’s position is more heretical than that of the Karaites. Luzzato claimed that I.E. did not really believe that fat (<i>chelev</i>) is permitted. He was merely playing devil’s advocate. However, Nahmanides correctly interpreted Ibn Ezra. I.E. held that biblically speaking only the fat of an animal actually offered on the altar is prohibited. Other fat is prohibited by the rabbis. See I.E. on Deut. 12:15. The importance of I.E.’s comment on this verse for understanding Ibn Ezra’s approach to the <i>halakhah</i> is discussed in the introduction to this volume.</i> The Sadducee then replied, “Does not the Torah prohibit all fat? Indeed it is written, <i>that ye shall eat neither fat nor blood</i> (Lev. 3:17). The latter is preceded by Scripture’s statement, <i>It shall be a perpetual statute throughout your generations</i> (<i>Ibid.</i>).”I once again answered him that this verse<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">59</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Lev. 3:17.</i> relates to the peace offering. Also, the clause <i>It shall be a perpetual statute throughout your generations</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">60</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This clause may be taken to imply that the fat of animals not sacrificed is prohibited, for <i>throughout the generations</i> implies even in a time when the sanctuary no longer exists.</i> does not provide complete proof, for we see that Scripture states, <i>And ye shall eat neither bread, nor parched corn, nor fresh ears, until this selfsame day, until ye have brought the offering of your God</i> (Lev. 23:14).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">61</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The <i>omer</i>.</i> Now Scripture there writes, <i>it is a statute for ever</i> (<i>Ibid.</i>). Shall we then not eat bread in the Diaspora? For we have not brought the <i>omer</i> offering.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">62</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Thus <i>for ever</i> means as long as the sanctuary exits. Similarly <i>a perpetual statute</i>.</i> He, on his part, replied, “<i>Ye shall eat no fat, of ox, or sheep, or goat</i> (v. 23).”<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">63</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The Karaite assumed that this verse applies to all animals forever.</i> I again answered that this verse too refers to a peace offering. <i>For whosoever eateth the fat of the beast, of which men present an offering</i> (v. 25) is proof, for the latter excludes the fat of all flesh which is not offered as a peace offering, that is, all secular meat.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">64</sup><i class=\"footnote\">All non-sacrificed flesh.</i> Scripture therefore states in our section, <i>And the fat of that which dieth of itself, and the fat of that which is torn of beasts, may be used for any other service; but ye shall in no wise eat of it</i> (v. 24). It is known<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">65</sup><i class=\"footnote\">From earlier Biblical passages. See Ex. 22:30.</i> that the flesh of that which dies of itself and that which is torn of beasts is prohibited. It is the flesh that is prohibited.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">66</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Ex. 22:30 speaks only of the flesh. The latter may be taken to imply that the fat of carrion or of an animal that dies of itself is permitted.</i> Now since the fat<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">67</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Of an animal that dies or is torn by another animal.</i> is not offered on the altar, one might think that it is permitted. Hence Scripture warns,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">68</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In verse 24.</i> <i>but ye shall in no wise eat of it</i>.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">69</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The fat (<i>chelev</i>) of an animal that dies or is torn by another animal.</i> It is for this reason that Scripture does not mention the blood.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">70</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In verse 24, for Scripture earlier prohibited the eating of blood.</i> This section<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">71</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Verses 20-25.</i> was written in order to explain the punishment incurred by one who eats the fat of sacred flesh. The verse relating to <i>any blood</i> (v. 27) was similarly written to add that the blood of fowl is prohibited.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">72</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Otherwise there would be no need for this verse, for Scripture earlier prohibited the blood of animals.</i> The fat of fowl is therefore permitted.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">73</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Only the blood of fowl is spoken of in verse 27. Fat is not mentioned.</i> Scripture’s statement in the Book of Deuteronomy (Deut. 1:1)<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">74</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In other words, Scripture’s statement in Deuteronomy.</i> with regard to meat eaten out of desire, that is, non-sacred meat (Deut. 12:15-25), is total proof of what I say,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">75</sup><i class=\"footnote\">That only the fat of sacred meat is prohibited.</i> for Scripture states that non-sacred meat may be eaten in its entirety.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">76</sup><i class=\"footnote\">For there Scripture says that non-sacred meat may be eaten, <i>as of the gazelle, and as of the hart</i> (Deut. 12:15). The fat of the latter is permitted.</i> Only its blood is excluded in three places.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">77</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Deut. 12:23-25.</i> Fat is totally unmentioned.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">78</sup><i class=\"footnote\">For it is permitted according to Torah law. However, the rabbis prohibited it.</i> The Sadducee’s eyes opened and he uttered an oath with his lips to the effect that he will never rely on his judgment when it comes to explaining the commandments. He will rely only on the tradition transmitted by the Pharisees.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">79</sup><i class=\"footnote\">One of the leitmotifs of I.E.’s commentary is that when it comes to religious practice we must rely on Rabbinic tradition. He offers the concession of the Karaite as proof of this position. See I.E.’s introduction (Vol. I, pp. 3-10; 18,19).</i> THE RIGHT THIGH. Is to be given to the <i>kohen</i> who sprinkles the blood, and the breast to all the <i>kohanim</i>. THIS IS THE CONSECRATED PORTION. This is the reward of the consecration of Aaron or of the consecration of his sons. The word <i>mishchat</i> (consecrated portion) means leadership.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">80</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to I.E. our verse should be explained, this is Aaron’s (or his sons’) reward for holding the office of leadership, i.e., <i>kohen</i>.</i> IN THE DAY THAT THEY WERE ANOINTED. <i>Be-yom</i> (in the day) is to be rendered, from the day.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">81</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In other words, the <i>bet</i> of <i>be-yom</i> has the meaning of a <i>mem</i>. The priestly gifts mentioned in verse 34 were given to <i>kohanim</i> from the day that they commenced to minister. Hence I.E.’s interpretation.</i> Similarly <i>ba-basar</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">82</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Here too the <i>bet</i> has the meaning of “from” (of), not “in.”</i> <i>u-va-lachem</i> (of the flesh and of the bread) (Lev. 8:32). AND OF THE CONSECRATION-OFFERING. As written in the Torah portion <i>And Thou Shalt Command</i> (Ex. 27:20). TO PRESENT THEIR OFFERINGS UNTO THE LORD, IN THE WILDERNESS OF SINAI. For Israel did not offer sacrifices until they came to Mount Sinai. I have previously shown you that the altar which Moses built after defeating Amalek was built in Horeb, which is Mount Sinai.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">83</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See I.E. on Ex 17:15 (Vol. 2, p. 341).</i> Israel camped there for a year minus ten days.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">84</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Israel came to Sinai on the first day of Sivan (Ex. 19:1). They left Sinai on the twentieth day of the following Iyyar (Num. 10:11). See I.E. on Ex. 19:1 (Vol. 1, p. 370); and on Num. 10:11 (Vol. 4, p. 70).</i> The latter is clearly stated in Scripture. They did not offer sacrifices in the wilderness, for the prophet clearly states, <i>Did ye bring unto Me sacrifices and offerings in the wilderness forty years, O house of Israel</i>? (Amos 5:25). Israel similarly only offered the Passover sacrifice in Egypt, and for a second time at Mount Sinai,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">85</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Num. 9:1-5.</i> for they had no cattle in the wilderness. They did not circumcise on the way after they journeyed from Mount Sinai. Most of them were thus uncircumcised.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">86</sup><i class=\"footnote\">And were proscribed from offering the Passover sacrifice (Ex. 12:48).</i> Joshua circumcised them<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">87</sup><i class=\"footnote\">After entering the Land of Israel.</i> so that they could partake of the Passover sacrifice.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">88</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Josh. 5:2-10.</i> AND THE BULLOCK OF THE SIN-OFFERING. The word <i>chattat</i> (sin offering) has a <i>heh</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">1</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Indicating the definite article.</i> prefixed to it because the sin offering<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">2</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Referred to in our verse.</i> is mentioned earlier.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">3</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In Ex. 29:1.</i> The same applies to the <i>heh</i> prefixed to <i>elim</i> (rams) and <i>matzot</i> (unleavened bread).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">4</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The words <i>elim</i> (rams) and <i>matzot</i> (unleavened bread) have a <i>heh</i> prefixed to them because they refer to the rams and <i>matzot</i> mentioned in Ex. 29:1,2.</i> ALL THE CONGREGATION. The heads of the tribes and the elders. AND MOSES BROUGHT AARON. To the laver (<i>kiyyor</i>).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">9</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See Ex. 30:17-21.</i> AND WASHED THEM. By command.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">10</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Moses commanded that they be washed, or he commanded them to wash themselves. The point is Moses did not personally wash them.</i> AND BOUND IT UNTO HIM.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">5</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This comment appears to be misplaced.</i> The word <i>va-yepod</i> means and girded. Just as the golden plate (<i>tzitz</i>) (v. 9) is not the mitre (<i>mitznefet</i>) (<i>Ibid</i>.),<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">6</sup><i class=\"footnote\">It is clear from verse 9 that the golden plate (<i>tzitz</i>) and the mitre (<i>mitznefet</i>) are not one and the same, for the verse states, <i>and upon the mitre…did he set the golden plate</i>.</i> so <i>the Urim and the Thummim</i> (v. 8) are not the stones of the breastplate (Ex. 28:15-21).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">7</sup><i class=\"footnote\">For Scripture states, <i>And in the breastplate he put the Urim and the Thummim</i>. See I.E. on Ex. 28:5, Vol 2, pp. 591-598.</i> Similarly, the Tablets were placed in the ark.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">8</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The relation of the breastplate to the <i>Urim</i> and the <i>Thummim</i> was like that of the ark to the tablets; that is, both served as receptacles.</i> Scripture therefore reads, <i>And in the breastplate he put in the Urim and the Thummim</i> (v. 8). AND MOSES TOOK THE ANOINTING OIL. It means that Moses had taken the oil<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">11</sup><i class=\"footnote\">And anointed the tabernacle and its furniture.</i> before the anointing of Aaron.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">12</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Scripture tells of the dressing of Aaron in the priestly vestments in verses 7-9. I.E. assumes that Aaron was anointed as soon as the garments were placed upon him (see Ex. 40:15). The Torah then goes on to tell of the anointing of the tabernacle and its furniture in verses 10-12. It then tells of the dressing of Aaron’s sons (v. 13). However, Ex. 40:9-12 tells us that the anointing of the tabernacle took place before the anointing of Aaron. Hence I.E.’s interpretation.</i> AND MOSES BROUGHT AARON’S SONS. Scripture notes this a second time<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">13</sup><i class=\"footnote\">After stating this in verse 6.</i> because it speaks at length.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">14</sup><i class=\"footnote\">About other things. In other words, after stating in verse 6 that Moses brought Aaron and his sons to the laver, Scripture drops Aaron’s sons and goes on to speak of Aaron and the tabernacle. Hence, now that it goes on to speak of Aaron’s sons, it once again mentions that Moses brought Aaron and his sons to the laver and goes on to say what followed then.</i> On the other hand, this means that when Moses brought Aaron’s sons he dressed them in tunics.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">15</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In other words, <i>va-yakrev</i> here does not mean and brought. Rather it means when he brought. In this case there is no repetition in our verse.</i> The word <i>va-yalbishem</i> (and clothed them) is a verb that governs two actions.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">16</sup><i class=\"footnote\">It is a <i>hifil</i>. Moses caused them to be dressed, and they were dressed.</i> AND PURIFIED. I have previously explained this.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">17</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See I.E. on Lev. 6:19.</i> AND SANCTIFIED IT. So that all the sins<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">18</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Of Israel.</i> may be atoned upon it. AND HE TOOK ALL THE FAT THAT WAS UPON THE INWARDS. Scripture earlier stated, <i>the fat that covereth the inwards</i> (Lev. 7:3) Another verse states, <i>the fat that covereth the inwards, and all the fat that is upon the inwards</i> (Lev. 3:3). Note, the <i>fat that covereth</i> [<i>the inwards</i> ] is substantial. However, the <i>fat that is upon the inwards</i> consists of a little from here and there.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">19</sup><i class=\"footnote\">It is not part of the layer of fat that covers the inwards.</i> That which <i>covereth</i> [<i>the inwards</i> ] is also <i>upon the inwards</i>. Hence Scripture employed abridged terminology.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">20</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Our verse only speaks of <i>the fat that was upon the inwards</i>. The latter can be taken to refer to itself and also to <i>the fat that covereth the inwards</i>, for they are located in the same place.</i> WERE BURNT<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">21</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hebrew, <i>saraf</i> (literally, he burnt).</i> WITH FIRE. Some say by Moses himself.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">22</sup><i class=\"footnote\">For Scripture reads, “he (Moses) burnt.”</i> Others say by the command of Moses. They offer as proof, <i>as the Lord commanded Moses</i> (v. 21).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">23</sup><i class=\"footnote\">If “he” in <i>he burnt with fire</i> referred to Moses, the verse would have ended with “as the Lord commanded him,” rather than with <i>as the Lord commanded Moses</i>.</i> However, this is no proof, for that is the style of the Hebrew language.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">24</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Scripture often employs a proper noun in places where we expect it to use a pronoun.</i> AND THE OTHER RAM WAS PRESENTED, THE RAM OF CONSECRATION, AND AARON AND HIS SONS LAID (VA-YISMEKHU) THEIR HANDS. The first verse reads, <i>and Aaron and his sons laid</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">25</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Literally, and laid (<i>va-yismokh</i>) Aaron and his sons.</i> (ve-samakh) (v. 14).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">26</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The question arises, Is there a difference in meaning between “and laid Aaron and his sons” and “Aaron and his sons laid.”</i> Note, contra a great grammarian who erred, there is no difference between <i>ve-samakh</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">27</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This appears to be an error. I.E. should read <i>va-yismokh</i>, for he is referring to verse 14. <i>Va-samakh</i> is the reading in Ex. 29:10; 19 where the laws of the consecration were first given.</i> <i>aron u-vanav</i> (and Aaron and his sons laid) (v. 14) and <i>va-yismekhu aron u-vanav</i> (and Aaron and his sons laid). The grammarian said that <i>ve-samakh</i> indicates that Aaron alone shall lay hands, and then his sons.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">28</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Shall lay.</i> <i>Vesamekhu</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">29</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Or <i>va-yismekhu</i> (and they laid).</i> means, and they shall all lay together. RIGHT EAR. <i>Ha-yemanit</i> (right) is similar to <i>ha-penimit</i> (inner).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">30</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In form. Both forms are feminine ending in a <i>yod tav</i> rather than in a <i>heh</i>.</i> The meaning of <i>al tenukh</i> (upon the tip) and <i>bohen</i> (toe) will be explained in the section <i>This Shall Be the Law</i> (Lev. 14:2).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">31</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See I.E. on Lev. 14:14.</i> Note, the blood<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">32</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Which was dashed about the altar (v. 21). See Weiser and Krinsky.</i> atones for Aaron’s life. Similarly <i>for it is the blood that maketh atonement by reason of the life</i> (Lev. 17:11). This means the life in the blood shall atone.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">33</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Reading <i>yekhapper</i> as in <i>Vat. Ebr</i>. 38.</i> Life is thus offered for life.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">34</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The life of the sacrifice atones for the life of the celebrant.</i> <i>Then</i> [Zipporah]…<i>cast it</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">35</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The bloody foreskin.</i> <i>at his</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">36</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Moses’ feet.</i> <i>feet</i> (Ex. 4:25) has a similar explanation.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">37</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The blood on the foreskin atoned for Moses. See I.E. on Ex. 4:25 (Vol. 2, p. 110).</i> ONE UNLEAVENED CAKE. The reference is to <i>the one loaf</i> (kikkar) <i>of bread</i> (Ex. 29:2s).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">38</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Kikkar</i> usually refers to leavened bread. Hence I.E. explains that Ex 29:3 is to be understood as the one loaf of unleavened bread. I.E. comments thus so that there be no contradiction between the description of the consecration service in our chapter and the one in Exodus.</i> It is possible that the term <i>kikkar</i> (loaf) refers to weight.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">39</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In this case Ex. 29:23 is to be rendered, the one <i>kikkar</i> of (un)leavened bread. This interpretation assumes that the term loaf would not be used in reference to unleavened bread.</i> It is not the same weight as that of a <i>kikkar</i> (talent) of gold or silver.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">40</sup><i class=\"footnote\">A talent of gold weighed more than a hundred pounds.</i> AND PLACED THEM ON THE FAT. Scripture does not mention the lobe<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">41</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hebrew, <i>yoteret</i>.</i> of the liver and the kidneys, for the lobe was small. The meaning of <i>yoteret</i> (lobe) is similar to the meaning of the word <i>yitron</i> (profit)<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">42</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Or addition.</i> in <i>What profit hath man</i> (Eccles. 1:3).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">43</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In other words, <i>yoteret</i> means the addition [to the liver].</i> The kidneys<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">44</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Mentioned in verse 25.</i> are offered with their fat,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">45</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Our verse states, <i>and placed them on the fat. The fat</i> takes in the fat that is upon the kidneys. The kidneys were offered along with their fat because they are attached to it.</i> for Scripture would not refer to the kidneys as fat.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">46</sup><i class=\"footnote\">For it does not consist of fat. I,.E.’s point is that the term “fat” in our verse does not directly refer to the kidneys.</i> Only the fat tail is fat.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">47</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hence the term fat cannot refer to the kidneys.</i> AND WAVED THEM. Moses waved Aaron and his sons<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">48</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In other words, “them” in our verse does not refer to the fat and other items mentioned in the previous verse.</i> as Aaron waved the Levites.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">49</sup><i class=\"footnote\">When they were consecrated. See Num. 8:5-21.</i> BOIL THE FLESH. Aaron and his sons themselves were to boil the flesh, for <i>and seethe its flesh</i> (Ex. 29:31) is by command.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">50</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>And seethe its flesh</i> means command that its flesh be seethed.</i> AND THAT WHICH REMAINETH OF THE FLESH AND OF THE BREAD. Until the morning,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">51</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Shall be burned.</i> for Scripture so states.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">52</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In Ex. 29:34.</i> HE SHALL CONSECRATE YOU. The word <i>ketz</i> (end) was omitted.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">53</sup><i class=\"footnote\">From the last clause in our verse. The latter reads, <i>ki shivat yamim yemalle et yodkham</i> (for he shall consecrate you seven days). The verse may be taken to read, for seven days shall consecrate you. Hence I.E.’s interpretation (Meijler).</i> Our verse should be read as if written, at the end of seven days.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">54</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In other words, <i>ki shivat yamim yemalle et yedkhem</i> means at the end of seven days you will be consecrated.</i> On the other hand, its meaning might be, for a period of seven days.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">55</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to this interpretation the word <i>zeman</i> has been omitted from the last clause in our verse. In this case our verse reads, for you shall be consecrated for a period of seven days.</i> Some say that <i>And ye shall not go out…seven days</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">56</sup><i class=\"footnote\">From the door of the tent of meeting.</i> indicates that they went out at night<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">57</sup><i class=\"footnote\">For Scripture speaks only of days.</i> for their needs.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">58</sup><i class=\"footnote\">To take care of their natural needs.</i> However, I believe that they went out during the day and night for their needs.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">59</sup><i class=\"footnote\">For the Torah would not command them to postpone taking care of their natural needs (Weiser).</i> A great scholar<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">60</sup><i class=\"footnote\">I.E. does not identify the scholar.</i> said that they dug a pit<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">61</sup><i class=\"footnote\">And relieved themselves in it.</i> in the courtyard of the tent of meeting.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">62</sup><i class=\"footnote\">They thus had no reason to leave the sanctuary to relieve themselves.</i> However, this is farfetched.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">63</sup><i class=\"footnote\">For they would not relieve themselves in the courtyard of the sanctuary.</i> Scripture states, <i>And the children of Israel wept for Moses…thirty days</i> (Deut. 34:8), as if there was no moment that they did not weep.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">64</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In other words, Deut. 34:8 is hyperbolical, for they obviously did not weep every moment of the thirty days.</i> Scripture clearly states that they shall sit at the door of the tent of meeting day and night (v. 35). Its meaning is that they shall not occupy themselves with any matter and they should not go to another place.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">65</sup><i class=\"footnote\">However, they may leave to take care of their bodily functions.</i> Similarly <i>neither shall he go out of the sanctuary</i> (Lev. 21:12), as I will explain.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">66</sup><i class=\"footnote\">I.E. there notes that the high priest may leave the sanctuary for the purpose of observing a precept.</i> AS HATH BEEN DONE THIS DAY.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">67</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Literally, as he did this day.</i> This means, as Moses did on this day, so God commanded to be done during the seven days of consecration. Scripture should have read, as I<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">68</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Moses.</i> did.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">69</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Rather than as he (Moses) did.</i> However, such is the style of the holy tongue.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">70</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Biblical characters occasionally refer to themselves in the third person.</i> Compare, <i>Thus shall Ezekiel he unto you</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">71</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Ezekiel refers to himself in the third person.</i> (Ezek. 24:24); <i>and Jephthah, and Samuel</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">72</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Samuel refers to himself in the third person.</i> (I Sam. 12:11). The fact that Scripture states, <i>So the Lord hath commanded to do</i> (v. 34); <i>And thus shall you do unto Aaron, and to his sons, according to all that I have commanded thee; seven days</i> (Ex. 29:35)<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">73</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The complete verse reads: <i>So the Lord hath commanded to do; And thus shall you do unto Aaron, and to his sons, according to all that I have commanded thee; seven days shalt thou consecrate them</i>.</i> is proof of this.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">74</sup><i class=\"footnote\">That “As he did this day” refers to Moses, for the verse states <i>seven days shalt thou</i> (Moses) <i>consecrate them</i>.</i> Furthermore, Scripture states, <i>And every day</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">75</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hebrew, <i>la-yom</i> (literally, to the day).</i> <i>shalt thou</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">76</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Moses.</i> <i>offer the bullock of sin-offering</i> (Ex. 29:36).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">77</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This is additional proof that Moses himself performed the consecration ritual during the seven days of consecration.</i> The latter is similar to <i>two day by day</i>,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">78</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hebrew, <i>la-yom</i>.</i> <i>for a continual burnt-offering</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">79</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The phrase a <i>continual burnt-offering</i> indicates that the word <i>la-yom</i>, which precedes it, means daily. Thus the term <i>la-yom</i> in Ex. 29:36 is to be rendered every day.</i>(Num. 28:3).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">80</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In other words the meaning of <i>la-yom</i> in Ex. 29:35 is daily. We thus see that Moses offered the bullock of sin offering during the seven days of consecration.</i> Scripture there writes, <i>and thou</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">81</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Moses.</i> <i>shalt do the purification</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">82</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hebrew, <i>ve-chitteta</i>, i.e. you will offer the sin-offering.</i> <i>upon the altar…and thou shalt anoint it</i> (<i>Ibid.</i>) every day until the end of the days of consecration.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">83</sup><i class=\"footnote\">For the first part of the verse states, <i>And every day shalt thou offer the bullock of sin-offering</i>.</i> Furthermore, Scripture states, <i>Seven days thou</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">84</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Moses.</i> <i>shalt make atonement for the altar</i> (Ex. 29:37).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">85</sup><i class=\"footnote\">That is, purification for the altar to consecrate it.</i> It does not mention<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">86</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In Ex. 29:36. Ex. 29:36 states, <i>and every day shalt thou offer the bullock of sin-offering</i>. It omits the two rams. Hence it appears that Moses did not perform the entire consecration service.</i> the two rams<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">87</sup><i class=\"footnote\">One of which served as a sin offering and one as a “ram of consecration.” See Ex: 29:1, 15-34; Lev. 8:2, 18-29.</i> because Scripture employed an abridged style.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">88</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Actually, Moses offered these rams during the seven days of consecration.</i> Many are of the opinion that Moses was to offer a bullock of sin offering alone every day.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">89</sup><i class=\"footnote\">For Scripture states, <i>And every day shalt thou offer the bullock of sin-offering</i> (Ex. 29:36). It does not mention the rams. This is the opinion of the Karaite Yefet (Krinsky).</i> I believe that the reason Scripture mentions the bullock<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">90</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Only in Ex. 29:36.</i> is that the blood of the burnt offering ram was to be placed on Aaron and his sons,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">91</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This comment presents a problem. It was the blood of the second ram, the ram of consecration, that was placed on Aaron and his sons. See Ex. 29:1921; Lev. 8:22,23. It is possible that I.E. erred, for I.E. wrote many of his comments without a text of Scripture before him and he didn’t always edit his works. On the other hand, it is possible that I.E. was of the opinion that the blood of both rams was placed on Aaron and his sons even though Scripture only mentions it with regard to the second ram. Weiser suggests that our reading is due to an error by a copyist. Rabbi Shemu’el Tzartza believes that “I believe, etc.” is a gloss that found its way into I.E.’s commentary.</i> and the second ram’s flesh was to be eaten.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">92</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Ex. 29:32.</i> However, the sin offering bullock was to consecrate the altar.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">93</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The two rams are not mentioned in Ex. 29:36 because the latter speaks only of consecrating the altar.</i> Scripture clearly states, <i>al hakippurim</i> (beside the other offerings of atonement) (Ex. 29:36), the meaning of which is, for atonement.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">94</sup><i class=\"footnote\">I.E.’s point is that the bullock was offered on the altar to atone, i.e., to purify the altar in order to consecrate it, while the rams were part of the consecration ritual of Aaron and his sons. Hence Scripture did not speak of them in the verse which spoke of atoning on the altar.</i> AND AT THE DOOR OF THE TENT OF MEETING SHALL YE ABIDE. This is stated once again<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">95</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In our verse after having been stated in verse 33.</i> in order to add, <i>that ye die not</i>. I AM COMMANDED. <i>Tzuvveti</i> (I am commanded) is <i>a pu’al</i>. Some say that the meaning of <i>for so I am commanded</i> is identical to <i>according to all that I have commanded thee</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">96</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In other words, <i>according to all that I have commanded thee</i> refers to the law of abiding at the door of the tent of meeting during the seven days of consecration.</i> (Ex. 29:35), even though Scripture does not state there that they are to abide at the front of the tent of meeting.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">97</sup><i class=\"footnote\">During the seven days of consecration.</i> AND IT CAME TO PASS ON THE EIGHTH DAY. It would have appeared to us that the <i>eighth day</i> is the eighth day of Nisan, for the tabernacle was erected on the first day of the month.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">1</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See Ex. 40:2.</i> However, the transmitters of tradition<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">2</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The Rabbinic sages.</i> said that the reference is to the first of Nisan.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">3</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See <i>Seder Olam</i> 7:1.</i> Moses erected and took apart the tabernacle on each one of the seven days of consecration<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">4</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See I.E. on Ex. 40:2 (Vol. 2, p. 754).</i> to train and teach.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">5</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The <i>kohanim</i> how to do it.</i> THAT MOSES CALLED AARON AND HIS SONS. And they went out from the opening of the tent of meeting.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">6</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The <i>kohanim</i> left the opening of the tent of meeting where they had to stay during the seven days of consecration (Lev. 8:35) and went into the camp of Israel to meet the elders (Filwarg).</i> On the other hand, the congregation entered the courtyard.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">7</sup><i class=\"footnote\">On the other hand, the elders may have entered the temple courtyard to meet the <i>kohanim</i>. During the seven days of consecration the <i>kohanim</i> and the elders were separated. On the eighth day Moses spoke to them as a group. Hence the two possibilities offered by I.E. as to how they met.</i> A BULL-CALF.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">8</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hebrew, <i>egel ben bakar</i>.</i> During the seven days of consecration a bullock and also a ram were offered for a burnt offering.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">9</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See Lev. 8:2,14,18.</i> Scripture does not mention whether the bull-calf was “of the year.”<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">10</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hebrew, <i>ben shanah</i>, which means less than a year old. Scripture reads, <i>egel ben bakar</i>. It does not read, <i>egel ben shanah</i> (a calf of the year).</i> It appears to me that a bullock<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">11</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hebrew, <i>par</i>.</i> and a bull-calf<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">12</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hebrew, <i>egel</i>.</i> are one and the same when the term “year”<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">13</sup><i class=\"footnote\">That is, “of the year.”</i> is unmentioned.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">14</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In other words, the terms <i>egel</i> and <i>par</i> refer to a bull over the age of one. Thus the bull offered during the seven days of consecration and the one offered on the eighth day were similar. They were both over a year old.</i> WITHOUT BLEMISH. This refers to the bull-calf and the ram.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">15</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hence Scripture employs the plural <i>temimim</i> (without blemish).</i> The bullocks of consecration<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">16</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See Ex. 29:36.</i> were to purify the altar. This bull-calf was to atone (<i>le-khapper</i>) for Aaron.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">17</sup><i class=\"footnote\">For any sin or sins that Aaron may possibly have committed. Some interpret for making the golden calf (Weiser). See <i>Sifra</i>, “Let this calf come and atone for the making of the calf.” However, I.E. explicitly rejects this interpretation in Ex. 31:18 (Vol. 2, p. 656).</i> I have already explained this word.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">18</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The meaning of <i>le-khapper</i>. See I.E. on Lev. 1:4, <i>“Le-khapper alav</i>: To serve as a ransom for the punishment due to him.”</i> A HE-GOAT FOR A SIN-OFFERING. For the congregation. Also [for the congregation] a calf that has not reached the age of a complete year,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">19</sup><i class=\"footnote\">For Scripture reads, <i>bene shanah</i>.</i> and a lamb for a burnt offering. AND AN OX AND A RAM. Fully grown.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">20</sup><i class=\"footnote\">For Scripture reads, <i>shor</i> and <i>ayil</i>, not <i>par</i> and <i>keves</i>.</i> AND A MEAL-OFFERING. Of fine flour for each and every one.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">21</sup><i class=\"footnote\">For each sacrifice. Scripture employs the singular <i>minchah</i>. Hence I.E.’s comment.</i>  [6. AND MOSES SAID.] <i>Va-yomer mosheh</i> (and Moses said) is to be understood in a manner similar to that of <i>va-eshal otah</i> (and I asked her) (Gen. 24:47). I have pointed out to you how the latter is to be interpreted.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">22</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to I.E. the meaning of <i>va-eshal otah</i> (and I asked her) is, I had already asked. See I.E. on Gen. 24:14 (Vol. 1, p. 236).</i> The meaning of our clause is that Moses had already said to them, <i>This is the thing which the Lord commanded that ye should do</i>, namely, that you offer a he-goat (v. 3), a calf (v. 3), a lamb (v. 3), and an ox and a ram (v. 4);<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">23</sup><i class=\"footnote\">What is recorded in verse 6 occurred before that which is recorded in verse 5. In other words, Moses told the Israelites, <i>This is the thing that the Lord commanded…</i> before Israel <i>brought that which Moses commanded before the tent of meeting</i>.</i> then the glory of God will then appear to them. The latter refers to the fire that came forth from the Lord.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">24</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See verses 23 and 24.</i> AND MAKE ATONEMENT FOR THYSELF, AND FOR THE PEOPLE. There is a divine command that you make atonement for yourself and for all of the people. You will atone for yourself with a sin offering bullock. Afterwards you will atone for the congregation by offering the people’s sacrifice, for a person cannot atone for another unless he has been purified from all sin. WHICH WAS FOR HIMSELF. It came from his own property. So too the bullock of the Day of Atonement.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">25</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Offered by the <i>kohen gadol</i>. See Lev. 16:3.</i> THE BLOOD. He poured out the blood which remained. BUT THE FAT. Which covered the innards, which was upon the innards, and which was on the kidneys.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">26</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See I.E. on Lev. 8:16.</i> AND…DELIVERED UNTO HIM The word <i>va-yamtzi’u</i> (and…delivered unto him) is related to the word <i>matza</i> (found). Aaron found the blood when it was needed.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">27</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In other words, <i>va-yamtzi’u</i> is a <i>hifil</i>, meaning, and they caused it to be found.</i> AND THE PEOPLE’S OFFERING WAS PRESENTED.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">28</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hebrew, <i>va-yakrev</i> (literally, and he brought). Thus our clause literally reads, And he brought the people’s offering.</i> On the altar.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">29</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In other words, our clause tells us in general terms that Aaron brought the people’s offering on the altar. It then backtracks and describes the aforementioned in detail. Meijler suggests emending <i>al</i> to <i>el</i>. In this case I.E. reads, “to the altar.” In other words, Scripture first tells us that the people’s offering was brought to the altar and then goes on to tell us how Aaron and his sons dealt with it</i> AND OFFERED IT FOR SIN, AS THE FIRST. This refers to the sin offering bull-calf.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">30</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In other words, <i>as the first</i> means as the first sin offering.</i>  The meaning of <i>va-yechattehu</i> (and offered it for sin) is, to atone with it for the sin.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">31</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See I.E. on Lev. 6:19.</i> AND THEY PUT THE FAT. With the kidneys and the lobe of the liver, as I have shown you.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">32</sup><i class=\"footnote\">That Scripture is elliptical. See I.E. on verse 10 and on Lev. 8:26.</i> AND THE BREASTS. The breast of the ox and the breast of the ram. AND THE RIGHT THIGH.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">33</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hebrew, <i>shok ha-yamin</i>.</i> From this one and that one.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">34</sup><i class=\"footnote\">From the ox and the ram.</i> The word <i>shok</i> (thigh) is connected to the word <i>ha-pe’ah</i> (corner), or <i>ha-tazad</i> (side).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">35</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Our verse should be interpreted as if it read, <i>shok ha-tzad ha-yamin</i> or <i>shok ha-pe’ah ha-yamin</i>. In other words, <i>shok ha-yamin</i> is not to be rendered the <i>right thigh</i>, for <i>ha-yamin</i> (the right) is not an adjective describing <i>shok</i> (thigh). If <i>ha-yamin</i> (the right) were an adjective describing <i>shok</i> (thigh), our phrase would have read, <i>ha-shok ha-yamin</i>, rather than <i>shok ha-yamin</i>.</i> AND AARON LIFTED UP HIS HANDS TOWARD<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">36</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hebrew, <i>el</i> (literally, to).</i> THE PEOPLE. Toward them.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">37</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In other words, <i>el ha-am</i> means towards the people. We have followed the reading in <i>Vat. Ebr</i>. 38. The <i>Mikra’ot Gedolot</i> editions of I.E. read, <i>ra’a nikhecham</i>. The word <i>ra’a</i> has not been explained. It appears to be a copyist’s error. See Filwarg and Weiser.</i> From here our ancients transmitted to us the form taken by the “raising of the hands.”<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">38</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to the sages we learn here that the <i>kohanim</i> lift their hands when bestowing the priestly benediction. See <i>Sotah</i> 38a.</i> AND HE CAME DOWN. <i>Va-yered</i> (and he came down) is to be understood in accordance with what I have previously pointed out to you many times.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">39</sup><i class=\"footnote\">That the <i>vav</i> often introduces the pluperfect. See I.E. on verse 6.</i> It means that Aaron had already come down<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">40</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Before blessing the people.</i> from offering the people’s sin offering, burnt offering, and peace offering.  Scripture reads came down because the altar was three cubits in height.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">41</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See Ex. 27:1.</i> After this,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">42</sup><i class=\"footnote\">After the offering of the sacrifices and the blessing.</i> Moses and Aaron came to the tent of meeting. It is likely that they came to pray that a fire would come forth. When they came out<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">43</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Out of the tent of meeting.</i> both of them blessed the people. THE BURNT-OFFERING. The burnt offering of Aaron, the burnt offering of the people, and the continual burnt offering,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">44</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hebrew, <i>olat tamid</i>.</i> for Scripture states, <i>beside the burnt-offering of the morning</i> (Num. 28:23).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">45</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The full verse reads, <i>Ye shall offer these</i> (the festival offerings) <i>beside the burnt-offering of the morning, which is for a continual burnt-offering</i>. Hence the burnt offering is to be offered every day. Thus the burnt offering in our verse also includes the continual burnt offering.</i> AND THE FAT. From the bull-calf and the ram of Aaron, and the he-goat, the ox, and the ram THEY SHOUTED. <i>Va-yaronnu</i> (they shouted) means they raised their voices. Compare, <i>rinnah</i> (cry) in <i>And there went a cry throughout the host</i> (I Kings 22:36). EACH OF THEM HIS CENSER.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">1</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hebrew, <i>ish machtato</i> (literally, a man his censer).</i> Each man took his firepan.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">2</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In other words, <i>ish machtato</i> is to be interpreted as if written <i>kol ish machtato</i> (each man his censer). Our verse literally reads, And…the sons of Aaron took a man his censer. Hence I.E.’s comment that our verse is to be interpreted, And…the sons of Aaron took each man his firepan.</i> I believe that this event also took place on the eighth day.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">3</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See I.E. on Lev. 9:1.</i> <i>Behold, this day have they offered their sin-offering</i> (v. 19)<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">4</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The reference being to the sin offering mentioned in Lev. 9:2. See I.E. on verse 19.</i> is proof of this. AND PUT FIRE THEREIN. Not from the fire that came forth from the Lord.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">5</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See Lev. 9:24.</i> This is the meaning of <i>strange fire</i>. [WHICH HE HAD NOT COMMANDED THEM.] They acted on their own and were not commanded to burn incense and certainly not to employ a strange fire. AND THEY DIED BEFORE THE LORD. They thought that they were doing something favorable before Him.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">6</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Before the Lord</i> means serving God. Their intention was to serve God.</i> THIS IS THAT THE LORD SPOKE. God has previously told me that He will demonstrate His holiness through those who are close to Him.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">7</sup><i class=\"footnote\">However, Moses did not record this communication (Krinsky). See Rashi for another interpretation.</i> Our verse is similar in meaning to <i>You only have I known</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">8</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>The complete verse reads, You only have I known of all the families of the earth; Therefore I will visit upon you all your iniquities</i>.</i> (Amos 3:2). I will be exalted when I show My sanctity through those who are close to Me. I will then be glorified before all the people, and they will fear me. CARRY YOUR BRETHREN FROM BEFORE THE SANCTUARY. Some say<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">9</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This is the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. See the <i>Sifra</i> on this verse.</i> that the incense was before the altar of the burnt offering<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">10</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Which stood in the courtyard of sanctuary.</i> and the Levites entered there.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">11</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The Levites were permitted to enter there. They were not permitted to enter the sanctuary itself.</i> Others say<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">12</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This is the opinion of Rabbi Akiba. See the <i>Sifra</i> on this verse.</i> that the incense was on the altar of incense<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">13</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Which was in the sanctuary.</i> and Moses took them out of the tent of meeting.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">14</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This is the reading of the <i>Mikra’ot Gedolot</i> and <i>Vat. Ebr</i>. 38. Krinsky reads <i>u-misham</i> (and from there) in place of <i>u-moshah</i> (and Moses). According to this reading the Levites removed the bodies of Nadab and Abihu from the tabernacle. See Rabbi Akiba in the <i>Sifra</i>, “They cast a spear of iron [from the courtyard, and speared them.] They [then] dragged them and took them outside.”</i> FROM BEFORE THE SANCTUARY. The reference is to the courtyard. The latter, as I have explained, is referred to as the sanctuary, in contrast to the camp.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">15</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See I.E. on Lev. 6:23.</i> LET NOT THE HAIR OF YOUR HEADS GO LOOSE. Some say that <i>tifra’u</i> (go loose) means to let the hair grow long. REND. The word <i>tifromu</i> means rend. Actually the word <i>tifra’u</i> (go loose) is related to the word <i>faru’a</i> (go loose)<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">16</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Both words come from the same root.</i> in <i>his clothes shall be rent, and the hair of his head shall go loose</i> (Lev. 13:45).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">17</sup><i class=\"footnote\">I.E. offers proof for the opinion which he quotes at the opening of this verse. He does so because he is about to offer differing opinions.</i> Many say that it means<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">18</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The meaning of <i>faru’a</i> and by extension <i>tifra’u</i>.</i> covered.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">19</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See the <i>Sifra</i> on Lev. 13:45.</i> Others say that it means uncovered.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">20</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This is the opinion of Rabbi Akiba. See the <i>Sifra</i> on Lev. 13:45.</i> The words of tradition are true.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">21</sup><i class=\"footnote\">That the meaning of <i>tifra’u</i> is to grow the hair long. I.E.’s point is that there is no connection between <i>tifra’u</i> in our verse and <i>faru’a</i> in Lev. 13:45. Hence the difference of opinion regarding the latter has no bearing on the definition of <i>tifra’u</i> (Meijler).</i> THAT YE DIE NOT. The word <i>ve-lo</i> (that…not) is to be read as if written twice. Compare, <i>And I have not learned wisdom</i> (Prov. 30:3).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">22</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Prov. 30:3 literally reads: “I have not learned wisdom, I have knowledge of the Holy One.” According to I.E. this should be read, I have not (<i>lo</i>) learned wisdom, I have no (<i>lo</i>) knowledge of the Holy One.</i> Our verse is to be understood as follows: and that He be not wroth with all the congregation,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">23</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Our verse reads, <i>ve’al kol ha-edah yiktzof</i>. The latter literally reads, and that He be wroth with all the congregation. That makes no sense in this context. Hence I.E. suggests that the word <i>lo</i> be inserted into the clause and that it be read as if written: and that He be not (<i>lo</i>) wroth with all the congregation.</i> for you will atone for them. [BUT LET YOUR BRETHREN, THE WHOLE HOUSE OF ISRAEL.] You will find the meaning of this alluded to in the Torah portion <i>Behold, I Set</i> (Deut. 11:26).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">24</sup><i class=\"footnote\">It is not clear what I.E. is referring to. Weiser suggests that I.E. intended to allude to our verse in his comments on the Torah portion <i>Re’eh</i>, but did not follow through on his intention.</i> AND THE LORD SPOKE UNTO AARON. For Aaron was a prophet.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">25</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See I.E. on Ex. 31:18 (Vol. 2, p. 655).</i> Others say through Moses,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">26</sup><i class=\"footnote\">God spoke to Aaron through the agency of Moses.</i> as in <i>And the Lord spoke again unto Ahaz</i> (Is. 7:10).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">27</sup><i class=\"footnote\">God spoke to Ahaz through the agency of Isaiah. See Is. 7:3-10.</i> God cautioned Aaron and his sons to keep the law<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">28</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Regarding drinking wine or strong drink.</i> so that they do not die as Aaron’s oldest sons died. NOR STRONG DRINK. Made from any kind of wheat, honey, or dates, for wine destroys the reason of the one who imbibes it and he confuses things. Hence Scripture states, <i>And that ye may put difference</i> (v. 10).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">29</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Since you must differentiate between the holy and the profane you must be able to think clearly. In most of the editions, “hence” opens a new comment on verse 10. However, Sarim’s edition has the comment as a continuation of verse 9. We have followed the latter.</i> Since you are a <i>kohen gadol</i> you will differentiate<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">30</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In other words, <i>u-le-havdil</i>, which is an infinitive that literally means and to put a difference, is to be rendered, and you shall differentiate (<i>utavdil</i>) in this context.</i> between a holy place and a common place. The word <i>chol</i> (common) is related to the word <i>chillul</i> (profaned).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">31</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The word <i>chol</i> means profane. Thus our clause is to be rendered, between the holy and the profane.</i> It is possible that <i>between the holy and the common</i> means between a holy day and a common day. AND BETWEEN THE UNCLEAN AND THE CLEAN. Among cattle and things that swarm in the water and that fly. Therefore the section opening with the words <i>These are the living things</i> (Lev. 10:11), and then the sections dealing with the woman who gives birth (Lev. 12:1-8) and the leprosy that is found in humans (Lev. 13:1-46), on garments (Lev. 13:47-59) and in houses (Lev. 14:33-53); one who experiences a seminal emission (Lev. 15:16-18); a male or female who experiences a flux (Lev. 15:1-15, 25-33); and a menstruant (Lev. 15:19-24) follow this section. This is the meaning of <i>and between the unclean and the clean</i>. AND THAT YE MAY TEACH THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL. The rest of the commandments. Similarly <i>and do according to all that the priests…shall teach you</i> (Deut. 24:8). TAKE THE MEAL-OFFERING. No one aside from those who are holy are fit to eat that which remains from the meal offering after part of it has been burned in honor of God.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">32</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hence Moses told Aaron and his sons to eat the meal offering.</i> You shall begin to eat the portion which God has given you, to always take of God’s fire-offerings;<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">33</sup><i class=\"footnote\">I.E.’s interpretation of verse 13.</i> this means<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">34</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The meaning of, <i>of God’s fire-offerings</i></i> all meal offerings, part of which was burned in honor of God. [IN A CLEAN PLACE.] Even though it is outside the courtyard. The breast and the thigh shall be eaten by males and females, for Scripture clearly states, <i>every one that is clean in thy house may eat thereof</i> (Num. 18:11). Similarly slaves bought by money and born in the house,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">35</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Of their master.</i> and a widow<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">36</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Who was married to an Israelite or a Levite.</i> who returned to her father’s house.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">37</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Slaves bought by money or born in the house of their master (the <i>kohen</i>) and a widow who returns to her <i>kohen</i> father’s house may eat the breast and the thigh.</i> As you now eat the breast and the thigh, so shall the law be that you take these portions from all the sacrifices of peace offerings. WAS BURNT. <i>Soraf</i> (was burnt) is a <i>pu’al</i>.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">38</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Soraf</i> is vocalized with a <i>cholam. Pu’als</i> are usually vocalized with a <i>kubbutz</i>. Hence I.E.’s comment.</i> Compare, <i>morak</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">39</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Morak</i> is <i>a pu’al. Morak</i>, like <i>soraf</i>, is vocalized with a <i>cholam</i>.</i> (sodden) in <i>it shall be scoured, and rinsed in water</i> (Lev. 6:21). IN THE PLACE OF THE SANCTUARY. At the opening of the tent of meeting, for this is clearly stated in Scripture.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">40</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See Lev. 6:19.</i> <i>And He hath given it you [to bear the iniquity of the congregation</i> ], for when you eat the sin offering God will bear the iniquity of the congregation.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">41</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In other words, <i>to bear the iniquity of the congregation</i> refers to God. The verse is to be interpreted, And He hath given it to you so that God will bear (forgive) the iniquity of the congregation.</i> Or its meaning<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">42</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The meaning of <i>to bear the iniquity of the congregation</i>.</i> is, you will bear the iniquity of the congregation; that is, the sins of the congregation will be forgiven through you.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">43</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In this case, <i>to bear the iniquity of the congregation refers</i> to the <i>kohanim</i>.</i> Hence Scripture states, <i>to make atonement</i>.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">44</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>To make atonement</i> explains the meaning of <i>to bear the iniquity of the congregation; that is, to bear the iniquity</i> means <i>to make atonement for</i>.</i> BEHOLD, THE BLOOD OF IT WAS NOT BROUGHT INTO THE SANCTUARY WITHIN. Like the bullock brought by the <i>kohen</i> and the congregation for violation of any of the commandments.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">45</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Which were burned in a clean place outside of the camp. See Lev. 4:1-21.</i> Should one ask, “Look, the bullock of the sin offering<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">46</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Which was offered during the seven days of consecration. See Lev. 8:14-17.</i> was burned<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">47</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Outside of the camp and its flesh was not eaten.</i> and its blood was not brought into the inner sanctuary,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">48</sup><i class=\"footnote\">As was the blood of the sin offering brought by the <i>kohen gadol</i> and the congregation, and yet it was not eaten. The point is, Moses implies that if the blood of a sin offering is not brought into the sanctuary, then the flesh of the sin offering must be eaten. However, the case of the sin offering offered during the seven days of consecration shows that this is not necessarily so.</i> the reference being to the place of the curtain and the golden altar?” Know that the sin offering bullock<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">49</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Offered during the seven days of consecration.</i> was to purify the altar,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">50</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See Lev. 8:15. It did not atone for anyone’s sin. There was no celebrant whose transgression was to be atoned for by the <i>kohanim</i> consuming its flesh. Hence its flesh was burned.</i> the he-goat sin offering<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">51</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Which was brought on the eighth day. See Lev. 9:3.</i> was to atone for the people, and the flesh of the sin offering was for the <i>kohen</i>.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">52</sup><i class=\"footnote\">When the <i>kohen</i> eats the sin offering the sins of the people are forgiven. Hence Moses was angry that the flesh was burned and not eaten.</i> YE SHOULD CERTAINLY HAVE EATEN IT. <i>Akhol tokhelu</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">53</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Akhol tokhelu</i> literally means you will certainly eat it. Hence I.E.’s comment.</i> is to be rendered, ye should have certainly eaten it. There are grammarians who say that the interrogative <i>heh</i> is not followed by a <i>dagesh</i> when the letter<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">54</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Following the interrogative <i>heh</i>.</i> is vocalized with one of the seven “kings.”<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">55</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Vowels. The reference is <i>to the kamatz, pattach, segol, tzereh, cholam, shuruk</i>, and <i>chirik</i> (<i>Weiser</i>).</i> The letter following an interrogative <i>heh</i> is found with a <i>dagesh</i> only when it has a mobile <i>sheva</i> beneath it. The <i>heh</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">56</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The interrogative <i>heh</i>.</i> is vocalized with a <i>pattach</i> because two mobile <i>shevas</i> cannot come back to back.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">57</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The interrogative <i>heh</i> is vocalized with a <i>chataf pattach</i>. However, when the interrogative <i>heh</i> precedes a letter vocalized by a <i>sheva na</i> (a mobile <i>sheva</i>), it is vocalized with a <i>pattach</i>, for the <i>chataf pattach</i> has a <i>sheva na</i> within it and two mobile <i>shevas</i> cannot follow each other.</i> Now, since they<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">58</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The grammarians.</i> found that the <i>yod</i> of <i>ha-yitav</i> (would it have been well pleasing) has a <i>dagesh</i> in it, they said that the <i>heh</i> of <i>ha-yitav</i> is the <i>heh</i> which indicates the direct object,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">59</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In other words, the <i>heh</i> of <i>ha-yitav</i> is not an interrogative <i>heh</i>.</i> like the <i>heh</i> of <i>ha-shavah</i> (that came) in <i>that came back with Naomi</i> (Ruth 2:6); the <i>heh</i> in <i>ha-nimtze’u foh</i> (that are found here) (I Chron. 29:17); the <i>heh</i> in <i>ha-hullalah</i> (the renowned) in <i>The renowned city</i> (Ezek. 26:17). These <i>hehs</i> are in place of the word <i>asher</i> (that). This is the meaning of <i>ha-yitav</i> (would it have been well pleasing).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">60</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The meaning of <i>ha-yitav</i> is, that finds favor.</i> They further said that <i>ve-akhalti</i> (and if I had eaten) is a verb in the perfect.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">61</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Meaning I ate. It is not an imperfect, meaning and I will eat. According to I.E. the second part of our verse is to be rendered, and I ate (<i>ve-akhalti</i>) an amount that finds favor (<i>ha-yitav</i>) in the eyes of God.</i> If the word were an imperfect it would have been ultimately accented like the words <i>vedibbarti</i> (I have also spoken)<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">62</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Literally, I will speak.</i> in <i>I have also spoken unto the prophets</i> (Hosea 12:11) and <i>ve-dibbarti</i> (and I will speak) in <i>And I will speak with thee</i> (Ex. 25:22). The meaning of the first half of our verse is, my sons who were burned today offered their sin offering and their burnt offering, for the bull-calf and the ram<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">63</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Offered on the eighth day. See Lev. 9:2.</i> were offered on behalf of Aaron and his sons.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">64</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hence our verse speaks of their sin offering and their burnt offering.</i> AND THERE HAVE BEFALLEN ME SUCH THINGS AS THESE. The reference is to troubles or anxiety because of the death of the sons. It was because of this that I was not able to eat the entire sin offering, but I ate enough of it to find favor in the eyes of God, that is, an amount which is enough to fulfill my obligation.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">65</sup><i class=\"footnote\">And had the rest burned. According to the rabbis whenever the Torah requires one to eat something, the minimum amount that is to be consumed is the size of an olive.</i> However, in the opinion of the transmitters of tradition<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">66</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The sages of the Talmud.</i> the <i>heh</i> of <i>ha-yitav</i> is an interrogative <i>heh</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">67</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to the sages <i>ha-yitav</i> is to be rendered, would it have been well pleasing. See <i>Zevachim</i> 101a. Also see Rashi. The sages render the second half of our verse, <i>and if I had eaten</i> (ve-akhalti) <i>the sin-offering to-day, would it have been well-pleasing</i> (ha-yitav) <i>in the sight of the Lord?</i></i> and the word is irregular.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">68</sup><i class=\"footnote\">For it has a <i>dagesh</i> in the letter following the interrogative <i>heh</i>.</i> It is also irregular according to the explanation which I mentioned above,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">69</sup><i class=\"footnote\">That of the grammarians who maintain that the <i>heh</i> of <i>ha-yitav</i> is a definite article.</i> for we do not find in all of Scripture the definite article <i>heh</i> prefixed to a verb in the imperfect.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">70</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Yitav</i> is an imperfect.</i> The meaning of <i>ve-akhalti chattat</i> is to be interpreted as, and if I had eaten the sin offering.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">71</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Ve-akhalti</i> is a perfect, as it is penultimately accented. According to this interpretation <i>ve-akhalti</i> is to be rendered, and if I would have eaten.</i> We also find words in the imperfect that are penultimately accented.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">72</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Even though such words are usually ultimately accented. Thus <i>ve-akhalti can</i> be taken to be an imperfect. According to this interpretation <i>ve-akhalti</i> does not have to be rendered, and if I had eaten, but rather, if I would eat.</i> Compare, <i>ve-ganavti</i> (and steal)<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">73</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Ve-ganavti</i> is an imperfect. It is penultimately accented.</i> in <i>lest I be poor, and steal</i> (Prov. 30:9). The meaning of our clause<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">74</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The meaning of <i>and if I had eaten</i> (ve-akhalti) <i>the sin-offering to-day would it have been well-pleasing</i> (ha-yitav) <i>in the sight of the Lord?</i></i> is, I was mourning, and a mourner does not eat of the sin offering. Its meaning is similar to <i>I have not eaten thereof</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">75</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Of the tithe.</i> <i>in my mourning</i> (Deut. 26:14).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">76</sup><i class=\"footnote\">For a mourner is prohibited from eating anything which is holy.</i> AND THE LORD SPOKE UNTO MOSES AND TO AARON. For Aaron is the <i>kohen</i> who teaches and who differentiates between the unclean and the clean.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">1</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Aaron teaches Israel how to differentiate between the unclean and unclean. Hence God’s word was also directed to Aaron.</i> PARTETH. <i>Mafreset</i> (parteth) is an adjective.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">2</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Even though it has the form of a verb. I.E. renders <i>kol mafreset parsah</i> (whatsoever parteth the hoof) as whatsoever has parted hoofs.</i> Similarly <i>makrin mafris</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">3</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Makrin</i> and <i>mafris</i> are adjectives.</i> (horned and hoofed) (Ps. 69:32).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">4</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Translated according to I.E.</i> It means all animals which are described as having a hoof. AND IS WHOLLY CLOVEN-FOOTED. <i>Shosa’at</i> (wholly cloven) is an adjective. The meaning of <i>ve-shosa’at shesa perasot</i> (and is wholly cloven-footed) is, whose hoofs are cloven. AND CHEWETH THE CUD. <i>Gerah</i> (cud) is related to the word <i>garon</i> (throat).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">5</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The root of which is <i>gimel, resh, resh</i>.</i> The word <i>ma’alat</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">6</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Literally, brings up.</i> (cheweth) is a verb in the present.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">7</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Unlike <i>mafreset</i> and <i>shosa’at</i>.</i> Scripture mentions the camel (v. 4), the rockbadger (v. 5), the hare (v. 6), and the swine (v. 7) because each one has one sign.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">8</sup><i class=\"footnote\">They either chew the cud or have split hoofs. These animals are enumerated in order to emphasize the fact that the law requires a clean animal to have both signs.</i> It is the style of Scripture to mention the male of each species because the masculine also takes in the feminine.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">9</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The masculine form of a noun at times refers to males and females; that is, the term “man” sometimes refers to males and females. Most of the names of the animals mentioned in verses 4-7 are in the masculine. I.E. points out that the same law applies to females of the species. Otherwise only the male animals listed would be forbidden to be eaten.</i> Scripture mentions the <i>arnevet</i> (hare).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">10</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Arnevet</i> is feminine and so does not seem to follow the rule stated by I.E.</i> Some say that it does so because the male is not found among them.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">11</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Some interpret this to mean that the male of the species is rarely seen. However, this opinion seems to be saying that this species has no male.</i> There are others who say that the male turns into a female and vice versa. However, the first interpretation appeals to me. AND THEIR CARCASSES YE SHALL NOT TOUCH. Scripture does not mention that one who touches their carcasses shall be unclean until evening.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">12</sup><i class=\"footnote\">As it does with regard to winged swarming things (v. 24), animals that walk on their paws (v. 27), and other creatures. See verses 31, 32, 39, and 40.</i> However, we know this from tradition. Now, the one who deliberately touches their carcass incurs the penalty of flogging, for he violated a negative commandment.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">13</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This is I.E.’s opinion based on a literal reading of the text. However, in the <i>Yesod Mora</i> (p. 47) I.E. interprets this verse in accordance with the opinion of the rabbis. He writes: “The one who touches them does not incur the penalty of <i>karet</i> or stripes.”</i> [9. IN THE SEAS.] If we pursue the literal meaning of the verse without the tradition of the rabbis, then the fish that are found in the lakes (<i>agammim</i>) are prohibited, for Scripture specifies <i>the seas and the rivers</i>. FINS AND SCALES. <i>Snappir ve-kaskeset</i> (fins and scales) is to be rendered as the Aramaic translator does.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">14</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Onkelos renders <i>snappir ve-kaskeset</i> as <i>tzitzin ve-kalfin</i>.</i> OF ALL THAT SWARM IN THE WATERS. They are the small creatures that were created from the water.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">15</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See Gen. 1:20.</i> The waters contain living creatures that are both male and female.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">16</sup><i class=\"footnote\">I.E.’s interpretation of <i>and of all living creatures that are in the waters</i>.</i> After stating <i>they are a detestable thing unto you</i> Scripture goes on to say, <i>and they shall be a detestable thing unto you</i> (v. 11) in order to explain in what way they shall be detestable namely, <i>ye shall not eat of their flesh</i> (<i>Ibid</i>.). Note, fish are called flesh.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">17</sup><i class=\"footnote\">For our verse states, <i>ye shall not eat of their flesh</i>.</i> However, what the sages of blessed memory said with regard to vows<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">18</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The rabbis say that fish are not considered flesh. See <i>Hullin</i> 104a, “One who takes a vow not to eat flesh is permitted to eat fish and locusts.”</i> refers to the custom of their generations.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">19</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Post-Biblical generations. In Rabbinic and contemporary times fish are not considered flesh.</i> Scripture adds, <i>Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales</i> to include all waters, for Scripture earlier mentioned only the seas and the rivers. THE GREAT VULTURE The meaning of <i>nesher</i> (the great vulture) is known. This is also the bird which has the same name in the language of the Ishmaelites.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">20</sup><i class=\"footnote\">It is called <i>niser</i> in Arabic. Hence we have additional proof of the identity of this bird.</i> There is something of a proof that this is the case, because the two languages are related. AND THE OSPRAY. Even though there is an individual opinion that it (the osprey) is not found in inhabited places, the Gaon erred in rendering it <i>al enka</i>, for this term in the language of the Ishmaelites refers to something that never existed. It refers to something that was not created and never was. It is only employed metaphorically. The Arab grammarians admit this. This being the case, it is not possible that the Torah would prohibit something that never existed.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">21</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hence the first quoted opinion is superior to that of the Gaon.</i> AND THE KITE. The term <i>da’ah</i> (kite) is a general term which takes in two kinds, namely, the <i>da’ah</i> (kite) and the <i>dayyah</i> (falcon).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">22</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Which is not in our verse but is mentioned in Deut. 14:13. <i>Vat. Ebr</i>. 38 reads: “The term <i>da’ah</i> (kite) is a general term which takes in two kinds, namely, the <i>ra’ah</i> (kite) and the <i>dayyah</i> (falcon).” The latter are mentioned in Deut. 14:13 but omitted in our verse. Thus there is no contradiction between the list of the 20 prohibited birds in our chapter and the 21 in Deut. 14. Also, see I.E. on Deut. 14:11 (Vol. 5, pp. 93,94).</i> Compare, <i>tzippor</i> (birds), the word used for a turtle-dove and a young pigeon in <i>but the birds divided he not</i> (Gen. 15:10). Now the transmitters of tradition who said that the <i>ra’ah</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">23</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Mentioned in Deut. 14:13.</i> (glede) is to be identified with the <i>da’ah</i> (kite)<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">24</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Mentioned in our verse. See <i>Chullin</i> 63:2.</i> are correct.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">25</sup><i class=\"footnote\">For the term <i>da’ah</i> (kite) is a general term and takes in the <i>ra’ah</i></i> The argument of Rabbi Jonah,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">26</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In the <i>Sefer Ha-Shoroshim</i>, root <i>resh, alef, heh</i>.</i> who asked how is it possible to say be on guard because of the <i>aryeh</i> (lion) and the <i>layyish</i> (lion),<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">27</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to Rabbi Jonah an intelligent person would not say watch out for the <i>aryeh</i> and the <i>layyish</i>, for both words have one meaning. Rabbi Jonah argues that the <i>ra’ah</i> is not to be identified with the <i>da’ah</i>, for the Torah would not say do not eat the <i>ra’ah</i> and the <i>da’ah</i> if both referred to the same kind (Krinsky).</i> is turned aside.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">28</sup><i class=\"footnote\">For <i>aryeh</i> is a general term, and <i>layyish</i> is a specific term.</i> Others say that <i>nesher</i> (the great vulture) is connected to the word <i>ashurennu</i> (I see him) (Num. 23:9);<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">29</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Nesher</i> thus means the bird who sees great distances.</i> <i>peres</i> (bearded vulture) is related to the word <i>pros</i> (deal)<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">30</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Literally, break.</i> in <i>Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry</i> (Is. 58:7);<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">31</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Peres</i> thus means the bird that breaks.</i> <i>ozniyyah</i> (osprey) is related to the word <i>oz</i> (mighty)<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">32</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Ozniyyah</i> thus means the mighty bird.</i> and its <i>nun</i> is superfluous.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">33</sup><i class=\"footnote\">For there is no <i>nun</i> in <i>oz</i>.</i> It is the bird which is called <i>akba</i>;<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">34</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In Arabic.</i> <i>da’ah</i> (kite) is related to the word <i>yideh</i> (swoopeth) in <i>as the vulture swoopeth down</i> (Deut. 28:49);<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">35</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Da’ah</i> means the swooping bird.</i> <i>ayyah</i> (falcon) is so called because it is accustomed to dwell in certain well-known islands (<i>iyyim</i>);<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">36</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Ayyah</i> means the island-dwelling bird.</i>  <i>orev</i> (raven) is related to the word <i>erev</i> (evening). It is so called because of its darkness. AND THE OSTRICH. Some say that the <i>bat ha-ya’anah</i> (ostrich)<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">37</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Bat ha-ya’anah</i> is feminine.</i> is a kind among whom males are not found.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">38</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hence Scripture mentions only the feminine.</i> It is like the hare. There is no argument from the word <i>ka-ye’enim</i> (like the ostriches)<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">39</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Ye’enim</i> is a masculine plural form. The singular of this form is <i>ya’an</i>. We thus see that males are found among the ostriches.</i> (Lam. 4:3), for the reference is to females as in the case of <i>ye’elim</i> (wild goats) (Ps. 104:18)<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">40</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Ye’elim</i> is a masculine plural form. However, it is the plural of <i>ye’elah</i>, which is feminine.</i> and <i>rechelim</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">41</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Which is a masculine plural form but is actually the plural of <i>rechelah</i>, which is feminine. We thus see that there are instances in which a feminine singular has a plural masculine form.</i> (ewes) (Gen. 32:15). AND THE NIGHT-HAWK. <i>Tachmas</i> (night-hawk) is related to the word <i>chamas</i> (violence) (Gen. 5:11). THE SEA-MEW. The <i>shachaf</i> (sea-mew) gives birth to consumption (<i>shachefet</i>) (Lev. 26:16). AND THE HAWK. The <i>netz</i> (hawk) has many feathers.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">42</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The Hebrew word for feather is <i>notzah</i>.</i> It most likely refers to the well-known bird which always spreads its wings to the south,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">43</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See Job 39:26, <i>Doth the hawk</i> (netz) <i>soar by thy wisdom, and stretch her wings toward the south</i>?</i> for it seeks a warm place. AND THE LITTLE OWL. The word <i>kos</i> (little owl) is similar to the word <i>kos</i> (owl) in <i>as an owl of the waste places</i> (Ps. 102:7). Some say that the bird is hidden (<i>nikhseh</i>) from the eyes of people. It therefore rests in uninhabited places. AND THE CORMORANT. Some say that the <i>shalakh</i> (cormorant) is so called because its nature is to cast (<i>le-haslikh</i>) its offspring down. AND THE GREAT OWL. The <i>yanshuf</i> (great owl) is a bird that flies at night (<i>neshef</i>), for it cannot see during the day because of the brightness of the sun light. AND THE HORNED OWL. Whoever looks at the <i>tinshemet</i> (the horned owl) is astonished (<i>yishom</i>). The term <i>tinshemet</i> is also found among the swarming things (v. 30).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">44</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In other words, the word <i>tinshemet</i> refers to both a bird and a reptile. This is an anomaly which I.E. points out.</i> AND THE PELICAN. Some say that the <i>ka’at</i> (pelican) is a bird whose nature is to regurgitate (<i>le-haki</i>) its food. AND THE CARRION-VULTURE. The Gaon<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">45</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Rabbi Saadiah Gaon.</i> says that the <i>racham</i> (carrion-vulture) is the animal which is similarly called in Arabic,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">46</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The <i>rakham</i>.</i> with the <i>chet</i> interchanging with a <i>khaf</i>, for they are written with the same letter.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">47</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The Arabic <i>chet</i> and <i>khaf</i> are similarly writtten.</i> Others say that <i>racham</i> refers to a bird that has pity (<i>merachem</i>) upon its offspring. AND THE STORK. Some say the <i>chasidah</i> (stork) is the bird which appears at certain well-known times in the year. Others say that it scatters loving kindness (<i>chesed</i>).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">48</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See Rashi: “Why is it called “<i>chasidah</i>? It is so called because it acts kindly towards its fellow creatures with regard to food.” See also <i>Chullin</i> 63a.</i> This is far-fetched. AND THE HERON. The <i>anafah</i> (heron) grows angry (<i>yitannef</i>) quickly.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">49</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See <i>Chullin</i> 63a.</i> AND THE HOOPOE. The Sadducees say that the <i>dukhifat</i> (hoopoe) refers to the chicken. However, they are the world’s greatest fools, for who told them this? AND THE BAT. A small bird that flies at night. The word <i>atalef</i> (bat) is a quadriliteral; that is, it comes from a four-letter root.  Note that the word <i>teshakketzu</i> in <i>teshakketzu min ha-of</i> (these ye shall have in detestation among the fowls) (v. 13) has a slightly different grammatical meaning from <i>teshakketzu</i> in <i>al teshakketzu et nafshotekhem</i> (ye shall not make yourselves detestable) (v. 43). In the latter instance the word <i>nafshotekhem</i> (yourselves) is the object, while in the case of the fowl (v. 13) its meaning is, you shall know that they are detestable and they shall be considered detestable to you. All winged swarming things that at times fly and at times go upon all fours are detestable.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">50</sup><i class=\"footnote\">I.E.’s interpretation of verse 20.</i> WHICH HAVE JOINTED LEGS. The main reading is the one that spells <i>lo</i> with a <i>vav</i>.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">51</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The <i>kre</i>. The <i>ketiv</i> spells <i>lo</i> with a <i>vav</i>. With a <i>vav</i> the phrase means “which have jointed legs;” without a <i>vav</i> it reads, “which does not have jointed legs.” According to the rabbis the meaning of the latter is: which does not have jointed legs now but will grow them later. See <i>Sifra</i> on this verse.</i> TO LEAP. The word <i>le-natter</i> has no brother.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">52</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The word is not found again in Scripture.</i> The Aramaic translator renders <i>le-natter ba-hen</i> by <i>le-kappatza behen;</i> since the word <i>le-kappatza</i> is similar to <i>mekappetz</i> (leaping) (Cant. 2:8),<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">53</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Thus <i>le-kappatza ve-hon</i> means wherewith to leap.</i> its meaning is leaping. He translated correctly. [THE LOCUST.] The word <i>arbeh</i> (locust) is connected to the word <i>ribbuy</i> (large amount). AND THE BALD LOCUST. The <i>sale’am</i> (bald locust) refers to a kind of locust which climbs on rocks (<i>sela’im</i>).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">54</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Sela</i> means a rock. Thus <i>sela’im</i> means the “rocker,” i.e., the grasshopper that climbs a rock.</i> AND THE CRICKET. If the word <i>chargol</i> (cricket) is a quadriliteral, then it has no brother.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">55</sup><i class=\"footnote\">There is no similar word in Scripture.</i> If it is a combination of two words<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">56</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Charag</i> (trembling). See I. E. on Ps. 18:46 and <i>regel</i> (foot).</i> like the word <i>palmoni</i> (certain one) in <i>unto that certain one who spoke</i> (Dan 8:13), then the nature of the <i>chargal</i> is the reverse of the nature of the <i>sale’am</i> (bald locust).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">57</sup><i class=\"footnote\">For the <i>sale’am</i> climbs rocks while the <i>chargal</i> has “trembling feet” and is not adept at climbing.</i> AND THE GRASSHOPPER. Its meaning is known from the language of the Ishmaelite.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">58</sup><i class=\"footnote\">A grasshopper is called <i>chajaba</i> in Arabic.</i> [BUT ALL WINGED SWARMING THINGS.] Scripture had previously stated, <i>that go upon all fours</i> (v. 20).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">59</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Scripture had previously stated that <i>go on all four are…detestable</i> (v. 21). Why then state here, <i>But all winged swarming things which have four feet are…detestable</i>?</i> The Torah now states, <i>But all winged swarming things, which have four feet</i>, because it is possible that there is a swarming creature that has four legs but that does not walk upon them but only flies.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">60</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Verse 20 teaches that a swarming creature that walks on four legs is detestable. Our verse teaches that a swarming creature that has four legs is detestable even if it does not walk upon them. Our verse thus not repeat verse 20.</i> AND BY THESE YE SHALL BECOME UNCLEAN. By all winged swarming things that have four feet; <i>And these ye shall have in detestation among the fowls</i>.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">61</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See verse 13. In other words, verses 24 and 25 refer to that which comes before, that is to unclean fowl and unclean winged swarming things.</i> Others believe that the word <i>elleh</i> (these) (v. 24) refers to <i>among all the beasts</i> and to <i>And whatsoever goeth upon its paws</i> (v. 27).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">62</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In other words, verses 23 and 24 introduce that which follows. See Rashi and Rashbam.</i> I believe that the word <i>elleh</i> refers to all those mentioned above.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">63</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Unclean fowl and unclean winged swarming things.</i> YE SHALL BECOME UNCLEAN. The word <i>tittamma’u</i> (ye shall become unclean) is a <i>hitpa’el</i>. The <i>tet</i> receives a <i>dagesh</i> because the <i>tav</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">64</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Of the <i>hitpa’el</i>.</i> is swallowed. The same is the case with the word <i>middabber</i> (speaking) in <i>then he heard the Voice speaking unto him</i> (Num. 7:89) and the word <i>mittaher</i> (cleansed) in <i>And he that is to be cleansed shall wash</i> (Lev. 14:8).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">65</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Both words are <i>hitpa’els</i> whose <i>tav</i> is compensated for by a <i>dagesh</i>.</i> SHALL BE UNCLEAN UNTIL THE EVEN. Scripture chose the path of brevity, for the unclean must bathe in water. AND WHOSOEVER BEARETH. Bearing is more serious than touching. Therefore the bearer must wash his garments. How much more so [must he bathe] his body. The same law applies to all beasts.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">66</sup><i class=\"footnote\">It does not apply only to unclean fowl and unclean winged swarming things.</i> Scripture also follows the path of brevity here.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">67</sup><i class=\"footnote\">As it did in verse 24.</i> The verse is to be understood as follows, or is clovenfooted but cheweth not the cud or cheweth the cud but is not cloven-footed.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">68</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Our verse seems to imply that only an animal that has two signs of uncleanliness is unclean, for it speaks of a <i>beast which parteth the hoof, but is not cloven-footed, nor cheweth the cud</i>. However, this contradicts verses 4-7 which teache that an animal with only one kosher sign is unclean. Hence I.E. points out that the above clause is short for: a beast which cheweth the cud and parteth the hoof but is not cloven-footed, or a beast that cheweth not the cud but which parteth the hoof and is cloven-footed.</i> Scripture has previously stated, <i>and their carcasses ye shall not touch; they are unclean unto you</i> (v. 8).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">69</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hence Scripture does not mention here that their carcasses are unclean (Weiser).</i> [EVERY ONE THAT TOUCHETH THEM.] This means everyone who touches any of the above-mentioned carcasses shall become unclean until the evening, for that is the law regarding the previously mentioned carcasses. There is a type of misbeliever who belongs to the Sadducee heresy who says that <i>every one that toucheth them</i> means whoever touches them while they are alive shall be unclean. There is no need to respond to insane talk, for Scripture only prohibited their flesh.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">70</sup><i class=\"footnote\">To be eaten. The point is that the law dealing with touching unclean animals only concerns dead unclean animals, for Scripture explicitly states, <i>and their carcasses ye shall not touch</i> (v. 8). Hence the prohibition against touching unclean animals applies only to their carcasses.</i> It states, <i>and their carcasses ye shall not touch</i> (v. 8). AND WHATSOEVER GOETH UPON ITS PAWS. At first<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">71</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Before they died.</i> the law is the same.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">72</sup><i class=\"footnote\">They have the same law as the animals mentioned in verse 26.</i> Similarly <i>And he that beareth the carcass of them</i> (v. 28).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">73</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The law that governs the animals mentioned in verse 28 applies here too.</i> This verse affirms my explanation of the words <i>And by these ye shall be come unclean</i> (v. 24),<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">74</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to I.E., <i>And by these ye shall be come unclean</i> applies to what comes before, not what follows. See I.E. on verse 24.</i> for Scripture there states, <i>And whosoever beareth aught of the carcass of them</i> (v. 25).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">75</sup><i class=\"footnote\">And verse 28 states, <i>And</i> <i>he that beareth the carcass of them</i>. According to I.E., Scripture is not repeating itself, for verse 25 refers to winged creatures while verse 28 refers to animals that walk on all fours.</i> Both of them are in one section.  The reason Scripture states, <i>They are unclean unto you</i>, is that it wants to include all of Israel: men, women, and children.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">76</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Verse 26 states, <i>Every one that toucheth them shall be unclean</i>. Hence <i>unclean unto you</i> in our verse is not a mere repetition of the same statement.</i> One law applies to all. AND THESE ARE THEY WHICH ARE UNCLEAN UNTO YOU. By touch.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">77</sup><i class=\"footnote\">One becomes unclean by touching their dead carcasses.</i> We also are not able to actually know what these eight creatures<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">78</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Mentioned in verses 29 and 30.</i> refer to. This is also true of the fowl.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">79</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Mentioned in verses 13-19.</i> We can only know their identity by tradition. [THESE ARE THEY WHICH ARE UNCLEAN.] It means that these alone are the unclean<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">80</sup><i class=\"footnote\">These eight swarming things alone among the things that swarm upon the earth defile the one who touches them.</i> which, when dead, defile you.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">81</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hence Scripture enumerates them.</i>  The meaning of <i>shall be unclean until the even</i> is, after he bathes he shall be unclean until the evening.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">82</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See I.E. on verse 25.</i> IT MUST BE PUT INTO WATER. The garment or the sack or the vessel which is susceptible of uncleanness. We have a need for tradition regarding these things.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">83</sup><i class=\"footnote\">To tell us which vessels are susceptible to uncleanliness. There is a section of the Mishnah called <i>kelim</i> (vessels) dedicated to this topic.</i> WHEREIN TO ANY OF THEM FALLETH. <i>Me-hem</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">84</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Literally, of them. This might be taken to mean all of them; that is, if all of the creatures mentioned in verses 29 and 30 fall into a vessel it becomes unclean. However, if one or two of them fall into a vessel it is not unclean. Hence I.E.’s comment.</i> is to be rendered, any one of them. Compare, <i>And was buried in the cities of Gilead</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">85</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Translated literally.</i> (Jud. 12:7).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">86</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The meaning of which is, and was buried in one of the cities of Gilead.</i> AND ALL DRINK. <i>Mashkeh</i> (drink) is a noun.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">87</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Even though it has the form of a verb.</i> <i>Mashkeh</i> in <i>Now I was giving drink to the king</i> (Neh. 1:11) is a verb in the present tense.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">88</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Translated according to I.E.</i>  Now, an <i>oven</i> (v. 35) which is used to bake bread and a <i>range</i> (<i>Ibid</i>.) which is used to cook meat shall be broken into pieces,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">89</sup><i class=\"footnote\">If the carcass of one of the eight swarming things falls into it.</i> for they are unclean. This is the decree of the king.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">90</sup><i class=\"footnote\">There does not appear to be any reason for this law. In the <i>Yesod Mora</i> (p. 112), I.E. points out that there are many laws whose meaning only the very intelligent can ascertain. I.E.’s comments here seem to be directed to this group of people.</i>  A CISTERN. The Hebrew word <i>be’er</i> (well) is a feminine. It bubbles forth. Compare, <i>As a well</i> (bir)<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">91</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This is the <i>ketiv. Bir</i> is a variant of <i>be’er</i>. Translated according to I.E.</i> <i>welleth with her waters</i> (Jer. 6:7). However, a <i>bor</i> (cistern) is dug or excavated to store the rain from the sky. If so,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">92</sup><i class=\"footnote\">If the water in the well bubbles forth.</i> the well is a fountain.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">93</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Mentioned in our verse.</i> There is no need to mention rivers.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">94</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In our verse, for the waters in the rivers have their origin in underground fountains.</i> <i>Mikveh mayim</i> (a gathering of water) is connected to <i>bor</i> (cistern),<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">95</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Bor mikveh mayim means a cistern wherein is a gathering of water</i> (v. 36).</i> for there are <i>borot</i> (cisterns) without water.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">96</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hence <i>mikveh mayim</i> follows <i>bor</i>.</i> Some say that <i>mikveh</i> is missing a <i>vav</i>.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">97</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Mikveh mayim</i> should be read as if written, <i>u-mikveh mayim</i>. According to this interpretation our verse reads, or a cistern, or a gathering of water.</i> Compare, <i>Reuben, Simeon</i> (Ex, 1:2),<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">98</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Which is to be interpreted as if written, <i>re’uven ve-shimon</i> (Reuben and Simon).</i> and <i>shemesh yare’ach</i> (the sun moon) (Hab. 3:11).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">99</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Which is to be interpreted as if written, <i>shemesh ve-yare’ach</i> (the sun and the moon).</i> BUT HE WHO TOUCHETH THEIR CARCASS. The water that touches their carcasses will be unclean.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">100</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Water that is removed from the ground.</i> SOWING. <i>Zeru’a</i> (sowing) is an adjective.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">101</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Modifying <i>zera</i> (seed).</i> It is similar to a <i>pa’ul</i>.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">102</sup><i class=\"footnote\">It is an adjective vocalized like a verb in the <i>pu’al</i>.</i> On the other hand, there might be two nouns for the word seed.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">103</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Zera</i> and <i>zeru’a</i>. Compare, Rashi: <i>“Zera zeru’a</i> (sowing seed) means any kind of seed. <i>Zeru’a</i> is a noun.”</i> <i>And gave them pulse</i> (zeronim<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">104</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Zeronim</i> is a variation of the plural of <i>zeru’a</i>.</i>) (Dan. 1:16) is proof of this. BUT IF WATER BE PUT. If they water their field and aught of their carcasses fall on the seed.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">105</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The seed is unclean. According to this interpretation the word <i>alav</i> (thereon) refers to the seed. This opinion interprets our verse as follows: But if water be put upon the seed, and aught of their carcass fall upon the seed, the seed is unclean.</i> Some say on the water.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">106</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In other words, the word <i>alav</i> (thereon) refers to the water. This opinion interprets our verse as follows: But if water be put upon the seed, and aught of their carcass fall upon the water, the seed is unclean.</i> The word <i>yuttan</i> (be put), which is singular, governs <i>mayim</i> (water).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">107</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Which is a plural. I.E. points this out because verbs governing nouns in the plural are normally in the plural.</i> We find a similarity in <i>because the water</i> (meh) <i>of sprinkling was not dashed</i> (zorak)<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">108</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Zorak</i> is singular. It governs <i>meh</i>, which is plural.</i> <i>against him</i> (Num. 19:13). The word <i>yuttan</i> is similar to <i>yukkach</i> (be fetched) in <i>Let now a little water be fetched</i> (Gen. 18:4). It belongs to the heavy conjugation to which a letter is added.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">109</sup><i class=\"footnote\">I.E. usually refers to the <i>hifil</i> as “the heavy conjugation to which a letter is added.” However, <i>yuttan</i> and <i>yukkach</i> are <i>hofals</i>. We either have a scribal error or I.E. was not exact in his language.</i> OF WHICH YE MAY. <i>Asher hi la-khem le-okhlah</i> means of which ye may eat.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">110</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Any animal of which you are permitted to eat. <i>Asher hi la-khem leokhlah</i> literally means which is to you for food, i.e., which you are about to eat. Hence I.E.’s comment.</i> SHALL BE UNCLEAN UNTIL THE EVEN. After he bathes in water.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">111</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See Lev. 15:5,6.</i>  [AND HE THAT EATETH.] The law regarding he that eats<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">112</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Of the carcass of the animal that dies of itself.</i> is stricter.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">113</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Than the law regarding one who touches.</i> It is similar to the law governing he that that carries,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">114</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The carcass of the animal that dies of itself.</i> for both bear.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">115</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The carcass.</i> One carries outside<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">116</sup><i class=\"footnote\">On the outside of the body.</i> and the other<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">117</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The one who eats.</i> inside.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">118</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Of his or her body.</i>  [AND EVERY SWARMING THING.] This means all swarming things of the earth. The eight swarming creatures<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">119</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Mentioned in verse 29 and 30.</i> are included. Scripture mentions that they<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">120</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The eight swarming creatures.</i> are not to be eaten.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">121</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This was not stated earlier.</i> THE BELLY. The word <i>gachon</i> (belly) is similar to the word <i>gechonekha</i> (thy belly) in <i>upon thy belly shalt thou go</i> (Gen. 3:14). AND WHATSOEVER GOETH UPON ALL FOURS. Among the swarming things which are small, as I explained with regard to the swarming things in the water.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">122</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See I.E. on verse 10.</i> MANY FEET. The word <i>marbeh</i> (many) is an adjective. It is in the construct.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">123</sup><i class=\"footnote\">With <i>raglayim</i> (feet).</i> YE SHALL NOT MAKE YOURSELVES DETESTABLE. By being filthy and dirty.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">124</sup><i class=\"footnote\">By eating filthy and dirty things.</i> NEITHER SHALL YE MAKE YOURSELVES UNCLEAN. For it is known that that which is eaten turns into the flesh of the one who ingests it.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">125</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hence one who eats filthy things turns into a filthy thing himself.</i> THAT YE SHOULD BE DEFILED THEREBY. The word <i>ve-nitmetem</i> (that ye should be defiled) is missing an <i>alef</i>.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">126</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Nitmetem</i> is spelled <i>nun, tet, mem, tav, mem</i>. It should be spelled <i>nun, tet, mem, alef, tav, mem</i>, for the root of <i>tame</i> is <i>tet, mem, alef</i>.</i> Compare, <i>reshit</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">127</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Which is spelled without an <i>alef</i>, though it should have been spelled with an <i>alef</i>.</i> (beginning) in <i>from the beginning of the year</i> (Deut. 11:12). Others say that they come from two roots.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">128</sup><i class=\"footnote\">There are two words in Hebrew for unclean: <i>tet, mem, alef</i>, and <i>tet, mem, heh</i>. The word <i>nitmetem</i> in our verse comes from the latter root. Hence there is no <i>alef</i> in it.</i> The word <i>nitminu</i> (unclean) in <i>And reputed unclean in your sight</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">129</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Translated literally.</i> (Job 18:3) is proof. It<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">130</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>That ye should be defiled thereby</i>.</i> means that you do not become dumb-witted.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">131</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In other words, <i>that ye should be defiled thereby</i> means that you do not become dull-witted thereby.</i> YE SHALL THEREFORE BE HOLY, FOR I AM HOLY. Hence I told you <i>neither shall ye defile yourselves</i> (v. 44). The <i>vav</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">132</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In <i>vi-heyitem</i> (ye shall therefore be).</i> is similar to the unaspirated <i>fah</i> in Arabic.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">133</sup><i class=\"footnote\">It does not always serve as a connective. See I.E. on Gen. 1:2 (Vol. 1, p. 30). In other words, <i>vi-heyitem kedoshim</i> is not a continuation of the first half of the verse. It is an independent clause.</i> Similarly the <i>vav</i> in <i>va-ya’azov</i> (left) in <i>left his servants</i> (Ex. 9:21).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">134</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Va-ya’azov</i> (left) in Ex. 9:21 is to be rendered as left, not and he left.</i> There are many such instances.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">135</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Where the <i>vav</i> has the meaning of an unaspirated <i>fah</i> in Arabic.</i> [FOR I AM THE LORD.] This means I did not take you out of Egypt for any reason but to be your God. If you will not be holy, I will not be a God to you. Hence if you want Me to be your God you must be holy. TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE UNCLEAN. Among the fowl and that which swarms in the water. THAT MAY BE EATEN. That is permitted to be eaten. THAT MAY NOT BE EATEN. According to the words of the Torah.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">136</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In other words, <i>asher lo te’ackhel</i> is to be rendered, that may not be eaten. <i>Asher lo te’ackhel</i> can be rendered, which is inedible. Hence I.E.’s comment.</i> IF A WOMAN BE DELIVERED.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">1</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hebrew, <i>tazri’a</i> (literally, produces a seed).</i> After Scripture concludes the law of clean and unclean food, it deals with human uncleanliness. The Torah starts<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">2</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Its regulations of human uncleanliness.</i> with the woman who gives birth, because human life begins at birth. Many say that if the woman produces the seed first,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">3</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Before the male.</i> then she gives birth to a male.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">4</sup><i class=\"footnote\">However, when the male produces the seed first then the result is a female. See <i>Berakhot</i> 60a; <i>Niddah</i> 28a.</i> Scripture therefore states, <i>and bear a man-child</i>.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">5</sup><i class=\"footnote\">That is, Scripture therefore says, If a woman produce seed and bear a man-child.</i> The wise men of the Greeks similarly believed that the seed is of the woman. The seed of the male congeals.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">6</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The Greeks believed that the male seed gives form to the seed of the woman.</i> All of the child is created out of the blood of the woman.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">7</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to the Greek sages the woman provides the matter and the man the form of the embryo. See I.E. on Deut. 13:7 (Vol. 5, pp. 89,90).</i> Note, the meaning of <i>tazri’a</i> (be delivered) means will give seed, for a woman<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">8</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Reading <i>he</i> (she) as in <i>Vat. Ebr</i>. 38 rather than <i>hu</i> (it) as in some printed editions.</i> is like the ground.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">9</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The point is that the field nurtures the seed planted in it. The same is the case with a woman. Compare, <i>And as the garden causeth the things that are sown in it</i> (zeru’ehah) <i>to spring forth</i> (Is. 62:11). Thus <i>ishah ki tazri’a</i> (if a woman be delivered) literally means if a woman gives forth her seed, i.e., the seed planted in her.</i>  The <i>vav</i> of <i>ve-tame’ah</i> (then shall be unclean) is like the unaspirated <i>vav</i> in Arabic.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">10</sup><i class=\"footnote\">It does not always indicate the start of a new clause. See I.E. on Gen. 1:2 (Vol. 1, p. 30). In other words, <i>ve-tame’ah</i> is not to be rendered: and she shall be unclean, but, then she shall be unclean.</i> The reason that she is unclean for seven days is that she must wait until she completes<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">11</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Literally, returns to.</i> a quarter of days.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">12</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The month is divided into quarters. According to the astrologers there is a change in nature and in fate at the end of each quarter. The same is true with each individual.</i> We find a similarity in the days of illness, for a change is seen at the end of the seven days.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">13</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In other words, the quarters do not apply only to lunar months but also to events in life.</i> THE IMPURITY OF. The word <i>niddat</i> (impurity of) is a noun.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">14</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In the construct.</i> It follows the paradigm of <i>bizzat</i> (spoil of).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">15</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The word is not found in the Bible. It is found in Rabbinic literature (see Rashi, Ex. 15:22).</i> Both words come from a double root.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">16</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Niddat</i> comes from <i>nun, dalet, dalet. Bizzat</i> from <i>bet, zayin, zayin</i>.</i> HER SICKNESS. <i>Devotah</i> (her sickness) is a noun in the plural.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">17</sup><i class=\"footnote\">It’s the plural of <i>davah</i> plus the feminine pronominal suffix.</i> Compare, <i>madveh</i> (diseases) in <i>the evil diseases of Egypt</i> (Deut. 7:15).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">18</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Devotah</i> (her sickness) and <i>madveh</i> (diseases) come from the same root. Thus <i>devotah</i> means her illness. Some interpret <i>devotah</i> as her flow. See Rashi.</i> The blood that comes out is an illness in the woman’s body.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">19</sup><i class=\"footnote\">A woman feels sick when she experiences the loss of blood. See Rashi, “No woman sees a flow of blood…without first experiencing a heaviness in her head and limbs.”</i> AND IN THE EIGHTH DAY. Our wise men, of blessed memory, said during the day, not at night.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">20</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Circumcision is to be performed during the day.</i> Now a child born a half hour before sunset is circumcised after six and half days,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">21</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The end of the day that the child was born, the following six days, and the morning of the eighth day.</i> for the day of the Torah is not measured by twenty-four hours.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">22</sup><i class=\"footnote\">It does not consist of twenty-four hours, for part of the day is considered a whole day.</i> SHALL BE CIRCUMCISED. <i>Yimmol</i> (shall be circumcised) is a <i>nifal</i>.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">23</sup><i class=\"footnote\">From the root <i>mem, vav, lamed</i>.</i> Compare, <i>yikkon</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">24</sup><i class=\"footnote\">From the root <i>kaf, vav, nun</i>.</i> (be established) in <i>shall not be established</i> (Ps. 101:7). According to this opinion, <i>yimmol</i> is related to the word <i>mullim</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">25</sup><i class=\"footnote\">From the root <i>mem, vav, lamed</i>.</i> (circumcised) in <i>were circumcised</i> (Josh. 5:5). It is also possible that <i>yimmol</i> is missing a <i>nun</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">26</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In this case <i>yimmol</i> comes from the root <i>nun, mem. lamed</i>.</i> and is related to the word <i>u-nemaltem</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">27</sup><i class=\"footnote\">From the root <i>nun, mem, lamed</i>.</i> (and ye shall be circumcised) (Gen. 17:11). <i>Yimmol</i> is like the word <i>yiddor</i> (voweth)<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">28</sup><i class=\"footnote\">From the root <i>nun, dalet, resh</i>.</i> in <i>When a man voweth a vow unto the Lord</i> (Num. 30:3). Scripture omits the one who performs the circumcision, such as the father or the Beth Din (court).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">29</sup><i class=\"footnote\">If <i>yimmol</i> comes from the root <i>nun, mem, lamed</i>, then the meaning of <i>yimmol</i> (shall be circumcised) is, he shall circumcise. In this case the subject is missing, for Scripture omits who “he” is. Hence I.E. points out that “he” refers to the father of the child, the Beth Din, or any authorized person. For similar comments of I.E., see I.E. on Gen. 25:26; 48:1; 50:26 (Vol. 1, pp. 251, 412, 452).</i> HIS FORESKIN. It is known that the foreskin is on the private part.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">30</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The penis.</i> This is not the case regarding the foreskin of the heart,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">31</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Deut. 10:16; Jer. 4:4.</i> the lip,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">32</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Ex. 6:12,30.</i> and the ear,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">33</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Jer. 6:10.</i> for all of them are connected to another word.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">34</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Which explains them. When the word <i>orlah</i> (foreskin) stands by itself, it refers to the foreskin of the penis. When Scripture uses the term <i>orlah</i> metaphorically, it connects it to another word, as in <i>aral sefatayim</i> (of uncircumcised lips) (Ex. 6:12).</i> [PURIFICATION.] The <i>heh</i> of <i>tohorah</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">35</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to I. E. <i>tohorah</i> should be rendered, her purification.</i> (purification) is unsounded.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">36</sup><i class=\"footnote\">It does not have a <i>mappik</i> (dot) in it. According to I.E. the <i>heh</i> of <i>tohorah</i> (purification) is a pronominal suffix, and <i>tohorah</i> should be rendered as her purification. Such a <i>heh</i> usually has a dot in it. Hence I.E.’s comment.</i> It should have been pronounced. It is like the <i>heh</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">37</sup><i class=\"footnote\">It too is a pronominal suffix without a <i>mappik</i> in it.</i> in <i>lah</i> (it)<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">38</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Literally, to it.</i> in <i>and called it Nobah</i> (Num. 32:43). The meaning of <i>deme tohorah</i> (the blood of purification) is clean blood.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">39</sup><i class=\"footnote\">I.E. renders <i>deme tohorah</i> as blood of cleanliness.</i> This blood, in contrast to <i>dam niddah</i> (menstrual blood), is clean. It does not cause uncleanliness. The forty days that God decreed regarding a male child<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">40</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Our chapter decrees that a woman who has a baby boy has to wait forty days until she becomes “cleansed from the fountain of her blood.”</i> corresponds to the time it takes for the form of the male to be completed in the womb.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">41</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to Rabbi Ishmael it takes forty-one days for a male child to be formed in the womb (<i>Niddah</i> 3:7).</i> It takes double that time for a female.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">42</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Ibid</i>.</i> This is clear and tested. SHE SHALL TOUCH NO HALLOWED THING. Such as the tithe, <i>trumah</i>,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">43</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The heave offering.</i> and the flesh of peace offerings. NOR COME INTO THE SANCTUARY. The courtyard of the tent of meeting or into the temple courtyard.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">44</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Sanctuary does not refer to the sanctuary per se.</i>  <i>Be-deme tohorah</i> (in the blood of purification) (v. 4) and <i>al deme tohorah</i> (in the blood of purification)<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">45</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In our verse.</i> have one meaning. OF THE FIRST YEAR. If we did not have tradition, who would explain whether <i>ben shenato</i> (of the first year)<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">46</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to Rabbinic interpretation, <i>ben shenato</i> means of the first year. See <i>Mekhilta</i> 4.</i> means exactly one year, or less than a year, or a year plus?<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">47</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Under two years.</i> Some say that the reason a woman who gives birth brings a lamb for a burnt offering is that she may have had some unseemly thought because of her pain when giving birth.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">48</sup><i class=\"footnote\">A burnt offering is brought for unseemly thoughts. See I.E. on Lev. 1:4. She might have blasphemed or wished evil upon her husband for causing her this pain.</i> She brings a sin offering because she might have uttered some unseemly thing with her lips.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">49</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See <i>Niddah</i> 31b: “Rabbi Johanan ben Zakkai’s student asked: Why did the Torah say that a woman who gives birth shall bring an offering? He said to them: when she crouches to give birth she swears that she will not have sexual relations with her husband.”</i> AND HE SHALL OFFER IT. This one and the other one,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">50</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Scripture employs the singular (<i>ve-hikrivo</i>). Hence I.E.’s comment.</i> the lamb and the turtle-dove or the young pigeon.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">51</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Our verse does not list in detail what is to be offered.</i> Scripture employed an abridged style. It similarly does not mention the snipping of the head of the fowl brought for a sin offering,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">52</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See Lev. 1:15.</i> for<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">53</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The term “for” goes back to the first line of I.E.’s quote. Our text should be understood as follows: This one and the other one, the lamb and the turtledove or the young pigeon, for the <i>kohen</i> does not eat of the sin offering fowl (Meijler).</i> the <i>kohen</i> does not eat of the sin offering fowl.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">54</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hence it is like a burnt offering and Scripture can use one term (<i>ve-hikrivo</i>) to refer to it and the burnt offering (the lamb).</i> AND MAKE ATONEMENT FOR HER. As I explained.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">55</sup><i class=\"footnote\">To serve as a ransom for the punishment due her. See I.E. on Lev. 1:4.</i> AND SHE SHALL BE CLEANSED FROM THE FOUNTAIN OF HER BLOOD. This is a sign that she does not naturally became cleansed until the days that are enumerated arrive. AND IF HER MEANS SUFFICE NOT.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">56</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Literally, And if her hand does not find.</i> This means the same as but if his means suffice not<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">57</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Literally, And if his hand does not acquire. The point is that “And if her hand does not find” means <i>And if her means suffice her not</i>.</i> (see Lev. 5:11). AND THE PRIEST SHALL MAKE ATONEMENT FOR HER, AND SHE SHALL BE CLEAN. This teaches that if the <i>kohen</i> does not make atonement for her she shall not be clean. This applies only in the Land of Israel.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">58</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The cleaning rituals described in our chapter apply only in the Land of Israel. Outside of the Land of Israel, immersion in a <i>mikveh</i> suffices.</i> AND THE LORD SPOKE UNTO MOSES AND UNTO AARON. This commandment was directly communicated to Aaron because all human maladies shall be determined according to his pronouncement.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">1</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See Deut. 21:5.</i> Aaron shall declare who is clean and who is unclean. WHEN A MAN. Scripture does notread, “Whosoever… of the house of Israel”<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">2</sup><i class=\"footnote\">I.E. paraphrases Lev. 20:2. His point is that our verse reads “a man,” not an Israelite.</i> because it wants to include strangers.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">3</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to the <i>Sifra</i>, Scripture employs the term “man” because the latter includes converts to Judaism. According to Krinsky, I.E. interprets similarly. However, this is far from certain, for elsewhere I.E. refers to any non-Jew living in the Land of Israel as a stranger. See I.E. on Ex. 20:8 (Vol. 2, p. 427).</i> Similarly <i>When any man of you</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">4</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Bringeth an offering unto the Lord</i>.</i> (Lev. 1:2), for there is one law to the native born and to the stranger<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">5</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See Lev. 22:18: <i>Whosoever he be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers in Israel</i>.</i> regarding offerings. The Torah includes the stranger [in the laws relating to maladies]<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">6</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The stranger, like the Israelite, is quarantined as long as he has the malady.</i> so that the stranger does not defile another person, for leprosy is a disease that is passed on from the sick to the healthy.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">7</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This comment seems to indicate that I.E., contrary to Krinsky, refers to a non-Jewish stranger.</i> THEN HE SHALL BE BROUGHT. By his consent or against his will, for one who sees one of these signs<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">8</sup><i class=\"footnote\">On someone’s body.</i> will force the afflicted [to go to the <i>kohen</i> ]. [UNTO AARON THE PRIEST.] The meaning of <i>Aaron the priest</i> is, the <i>kohen</i> who is anointed in his place.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">9</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Aaron means Aaron and those who succeed him as <i>kohen gadol</i>.</i> OR UNTO ONE OF HIS SONS THE PRIESTS. This means one of the common priests outside of the temple<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">10</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In the temple period.</i> such as the <i>kohanim</i> of Anatot.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">11</sup><i class=\"footnote\">A city of <i>kohanim</i>. It was the birthplace of the prophet Jeremiah. See Jer. 1:1.</i> The meaning of <i>the priests</i> is that they should not be from among those who are disqualified to serve as priests.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">12</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Aaron’s descendents are priests by virtue of their pedigree. Why then was it necessary for Scripture to add <i>the priests</i>? Hence I.E.’s comment.</i> [A RISING.] The word <i>se’et</i> (a rising) means a burn.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">13</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Se’et</i> is the name of an illness caused by the burning bile in the body (Nahmanides).</i> Similarly <i>maset</i> (fire) in <i>But when the fire began to rise</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">14</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Translated according to I.E.</i> (Jud. 20:40) and <i>va-yisa’em david</i> (and David burnt them)<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">15</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Translated according to I.E.</i> (II Sam. 5:21). The <i>se’et</i> is probably so called because it is the nature of fire to rise upwards.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">16</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The word for fire comes from the root <i>nun, sin, alef</i>, which means to lift up. Hence I.E.’s comment.</i> A SCAB. The word <i>sappachat</i> (scab) is related to <i>sefachani</i> (put me)<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">17</sup><i class=\"footnote\">That is, attach me.</i> in <i>Put me, I pray thee</i> (I Sam. 2:36) <i>and ve-nispechu</i> (and they shall cleave) in and <i>they shall cleave to the house of Jacob</i> (Is. 14:1). It refers to a disease which attaches itself to one place. A BRIGHT SPOT. The word <i>baheret</i> (bright spot) is related to the word <i>bahir</i> (bright) in <i>which is bright in the skies</i> (Job 37:21). It is a known malady which produces a mark and a sign. BE TURNED WHITE. <i>Hafakh lavon</i> means be turned white.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">18</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Hafakh</i> is a <i>kal</i>. A <i>kal</i> is active. I.E. points out that in our verse, <i>hafakh</i> has the meaning of a passive form.</i> BE DEEPER. Its depth is deeper than the depth of the skin. The word <i>amok</i> (deep) does not mean the same as <i>shafal</i> (lower) (v. 20).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">19</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Amok</i> (deep) is deeper than <i>shafal</i> (lower) (Weiser).</i> AND PRONOUNCE HIM UNCLEAN.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">20</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Literally, and shall make him unclean.</i> Verbally.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">21</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In other words, <i>and shall make him unclean</i> should be rendered, and shall pronounce him unclean.</i> He shall declare him unclean. THEN THE PRIEST SHALL SHUT UP HIM THAT HATH THE PLAGUE SEVEN DAYS.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">22</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Literally, then the priest shall shut the plague (<i>et ha-nega</i>) seven days.</i> The person shall be shut up.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">23</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In other words, <i>the plague</i> (et ha-nega) means the person who has the affliction.</i> He shall wait up to seven days, for most illnesses change on the seventh day.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">24</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See I.E. on Lev. 12:2 and the notes thereto.</i> STAY IN ITS APPEARANCE. <i>Amad be-enav</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">25</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Literally, stay in its eyes.</i> means stay in its appearance. The term <i>enav</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">26</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Literally, its eyes.</i> is employed, for its appearance is seen by the eye. All the commentaries says that <i>beenav</i> (in its appearance) means in its make-up, that is, in the way it was.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">27</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See Onkolos: <i>kum ke-dehavah</i> (it remains as it was). Also see Rashi: “In its appearance in its original size.” According to this interpretation <i>amad be-enav</i> (stay in appearance) is to be rendered, remained as it was.</i> SPREAD. <i>Pasah</i> means spread. AGAIN. <i>Shenit</i> (again) means a second time. THE PLAGUE BE DIM. Many of the wise men say that the word <i>kehah</i> (dim) means dark.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">28</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to this interpretation <i>kehah ha-nega</i> (the plague be dim) means the affliction is black.</i> They offer proof from <i>vatikhhena</i> (were dim) in <i>and his eyes were dim</i> (Gen. 27:1).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">29</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to this interpretation the clause should be rendered, and his eyes were dark.</i> They say that the phrase <i>kehot levanot</i> (dull white) (v. 39) is similar to <i>le-vanah adamdamet</i> (reddish-white) (v. 19)<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">30</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In other words, <i>kehot levanot</i> (dull white) means black white.</i> in that it contains both colors. However, I believe that the word <i>kehah</i> (dim) is the reverse of <i>pasah</i> (spread).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">31</sup><i class=\"footnote\">It means diminished.</i> It is related to the word <i>va-tikhhena</i> (were dim) in <i>and his eyes were dim</i> (Gen. 27:1). The word <i>khihah</i> (stopped) in <i>and he diminished</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">32</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Translated according to I.E. See Krinsky.</i> <i>them not</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">33</sup><i class=\"footnote\">He did not “cut them down to size.”</i> (I Sam. 3:13) is close to it. The meaning of <i>kahah ha-nega</i> (the plague be dim) is that the plague did not spread to another place. Note, there are two signs, namely, the size of the affliction was diminished and it did not spread to the healthy part of the body. THEN THE PRIEST SHALL PRONOUNCE HIM CLEAN.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">34</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Literally, and the priest shall clean him.</i> The <i>kohen</i> shall say that he is clean,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">35</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In other words, “and the priest shall clean him” means: and the <i>kohen</i> shall declare him clean.</i> for it was a scab (<i>mispachat</i>). However, if it spreads afterwards he is unclean. THEN HE SHALL BE BROUGHT. The man having the affliction. <i>Be brought</i> is to be interpreted like its counterpart.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">36</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In verse 2. It means he shall be brought with or without his consent. See I.E. on verse 2.</i> AND IT HAVE TURNED. The black hair white.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">37</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The illness turned the black hair white.</i> QUICK. The meaning of <i>michyat</i> (quick) is live flesh.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">38</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In other words, <i>basar chai</i> (raw flesh; literally, live flesh) explains <i>michyat</i> (quick).</i> Flesh which does not feel is not alive. OLD. Of yore. <i>Yasgirennu</i> (shut him up) governs two actions.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">39</sup><i class=\"footnote\">I.E.’s term for the <i>hifil</i>.</i> It means he shall command that the afflicted be shut up. HE SHALL PRONOUNCE HIM CLEAN THAT HATH THE PLAGUE. For the plague has already surfaced and removed itself from the afflicted. The meaning of <i>ve-tiher et hanaga</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">40</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Literally, and he shall clean the malady.</i> (he shall pronounce him unclean that hath the plague) is that he shall verbally clean the affliction; that is, he shall declare that this plague will not make others unclean. BUT IF THE RAW FLESH AGAIN BE TURNED.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">41</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Literally, but if the raw flesh return. Hence I.E.’s comment.</i> For it is possible that the affliction will return. REDDISH-WHITE. A mixture of the two colors. Or a little of each.  The word <i>tzara’at</i> (leprosy) (v. 20) means a disease. Similarly <i>ha-tzirah</i> (the disease)<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">42</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Translated according to I.E.</i> in <i>I will send the disease</i> (Ex. 23:28). The fact that the Torah reads, <i>and I will send</i> is no argument against this interpretation,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">43</sup><i class=\"footnote\">That <i>tzirah</i> means a disease. There are some who argue that the term “sent” (<i>shalach</i>) applies only to living things. They translate <i>ha-tizirah</i> (the disease) in Ex. 23:28 as the hornet. They render Ex. 23:28 as <i>I will send the hornet</i>.</i> for Scripture reads, <i>He sent His word</i> (Ps. 107:20); <i>For I…send all My plagues</i> (Ex. 9:14); and <i>He sent forth upon them the fierceness of His anger</i> (Ps. 78:49). AND, BEHOLD, IF THE APPEARANCE THEREOF. It is not grammatically correct to vocalize the <i>alef</i> of <i>mareha</i> (its appearance) with a long <i>kamatz</i> and a <i>mappik</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">44</sup><i class=\"footnote\">A dot which indicates a pronominal suffix (her or its). The <i>heh</i> of <i>marah</i> is a pronominal suffix. We would therefore expect it to have a <i>mappik</i>. Hence I.E.’s comment.</i> in the <i>heh</i> as in the case of <i>yadah</i> (her hand) and <i>raglah</i> (her foot),<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">45</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Yadah</i> (her hand) and <i>raglah</i> end in <i>kamatz, mappik heh</i>. If <i>marehah</i> followed their vocalization, the word would read <i>marah</i>.</i> for we do not find words whose roots end in a silent <i>heh</i> to be so treated.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">46</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The root of <i>marehah is resh, alef, heh</i>.</i>  [LOOK ON IT.] The <i>nun</i> of <i>yirennah</i> (look upon it) has a <i>dagesh</i> in it like the <i>nun</i> of <i>yasgirennu</i> (v. 11) to compensate for the missing added <i>heh</i>.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">47</sup><i class=\"footnote\">A pronominal suffix <i>heh</i>. The word should have read <i>yirenhah. Yasgirennu</i> should have read <i>yasgirennhu</i>.</i> The same is true with <i>mi-mennah</i> (from her) and <i>mi-mennu</i> (from it).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">48</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Mi-mennah</i> and <i>mi-mennu</i> (from it) should have read <i>mi-mennhah</i> and <i>mi-mennhu</i>. See I. E. on Ex 1:9 (Vol. 2, pp. 11-14).</i> IN ITS PLACE.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">49</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hebrew, <i>tachtehah</i> (literally, beneath it).</i> If the affliction stays in its place,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">50</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Tachtehah</i> is to be rendered, it its place.</i> for there are afflictions that move from place to place. SCAR. The word <i>tzarevet</i> (scar) is similar to the word <i>ve-nitzrevu</i> (shall be seared) in <i>and all faces…shall be seared</i> (Ezek. 21:30). It has the meaning of a burning mass, heat, and a flame.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">51</sup><i class=\"footnote\">A <i>tzarevet</i> (scar) is a mark caused by the searing of the skin. It does not indicate disease.</i> OR WHITE. Alone. AND IF THE BRIGHT SPOT STAY IN ITS PLACE…BUT BE DIM. The word <i>kehah</i> (dim) is to be understood as I explained it earlier (v. 6).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">52</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to I.E. <i>kehah</i> means be diminished.</i> Scripture does not mention <i>kehah</i> (dim) the first time, <i>But if the bright spot stay in its place</i> (v. 23), because there the bright spot remains as it was.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">53</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In verse 23 if the affliction remains as it was, it is declared clean. However, the affliction in our verse has to diminish, in addition to not spreading, for the afflicted person to be declared clean (Krinsky).</i>  [AND WHEN…] Scripture mentions a man or a woman<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">54</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Till now Scripture introduced the afflictions with the term <i>adam</i> (man). It now employs <i>ish ve-ishah</i> (a man or a woman). Hence I.E.’s comment.</i> because it deals with an affliction in the beard<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">55</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Our verse deals with an affliction in the head and the beard. Had it read <i>adam</i>, then we would have thought that the law spoken of in our verse applies only to males. Hence Scripture speaks of a man and a woman. The law regarding the affliction in the head applies to both a man and a woman, while the law of the beard applies only to a man.</i> [and the head]. Also, because the Torah has to use the word <i>ish</i> (man), and not the term <i>adam</i> (a human being) to exclude women from the law of the bald head and the bald forehead (v. 40).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">56</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The law regarding an affliction in a bald head does not apply to a woman, for women are rarely bald. Hence Scripture could not use the term <i>adam</i> with regard to the aforementioned. Scripture thus wanted to emphasize that the law regarding afflictions in the hairy head applies to both men and women.</i> Note, our verse means, when a man or a woman has an affliction upon the head or a man upon the beard.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">57</sup><i class=\"footnote\">So Sarim and Krinsky.</i> YELLOW. The word <i>tzahov</i> (yellow) in Arabic refers to a color that is close to white. IT IS A SCALL. The word <i>netek</i> (scall) is related to the word <i>yennatek</i> (is broken) in <i>as a string of tow is broken</i> (Jud. 16:9). The reference is to the hair.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">58</sup><i class=\"footnote\">A <i>netek</i> is so called because the hair is torn or removed from the place of the malady.</i> THEN HE SHALL BE SHAVEN. The head or the beard shall be shaven. However, the place of the <i>netek</i> (scall) shall not be shaven. AND HE SHALL WASH HIS CLOTHES. It is unnecessary to say that he shall bathe in water. SHALL NOT SEEK. The meaning of <i>yevakker</i> is, he shall seek. Similarly <i>u-vikkartim</i> (and seek them out) (Ezek. 34:11). It is close in meaning to the word separate.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">59</sup><i class=\"footnote\">It means to investigate in order to separate.</i> Similarly <i>He shall not inquire</i> (yevakker) <i>whether it be good or bad</i> (Lev. 27:33). A TETTER. The word <i>bohak</i> (tetter) is known in Rabbinic literature.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">60</sup><i class=\"footnote\">It has the meaning of shine or glisten. See <i>Yershalmi, Pes</i>. 1: “When the candles burned brightly (<i>mavhikim</i>).”</i> It has no counterpart in Scripture. BE FALLEN OFF. <i>Yimmaret</i> (be fallen off) is similar to <i>moretim</i> (them that plucked off the hair) in <i>And my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair</i> (Is. 50:6).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">61</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Both words come from the root <i>mem, resh, tet</i> and have a similar meaning.</i> The latter<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">62</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Unlike the similar word in our verse, which refers to the hair on the head.</i> refers to the hair that is around the cheeks. HE IS BALD. <i>Kere’ach</i> (bald) is similar to <i>korchah</i> (baldness) in <i>nor make any baldness</i> (Deut. 14:1). The meaning of <i>his head</i> is, his entire head. FOREHEAD-BALD. The word <i>gibbe’ach</i> (forehead-bald) has no neighbor<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">63</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The word <i>gibbe’ach</i> is not found elsewhere in Scripture.</i> except in this section. <i>Gibbe’ach</i> is an adjective. In my opinion <i>kere’ach</i> (bald) refers to the top of the head.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">64</sup><i class=\"footnote\">From the top of the head backwards to the base of the skull.</i> Scripture does not mention a woman<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">65</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In introducing this law.</i> because a woman does not become bald as she contains a lot of moisture,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">66</sup><i class=\"footnote\">A woman’s body contains more water than that of a man.</i> and hair is similar to grass.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">67</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Grass requires water in order to grow. Similarly, hair requires moisture to grow. Thus a well-watered body such as that of a female will not lose its hair. I.E. speaks from the point of view of medieval science. What he says is rejected by modern biology.</i> AS THE APPEARANCE OF LEPROSY IN THE SKIN OF THE FLESH. On the rest of the body.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">68</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See Rashi: “As the appearance of leprosy that is stated in the section (treating) of the skin of the flesh (Lev. 13:2).”</i> HIS CLOTHES SHALL BE RENT. The word <i>perumim</i> means rent. The leper is to be so dressed so that he may be recognized because of his abnormal garb. Or the leper is to behave like a mourner. Scripture therefore states, <i>his clothes shall be rent, and the hair of his head shall go loose</i>. The reason for the latter is so that the leper mourn for his evil actions, for this plague came upon him because of his deeds. HIS UPPER LIP. <i>Safam</i> refers to the upper lip. The <i>mem</i> of <i>safam</i> is a root letter. The word <i>sefamo</i> (his beard) in <i>nor trimmed his beard</i> (II Sam. 19:22)<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">69</sup><i class=\"footnote\">I.E. renders this as <i>nor trimmed his upper lip</i>.</i> is proof.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">70</sup><i class=\"footnote\">If the <i>mem</i> of <i>safam</i> were not a root letter, then it would not be present when the word is followed by a pronominal suffix.</i> AND HE SHALL COVER.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">71</sup><i class=\"footnote\">His upper lip.</i> With his garments. The word <i>yateh</i> (he shall cover) is related to the word <i>oteh</i> (coverest) in <i>Who coverest Thyself with light</i> (Ps. 104:2). He shall cover his upper lip so that he does not harm anyone with the breath of his mouth. AND…UNCLEAN. The word <i>unclean</i> is repeated. When the leper passes on a road in an inhabited area he shall continually announce<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">72</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The repetition of the word unclean indicates consistency. It does not mean he should announce twice that he is unclean.</i> that he is unclean so that people will be on guard and not touch him. ALL THE DAYS WHEREIN THE PLAGUE IS IN HIM HE SHALL BE UNCLEAN. For he is truly unclean.  The word <i>badad</i> (alone) is explained<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">73</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Grammatically explained.</i> in the Book of Lamentations.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">74</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See I.E. on Lam. 1:1.</i> OR IN THE WARP, OR IN THE WOOF. The meaning of <i>sheti</i> (warp) and <i>erev</i> (woof) is known. It is possible that the word <i>sheti</i> is related to the word <i>shet</i> (buttocks) in <i>ve-chasufe shet</i> (buttocks uncovered) (Is. 20:4) wherein the word <i>shet</i> means the foundation,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">75</sup><i class=\"footnote\">I.E. renders <i>ve-chasufay shet</i> (Is. 20:4), and with foundations uncovered.</i> as the clause <i>When the foundations</i> (ha-shatot) <i>are destroyed</i> (Ps. 11:3) proves.  The word <i>erev</i> (woof) refers to that which is mixed with the warp.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">76</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The root of <i>erev</i> means a mixture.</i> OR IN THE SKIN. As it is.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">77</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Unworked skin, raw material.</i> OR IN ANY THING MADE OF SKIN. Such as a <i>coverlet</i> (II Kings 8:15) or a bottle (Jud. 4:19). GREENISH. The word <i>yerakrak</i> (greenish) is related to the word <i>yerek</i> (green), for the color of the affliction is like it. The word is doubled<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">78</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The <i>resh</i> and <i>kof</i> of <i>yerek</i> are doubled in <i>yerakrak</i>.</i> to indicate that it is less than full green. The same applies to <i>shecharchoret</i> (swarthy) (Cant. 1:6).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">79</sup><i class=\"footnote\">From the word <i>shachar</i> (black). <i>Shecharchoret</i> means blackish.</i> Others say that the reverse is true.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">80</sup><i class=\"footnote\">They say that the word <i>yerakrak</i> (greenish) means very green and <i>shecharchoret</i> very black.</i> MALIGNANT. The word <i>mameret</i> (malignant) is similar to the word <i>mammir</i> (pricking) in <i>a pricking brier</i> (sillon mamir) (Ezek. 28:24). Now, since the word <i>sillon</i> (brier) means a thorn, the word <i>mamir</i> means painful.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">81</sup><i class=\"footnote\">I. E. renders <i>sillon mamir</i> (Ezek. 28:24) as a painful thorn.</i> The second <i>mem</i> in <i>mameret</i> is a root letter and the word <i>mameret</i> is not related to the word <i>me’erah</i> (curse).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">82</sup><i class=\"footnote\">For the word <i>me’erah</i> has only one <i>mem</i> in it.</i> It is possible that the reason Scripture does not mention silk and cotton<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">83</sup><i class=\"footnote\">When it lays down the laws dealing with plagues in garments.</i> is that the Torah speaks of what is contemporarily present.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">84</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Plagues do not usually strike silk or wool (Weiser).</i> Compare, <i>If thou see the ass of him that hateth thee</i> (Ex. 23:5). The same law applies to a horse and a mule. On the other hand, it is possible that the affliction only strikes wool and flax. AFTER THAT THE PLAGUE IS WASHED. The word <i>hukkabbes</i> (is washed) is an infinitive whose subject is not identified. It is in the <i>hofal</i>. A FRET. The word <i>pechetet</i> (fret) has no brother in Scripture.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">85</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The word is not found again in Scripture.</i> It is known in Rabbinic literature.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">86</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Pachat</i> in Rabbinic literature refers to a cavity, a pit or a defective spot. See <i>Sotah</i> 21a; <i>Betzah</i> 4:3.</i> <i>Pechetet</i> refers to a defect which appears in the <i>karachat</i> (bareness…within) or the <i>gabachat</i> (bareness…without) of the garments. The Gaon says that <i>karachat</i> refers to the underside of the garment, for <i>gabachat</i> refers to the face of the garment. If this is the case, then the word <i>kere’ach</i> (bald) (v. 40) refers to the back of the head. He explained well. AND IF IT APPEAR STILL. The word <i>tera’eh</i> (it appear)<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">87</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Which is feminine.</i> refers to the <i>pechetet</i> (the fret).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">88</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Which is feminine, and not to the word <i>nega</i> (plague), which is masculine.</i> Similarly <i>porachat hi</i> (it is breaking out).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">89</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Hi</i> (it) is feminine. It too refers to <i>pechetet</i>, not to <i>nega</i>.</i> After stating thou shalt burn [it], Scripture goes on to say that the place of the affliction alone shall be burned.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">90</sup><i class=\"footnote\">I.E. renders <i>be-esh tisrefennu et asher bo ha-naga</i> (thou shalt burn that wherein the plague is with fire) as thou shalt burn it (<i>tisrefennu</i>), i.e., the place where the malady is. In other words, “it” refers to the place on the garment, not to the entire garment.</i> THEN IT SHALL BE WASHED THE SECOND TIME. There is divine command to wash it twice. IF THE PLAGUE BE DEPARTED FROM THEM. <i>Ve-sar me-hem ha-naga</i> means if the plague be departed from them.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">91</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Not and the affliction will depart from them.</i> I have previously shown you many such instances.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">92</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Where the <i>vav</i> does not mean and, but indicates the pluperfect.</i>  <i>Ve-khubbas</i> (it shall be washed) is a <i>pu’al</i>.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">93</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Literally, a verb whose subject is not identified.</i> THIS IS THE LAW OF THE PLAGUE OF LEPROSY IN A GARMENT OF WOOL. Our verse has four words in the construct.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">94</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In succession. They are <i>zot, torat, negaha, tzara’at</i> (this is the law of the plague of leprosy).</i> Elsewhere in Scripture we find five words in the construct.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">95</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In succession.</i> Compare, <i>Gibore chayil melechet avodat bet haElohim</i> (very able men for the work of the service of the house of God) (I Chron. 9:13). They all depend (<i>semukhim</i>)<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">96</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The words in the construct in I Chron. 9:13 are connected to the word God.</i> on God, who supports (<i>somekh</i>) all who fall.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">97</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See Ps. 145:14. This is a word play. The Hebrew word for the construct form <i>samukh</i> literally means connected or dependent. Hence I.E.’s homily.</i> [AND THE LORD SPOKE.] Scripture states <i>and the Lord spoke</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">1</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Our chapter continues the theme of the preceding chapter. Thus the statement <i>And the Lord spoke unto Moses</i> in Lev. 13:1 would appear to apply to our chapter as well. Therefore the clause <i>And the Lord spoke unto Moses</i> in Lev. 14:1 seems unnecessary. Hence I.E. points out that our portion begins with <i>And the Lord spoke</i> because it contains a new commandment, <i>viz</i>., the laws of the cleansing of the leper. In other words, our chapter is not a mere continuation of what came before it.</i> because it begins the laws of the one who is cleansed. Rabbi Jonah the Spaniard, the grammarian, says that <i>and, behold, if the plague of leprosy be healed in the leper</i> (v. 3) is inverted. It should have read “and, behold, if the leper be healed from the plague of leprosy.”<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">2</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In other words, our verse should be interpreted as if written, if the leper be healed from the plague of leprosy, for according to Rabbi Jonah it is the person not the plague who is healed.</i>  [HE SHALL BE BROUGHT.] <i>He shall be brought</i> is to be interpreted like its counterparts,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">4</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See I.E. on Lev. 13:2, “<i>He shall be brought</i>, by his consent or against his will.”</i> for it is possible that after the plague of leprosy is removed the afflicted person will not want to bring what he is obligated to.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">5</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The offerings listed in verse 10.</i> AND THE PRIEST SHALL GO FORTH OUT OF THE CAMP. Even though the <i>kohen</i> declared him clean he shall not enter the camp or the city until he brings his cleanliness offerings and completes<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">6</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Reading <i>ve-yashlim</i> as in <i>Vat. Ebr.</i> 38. Most <i>Mikra’ot Gedolot</i> read, <i>ve-yeshalem</i> (and pays).</i> all that he has been commanded to do. AND THE PRIEST SHALL GO FORTH. The reference is not to the <i>kohen gadol</i>.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">7</sup><i class=\"footnote\">For Scripture does not say, and Aaron the priest shall go forth (Weiser).</i> The meaning of <i>or unto one of his sons the priests</i> (Lev 13:2) has now been clarified.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">8</sup><i class=\"footnote\">I.E. had previously noted in his comments on Lev. 12:2 that <i>or unto one of his sons the priests</i> refers to <i>kohanim</i> who are not high priests. He notes that our verse proves that his comment is right.</i> TO TAKE FOR HIM THAT IS TO BE CLEANSED. The <i>kohen</i> shall take of his own.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">9</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The <i>kohen</i> shall command someone to take the items enumerated in our verse from the <i>kohen’s</i> property.</i> Some say that the leper shall give them.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">10</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The <i>kohen</i> shall command someone to take the items enumerated in our verse from the leper’s property.</i> The <i>tav</i> of the <i>hitpa’el</i> form is swallowed by the <i>dagesh</i> in the <i>tet</i> of <i>mittaher</i> (cleansed). The word <i>mittaher</i> follows the form of <i>mithallel</i> (boasteth himself)<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">11</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Which is a <i>hitpa’el</i>. I.E.’s point is that <i>mittaher</i> is a <i>hitpa’el</i>.</i> in <i>he that boasteth himself</i> (Prov. 25:14). TWO…BIRDS.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">12</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hebrew, <i>tzipporim</i>.</i> The term <i>tzippor</i> applies to all birds. Note, he shall take any bird that he finds. LIVING. Not dead.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">13</sup><i class=\"footnote\">By “not dead,” I.E. might mean healthy. See Krinsky.</i> CLEAN. He shall not take from the unclean.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">14</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Scripture qualifies “birds” by the term clean, for the word <i>tzippor</i> takes in kosher and non-kosher birds.</i> AND CEDAR-WOOD…AND HYSSOP. These are the biggest and smallest among the plants. This is proven by Scripture’s description of Solomon’s wisdom.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">15</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In I Kings 5:13, Scripture describes Solomon’s wisdom in the following way: <i>And he spoke of trees, from the cedar that is in Lebanon even unto the hyssop that springeth out of the wall…</i></i> There is no reason to search for the meaning of the word <i>ezov</i> (hyssop), for it is known by tradition.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">16</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See <i>Nega’im</i> 14:6.</i> Note, the leper and the plagued house and uncleanness caused by a corpse<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">17</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See Num. 19:18.</i> are similar.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">18</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In that part of their cleansing ritual entails being sprinkled with a hyssop.</i> They are also similar to the Egyptian Passover.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">19</sup><i class=\"footnote\">A hyssop was employed in the Passover ritual practiced in Egypt. See Ex. 12:22.</i> AND THE PRIEST SHALL COMMAND TO KILL. The priest shall command another <i>kohen</i> or an Israelite.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">20</sup><i class=\"footnote\">To slaughter the bird.</i> Some say he shall command the leper. However, the latter is farfetched.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">21</sup><i class=\"footnote\">For the leper is being cleansed.</i> IN AN EARTHEN VESSEL. The word <i>el</i> (in)<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">22</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Which literally means to.</i> is to be rendered as over. Similarly <i>el</i> (for) in <i>For this child I prayed</i> (I Sam. 1:27).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">23</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Here too the word <i>el</i> is not to be rendered literally.</i> OVER RUNNING WATER.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">24</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Literally, over live water.</i> Taken from a bubbling fountain.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">25</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Live water means water from a bubbling fountain.</i> AND SHALL DIP THEM. The cedar-wood, the scarlet, and the hyssop. OVER…WATER. With which the blood was mixed. AND HE SHALL SPRINKLE. From the blood mixed with water after immersing the living bird and the other items mentioned.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">26</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The cedar-wood, the scarlet, and the hyssop.</i> INTO THE OPEN FIELD. An uninhabited place so that the leprosy does not infect anyone. The sprinkling was done with all three.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">27</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The cedar-wood, the scarlet, and the hyssop.</i> On the other hand, it might only have been done with the hyssop as in the case of one who has been made unclean by a corpse.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">28</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See Num. 19:18.</i> AND…SHALL WASH HIS CLOTHES AND SHAVE OFF ALL HIS HAIR. A general statement.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">29</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The first half of our verse does not describe what the leper is to undergo on the day that he is sprinkled with the hyssop, but rather describes in general terms what the leper must undergo seven days later in order to be cleansed. The details are given in the next verse.</i> AND BATHE HIMSELF IN WATER, AND HE SHALL BE CLEAN. In the evening, as is the law.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">30</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See Lev. 17:15: <i>And bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even; then shall he be clean</i>. See also Lev. 11:32.</i> After stating this,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">31</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>And…shall wash his clothes and shave off all his hair, and bathe himself in water, and he shall be clean</i>.</i> Scripture backtracks and explains that this<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">32</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The washing and shaving.</i> occurs after seven days.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">33</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In other words, <i>But shall dwell outside his tent seven days</i> describes what happens before the bathing and shaving.</i> The same law applied to the seven days of Miriam.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">34</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Miriam, who was struck with leprosy, had to dwell outside of the camp for seven days. See Num. 12:14.</i> Scripture details<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">35</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In verse 9.</i> that he shall shave all his hair on the seventh day. Scripture then goes on to explain that the meaning of <i>all his hair</i> is, the hair on his head, his beard, and his eyebrows. The word <i>gabbot</i> (eyebrows) is close in meaning to the word <i>gav</i> (high place).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">36</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See Ezek. 16:24.</i> EVEN ALL HIS HAIR. The hair of the feet. Some say the hair of his arms, thighs, and chest. TWO HE-LAMBS…AND ONE EWE-LAMB. The leper shall bring a he-lamb for a burnt offering as is the law regarding all who have evil thoughts,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">37</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See I.E. on Lev. 1:4.</i> because the plague of leprosy is a punishment for deeds of the tongue.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">38</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See Num. 12:1-13. Also see <i>Arakhin</i> 15b.</i> Another he-lamb is brought as a guilt offering as is the law with all guilt offerings.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">39</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See Lev. 5:18.</i> A ewe-lamb is offered for a sin offering as is the law with all sin offerings.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">40</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See Lev. 4:32.</i> Also three tenth parts of an <i>ephah</i> as is the law, for a tenth part of an <i>ephah</i> is brought with a lamb.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">41</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See verse 21.</i> AND ONE LOG. A measure.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">42</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The word <i>log</i> refers to a measure.</i> The term <i>log</i> has no brother.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">43</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The word is not found again in Scripture.</i> [11. AND THOSE THINGS.] This refers to the he-lambs and the ewe-lamb. Also, this guilt offering<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">44</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Like other guilt offerings.</i> and also the sin offering,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">45</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Like other sin offerings.</i> with the exception of the parts offered on the altar,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">46</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Which are burned on the altar.</i> belong to the <i>kohen</i>.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">47</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The guilt offering and the sin offering brought by the leper are part of a cleansing ritual. One might think that they are not to be treated as all other guilt and sin offerings. Hence I.E.’s comments.</i> UPON THE TIP. The meaning of <i>tenuch</i> (tip) is understood from its context.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">48</sup><i class=\"footnote\">It refers to a part of the ear.</i> Now, the one who is cleansed from leprosy, which is an affliction in the body, is similar to the <i>kohen</i> who is installed,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">49</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Part of the installation ritual entailed the placing of the blood of a sacrifice on the tip of the right ear, upon their thumbs and the great toe of their foot.</i> for sin is like a leprosy in the soul.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">50</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The <i>kohen</i> who is installed is cleansed from leprosy of the soul, i.e., from sin.</i> The thumb is the place of connection.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">51</sup><i class=\"footnote\">I.E. believed that the sinews of the fingers are connected to the thumb. See Krinsky.</i> It is the main component of all acts.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">52</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The thumb is necessary for all sophisticated acts of the hand.</i> The right thumb was selected because of the power of the right side. The tip of the ear is a reminder to listen to what God has commanded.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">53</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The placing of the blood of the guilt offering on the tip of the ear serves as a reminder that one should listen to God’s commandments.</i> INTO THE PALM OF HIS OWN LEFT HAND.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">54</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Literally, into the palm of the priest’s left hand.</i> <i>The palm</i> in <i>kaf ha-kohen</i> (the palm of his own)<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">55</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Literally, the palm of the priest.</i> refers to the palm of the <i>kohen</i> who cleanses. Scripture reads thus<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">56</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Into the palm of the priest’s left hand, rather than into his left hand.</i> because such style is considered elegant in the Hebrew language.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">57</sup><i class=\"footnote\">It is considered poetic to employ a noun where we would expect a pronoun.</i> The verse that follows is proof of this.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">58</sup><i class=\"footnote\">That our verse speaks of one and the same <i>kohen</i>.</i> BEFORE THE LORD. Towards the entrance of the tent of meeting. UPON THE BLOOD OF THE GUILT-OFFERING. Which is upon the tip, the thumb, and the great toe. AND THE PRIEST SHALL OFFER THE SIN-OFFERING. The ewe-lamb as is the law with all sin offerings.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">59</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Which required a female offering. See Lev. 4:32.</i> AND THE PRIEST SHALL OFFER THE BURNT-OFFERING. The he-lamb and its meal offering, which consists of a tenth of an <i>ephah</i>.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">60</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to this interpretation the three tenth parts of an ephah mentioned in verse 10 were divided among the three sacrifices offered by the leper.</i> Some say that the <i>kohen</i> shall offer the entire meal offering<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">61</sup><i class=\"footnote\">All three tenth parts of an <i>ephah</i> mentioned in verse 10.</i> with the burnt offering.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">62</sup><i class=\"footnote\">For Scripture does not mention the term meal offering with regard to the sin offering and guilt offering.</i> He shall offer the guilt offering first<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">63</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Before the sin and burnt offerings.</i> because it is more severe.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">64</sup><i class=\"footnote\">It indicates that the one who offers it is guilty of a crime. See I.E. on Lev. 5:19.</i> AND HE SHALL BE CLEAN. Then<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">65</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Not before.</i> he shall be clean like all who are clean. AND IF HE BE POOR. The term <i>dal</i> (poor) is found with regard to the body.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">66</sup><i class=\"footnote\">It is used to describe the state of a person or an animal.</i> Compare, <i>poor</i> (dal) <i>and very ill-favored</i> (Gen. 41:19); <i>Happy is he that considereth the poor</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">67</sup><i class=\"footnote\">That is, the poor in body, the sick.</i> (dal) (Ps. 41:2); <i>son of the king, art thou thus becoming leaner</i> (dal) (II Sam. 13:4). The term <i>dal</i> is also found with regard to one who has no money.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">68</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In other words, it means poor.</i> AND THE LORD SPOKE UNTO MOSES AND UNTO AARON. Scripture begins explaining the laws dealing with leprosy in a house.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">69</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hence it opens with <i>And the Lord spoke</i>.</i>  [WHEN YE ARE COME INTO THE LAND OF CANAAN.] Scripture reads thus<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">70</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>When ye are come into the land of Canaan…</i></i> because this law applies only in the Land of Israel because of the great status of the land; for the temple was among them, and the Glory was in the midst of the temple. AND I PUT. The event<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">71</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The house plagues.</i> is contingent on God’s putting.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">72</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The house plagues are a result of divine providence. They do not come by accident.</i>  THEN HE THAT OWNETH THE HOUSE SHALL COME. There is a divine command that he<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">73</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The owner of the house.</i> come to the <i>kohen</i>. THAT THEY EMPTY THE HOUSE. The master of the house and all men of his household.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">74</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Shall empty the house. Scripture reads, <i>that they empty</i>. Hence I.E.’s comment.</i> Scripture employs the plural<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">75</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>That they empty</i>.</i> for it is to be emptied quickly.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">76</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hence all men of the household must be involved in emptying the house.</i> BEFORE THE PRIEST GO IN. For the <i>kohen</i> will close up the house because of its uncertain status.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">77</sup><i class=\"footnote\">It is uncertain whether the house is afflicted or not.</i> The house shall be emptied before its status is declared to be in doubt. HOLLOW STREAKS. The word <i>sheka’arurot</i> (hollow streaks) has no sister.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">78</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The word is not found again in Scripture. I.E. uses the term sister because <i>sheka’arurot</i> is feminine.</i> We do not know if it is a quadrilateral<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">79</sup><i class=\"footnote\">From the root <i>shin, kof, ayin, resh</i>.</i> with the last letter<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">80</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The <i>resh</i>.</i> doubled or if it is a pentaliteral.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">81</sup><i class=\"footnote\">From the root <i>shin, kof, ayin, resh, tav</i>.</i> The meaning of <i>sheka’arurot</i> is to be ascertained from its context. Some say that it refers to marks or streaks. Others say that it is a compound word. It is akin to <i>va-tishka</i> (sank down)<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">82</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Translated literally.</i> in <i>and the fire sank down</i> (Num. 11:2) and to <i>rorot</i>, which is related to the word <i>rar</i> (run)<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">83</sup><i class=\"footnote\">That is, flow.</i> in <i>run with his issue</i> (Lev. 15:3).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">84</sup><i class=\"footnote\">That is, <i>sheka’arurot</i> is made up of the words <i>shaka</i> (sank down) and <i>rorot</i> (run). According to this interpretation <i>sheka’arurot</i> means running cracks in the skin.</i> However, this is far-fetched. AND THE APPEARANCE THEREOF.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">85</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hebrew, <i>u-marehen</i> (literally, and their appearance). Hence I.E.’s comment.</i> The appearance of each one of them<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">86</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The plagues. The verse opens with the singular (the plague). It goes on to speak of “their appearance.” According to I.E. such a combination of the singular and the plural indicates each one of the plural references.</i> be lower [than the wall]. THAT THEY TAKE OUT THE STONES. <i>Ve-chilletzu</i> means <i>that they take out</i>. Compare, <i>challetzeni</i> (deliver me) in <i>Deliver me, O Lord, from the evil man</i> (Ps. 140:2). INTO AN UNCLEAN PLACE. So that no one remove the stones from there.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">87</sup><i class=\"footnote\">From where they are placed.</i> So that it be recognized that they<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">88</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The stones.</i> are unclean.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">89</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Therefore not to be used.</i> AND HE SHALL CAUSE THE HOUSE TO BE SCRAPED. The word <i>yaktzi’a</i> (he shall cause…to be scraped) is related to the word <i>maktzu’ot</i> (planes) (Is. 44:13) and the word <i>ketzi’ot</i> (cassia) in <i>Myrrh, and aloes, and cassia</i> (Ps. 45:9). The meaning of <i>ketz’ot</i> (cassia) is cuttings.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">90</sup><i class=\"footnote\">He renders <i>yaktzi’a</i> he shall cut.</i> Some say the corner<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">91</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hebrew, <i>miktzo’a</i> (corner).</i> shall be peeled.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">92</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In other words, the meaning of <i>yaktzi’a</i> is, they shall peel the corner. This interpretation connects the word <i>yaktzi’a</i> to the word <i>miktzo’a</i> (corner). See Ezek. 46:21.</i> However, this is incorrect, for the plague had already spread in the house.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">93</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Why then peel only the corners?</i> Actually, he must scrape the whole house.  The meaning of <i>mi-bayit</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">94</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Mi-bayit</i> literally means from the house. Hence I.E.’s comment.</i> means within.  The word <i>hiktzu</i> (they scrape off) is related to the word <i>katzeh</i> (extremity), for they only removed the upper extremity.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">95</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The top layer.</i> AND SHALL PLASTER THE HOUSE. The word <i>tach</i> (plaster) is the reverse of <i>yaktzi’a</i> (he shall cause…to be scraped) (v. 41).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">96</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In other words, he shall plaster the place that he peeled (Krinsky).</i> It is related to <i>tachim</i> (daub) in <i>they daub it with whited plaster</i> (Ezek. 13:10). AFTER THE HOUSE HATH BEEN SCRAPED. After the stones have first been taken out and the house has been scraped. Scripture employs the plural forms <i>ve-lakechu</i> (and they shall take) and <i>ve-hevi’u</i> (and put them) to indicate haste.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">99</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See I.E. on verse 36 and the notes thereto.</i> AND HE SHALL TAKE OTHER MORTAR.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">97</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In most editions of I.E. this comment has been placed after verse 43.</i> The owner of the house who wants to dwell in the house.  If the plague returns (v. 43), then the <i>kohen</i> shall come (v. 44).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">98</sup><i class=\"footnote\">And declare the house unclean.</i> AND HE SHALL BREAK DOWN THE HOUSE. By command.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">100</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The <i>kohen</i> himself does not physically break down the house.</i> Similarly <i>and he shall carry them forth</i>.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">101</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Its meaning is, by command.</i> It is most likely that the house was shut up for seven days.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">102</sup><i class=\"footnote\">As when the plague is first seen in the house. See verse 38.</i> However, Scripture employed an abridged style.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">103</sup><i class=\"footnote\">It omits the law that the house is to be closed up for seven days.</i> He <i>that goeth into the house all the while that it is shut up</i> (v. 46) which applies to the first and second times is proof of this.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">104</sup><i class=\"footnote\">That the plague is seen in the house.</i> SHALL BE UNCLEAN UNTIL THE EVEN. After he bathes his body as the law requires.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">105</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See Lev. 15:5,6.</i> AND HE THAT LIETH. This<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">106</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Eating and lying in the house.</i> is very severe uncleanliness. He that lies in the house must therefore wash his garments<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">107</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Wherein the one who comes into the house does not.</i> and bathe and be unclean until evening. Scripture does not mention that he be unclean until evening, for whoever lies and eats in the house, first comes into the house.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">108</sup><i class=\"footnote\">And Scripture already stated in verse 46 that whoever comes into the house is unclean unto evening.</i> AND HE SHALL TAKE. This is to be interpreted as its counterpart.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">109</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Verse 4.</i> WHEN IT IS UNCLEAN. The day when the man or the garment or the house will be unclean or clean. AND THE LORD SPOKE UNTO MOSES AND TO AARON. For the <i>kohanim</i> distinguish between a woman who has an issue (<i>zavah</i>) and one who menstruates (<i>niddah</i>).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">1</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hence this commandment was also communicated to Aaron.</i> Compare the Rabbinic interpretation on <i>between blood and blood</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">2</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Deuteronomy 17:8-9 states that if there be a dispute regarding <i>blood and blood</i> then the <i>kohen</i> shall decide the aforementioned. The Rabbis interpret <i>between blood and blood</i> as meaning between “between menstrual blood and blood of an issue and blood of childbirth (<i>Sifre</i>, on Deut. 17:8).”</i> (Deut. 17:8). Scripture now begins to deal with those who become unclean from a hidden source,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">3</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Such as an issue.</i> for until now it dealt with leprosy which is a visible plague. AN ISSUE. The word <i>zav</i> (issue) is similar to the word <i>zavat</i> (flowing) in <i>flowing with milk</i> (Ex. 44:13). <i>Zav</i> refers to dripping drops.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">4</sup><i class=\"footnote\">I.E. interprets Ex. 44:13 as “dripping with milk.”</i> OUT OF HIS FLESH. A euphemism for the male’s private part.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">5</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Flesh</i> is a euphemism for the penis.</i> HIS ISSUE. <i>Zovo</i> (his issue) is a noun.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">6</sup><i class=\"footnote\">With the pronominal suffix.</i> AND THIS SHALL BE HIS UNCLEANLINESS. This means the issue takes two forms.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">7</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>His flesh will run with his issue or be stopped with his issue</i> (v. 3).</i> HIS FLESH RUN WITH HIS ISSUE. The word <i>rar</i> (run) is related to the word <i>riro</i> (his spittle) in, <i>and let his spittle fall down upon his beard</i> (I Sam. 21:14). OR BE STOPPED. The word <i>hechtim</i> means stopped. It is related to the word <i>chatum</i> (sealed) in <i>that is sealed</i> (Is. 29:11). It means that the issue pools and congeals so that semen is not ejaculated when the afflicted sleeps with a women.  The same law applies to what the one who has an issue lies or sits on.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">8</sup><i class=\"footnote\">They have to be immersed in water and are unclean till the evening.</i> Similarly, there is one law regarding the one who touches what the afflicted lies on or sits on.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">9</sup><i class=\"footnote\">He has to immerse himself and his clothes and remains unclean until evening.</i> ANDS HE THAT TOUCHETH THE FLESH OF HIM THAT HATH THE ISSUE. Any part without exception.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">10</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Unlike earlier (v. 2 and v. 3) where the word <i>flesh</i> refers to the penis here it refers to any organ. Thus the meaning of <i>and he that toucheth the flesh of him that hath the issue</i> means, and he that touches any part of him that has the issue.</i> SPIT. The meaning of <i>yarok</i> (spit) is known. It comes from a double root.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">11</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Its root is <i>resh, kof, kof</i>.</i> The fact that the <i>kof</i> of <i>rukki</i> (my spittle) (Job 7:19) has a <i>dagesh</i> is proof of this.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">12</sup><i class=\"footnote\">For the <i>dagesh</i> compensates for the missing root <i>kof</i>.</i> Note, the spit of the one who suffers an issue is harmful,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">13</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hence it is a source of uncleanliness.</i> for the issue is one of the infectious diseases. It is not the practice of men to spit in the face of other people.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">14</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>And if</i> (<i>ve-khi</i>) <i>he that hath an issue spit upon him that is clean</i> could conceivably be rendered, and when (<i>ve-khi</i>) he that hath an issue spit upon him that is clean. “And when” implies that this is the normal course of events. Hence I.E.’s comment.</i> What happened occurred unintentionally. The one suffering from an issue expectorated his spittle and it fell on a clean person.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">15</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In other words, <i>ve-khi</i> is to be rendered as “and if” that is and if by accident.</i> AND WHAT SADDLE. Which, as the transmitters of tradition explained, becomes unclean.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">16</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to the Rabbis the term <i>mercav</i> (saddle) refers to equipment set aside for riding. See <i>Torat Kohanim, Metzora</i> 3:9. Also see Rashi, “…The hold in front of the saddle…becomes unclean as a part of something for riding on (<i>mercav</i>)…and the saddle…is unclean as being something to sit upon (<i>moshav</i>)” (Rosenbaum and Silverman translation).</i> ANY THING THAT IS UNDER HIM. Under the saddle shall become lightly unclean.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">17</sup><i class=\"footnote\">It does not require immersion of garments (Weiser).</i> However, the uncleanliness of those who carry them<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">18</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The objects earlier mentioned, i.e., that which the one having an issue lies upon, sits upon, or rides upon.</i> is more strict.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">19</sup><i class=\"footnote\">It requires the immersion of garments.</i> WITHOUT HAVING RINSED HIS HANDS IN WATER. It would have appeared to us<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">20</sup><i class=\"footnote\">From a plain reading of the text.</i> that any food or anything similar, that the one having an issue touched by hand,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">21</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In others words, <i>toucheth</i> means touched by hand.</i> and the hands were washed, is not unclean, for the afflicted did not touch the place of the issue.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">22</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The hands most certainly did not have any issue on them, hence his hands do not defile. However, if the hands were not washed they may have come into contact with his issue, hence they defile.</i> However, since we saw that our fathers<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">23</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The Rabbis of the Talmud.</i> explained that the hands are like the body<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">24</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to the Rabbis the term hands in our verse does not only refer to the hands. It refers to the whole body. According tao the <i>Rabbis without having rinsed his hands with water</i> means without immersing his body. See <i>Niddah</i> 66b; <i>Kiddushin</i> 25a.</i> we accept their words. According to the plain meaning of our verse if the one experiencing an issue touches someone with hands that have been washed the one touched is unclean but his garments are not unclean. However, if the one suffering the issue did not wash his hands then the garments are unclean.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">25</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to <i>halakhah</i> there is no difference whether the one having an issue touched a person with hands that have or have not been washed.</i> This law is similar<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">26</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In that at times it entails a light uncleanliness and at times a strict uncleanliness.</i> to the one regarding he who touches anything which is under the saddle.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">27</sup><i class=\"footnote\">One who touches that which is under the saddle becomes lightly unclean. However, one carries these objects becomes more strictly unclean. See I.E. on verse 10.</i> FOR HIS CLEANSING.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">28</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hebrew, <i>le-taharrato</i>, literally, to his cleansing.</i> From the day of his cleansing.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">29</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The <i>lamed</i> of <i>le-taharrato</i> is not to be rendered to, but from. Hence <i>le-tahorrato</i> is to be interpreted, from his cleaning.</i>  The sacrifice consists of a burnt-offering<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">30</sup><i class=\"footnote\">To atone for evil thoughts. See I.E. on Lev. 1:4. The reference might be to thoughts of forbidden sexual practices. See next note.</i> and a sin-offering,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">31</sup><i class=\"footnote\">To atone for transgressions actually committed. According to Krinsky the reference is to prohibited sexual practices. The fact that Scripture goes on to speak of a man having an emission of semen might support this interpretation.</i> for the issue is a punishment for sin. GO OUT. Involuntarily.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">32</sup><i class=\"footnote\">For verse 18 speaks of voluntary emission of semen.</i> FLOW OF SEED. <i>Shikhvat</i> (flow) is similar to <i>shikhvat</i> (layer) in <i>the layer of dew</i> (Ex. 16:14).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">33</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Which I.E. renders a descent or a pouring down of dew. See I.E. on Ex. 16:14 (Vol. 2, p. 320).</i> It is related to the word <i>yashkiv</i> (pour out) in <i>who can pour out</i> (Job 38:37).  It would appear to us<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">34</sup><i class=\"footnote\">From the plain meaning of the text.</i> that the garment or the skin requires washing if it has wet semen or dry semen on it.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">35</sup><i class=\"footnote\">If it come into contact with wet or dry semen, for the verse does not differentiate among them.</i> However, the truth lies with the words of tradition.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">36</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The Mishnah in <i>Niddah</i> 7:1 states, “Semen [coveys] uncleanliness when wet but not when dry.”</i>  Scripture<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">37</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In verse 18.</i> concludes the laws of the male.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">38</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Who has a normal or abnormal discharge from his penis.</i> It then begins with the female.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">39</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Who has a normal or abnormal discharge of blood.</i>  IN HER FLESH. In the women’s private part. Those who explain <i>then he shall bathe all his flesh</i> (v. 16) which is written concerning one who ejaculates as referring to the penis<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">47</sup><i class=\"footnote\">They take the word flesh to mean penis. See I.E. on verse 2.</i> err. The word <i>all</i> is proof.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">48</sup><i class=\"footnote\">That they err, for “all” takes in the entire body. Thus <i>flesh</i> in our verse does not only apply to the penis.</i> The meaning of <i>And if he be on the bed</i> (v. 23) refers back to the object<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">40</sup><i class=\"footnote\">I.E. renders <i>And if he</i> (hu) <i>be on the bed</i> as, And if it be on the bed, for the word <i>hu</i> may mean he or it.</i> that she sits upon (v. 22). Now the object<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">41</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The object which a person touches.</i> is on the bed or the object<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">42</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The object which a person touches.</i> is on another object.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">43</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Upon which the women sits.</i> The uncleanliness is therefore light.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">44</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The one who touches it does not have to immerse his garments.</i> Scripture does not mention a saddle with regards to a women for Scripture speaks of what is prevalent.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">45</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Most of riding was done by men. Some editions read <i>behamah</i> (cattle). According to this version our text reads, for Scripture speaks of [an] animal. The latter is probably to be interpreted, Scripture speaks of one who usually rides on an animal, that is, males, and not females.</i> The law is the same.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">46</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This law applies to both men and women.</i> AND IF ANY MAN LIE WITH HER. Without any sinful intent.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">49</sup><i class=\"footnote\">He has no intention in engaging in coitus with a menstruating women.</i> On the contrary, he erred in sleeping with her.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">50</sup><i class=\"footnote\">He was not aware that her menstrual flow would commence while he slept with her.</i> Behold her menstrual flow came while he was with her. This is the meaning of <i>be upon him</i>, for the one who sleeps with a menstruating women incurs the penalty of <i>karet</i>.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">51</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See Lev. 20:18. Had the man had an evil intention when he had intercourse with the menstruating women then Scripture would have mentioned that he committed a major sin. Scripture appears to state, as a matter of fact, that a man who sleeps with a menstruating woman is unclean. One may take this to imply that one is permitted to sleep with a menstruating woman but is unclean if he does so. Hence I.E.’s comments.</i> The same law applies to a women who has an issue,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">52</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The same law applies to one who engages in coitus with a women who has an issue.</i> even though it is not stated. AND EVERY BED WHEREON HE LIETH SHALL BE UNCLEAN. For he is unclean for seven days. He also defiles others. The latter is so even though it is not stated. MANY DAYS NOT IN THE TIME OF HER IMPURITY. Every women has fixed periods. Or, she had an issue added to her menstruation.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">53</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Her flow continued beyond her menstrual period.</i> AND BRING THEM. <i>Ve-hevi’ah</i> (and bring them) is ultimately accented. It is an irregular word.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">54</sup><i class=\"footnote\">It should have been penultimately accented.</i> THUS SHALL YE SEPARATE. Some say that <i>ve-hizzartem</i> (thus shall ye separate) is missing a <i>heh</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">55</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to this interpretation <i>ve-hizzartem</i> comes from the root <i>zayin, heh, resh</i>.</i> and is to be interpreted <i>ve-hizzhartem</i> (and you shall warn). This cannot be so, for the <i>heh</i> is not vowel letter.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">56</sup><i class=\"footnote\">A vowel letter is occasionally dropped, for it is not sounded.</i> It is only silent at the end of a word.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">57</sup><i class=\"footnote\">It serves as a vowel letter at the end of the word. However, when it comes in the middle of a word it is sounded. Hence it is not dropped.</i> On the contrary, <i>ve-hizzartem</i> is related to the word <i>ve-yinnazeru</i> (that they separate)<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">58</sup><i class=\"footnote\">It comes from the root <i>nun, zayin, resh</i>.</i> in <i>that they separate themselves from the holy things of the children of Israel</i> (Lev. 22:2). The meaning of that <i>ve-hizzartem</i> is, and you shall distance.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">59</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Or <i>thus shall ye separate</i>.</i> The word <i>nazir</i> (nazirite) is derived from the same root. A <i>nazir</i> is one who has distanced himself from the lusts of the world. <i>Ve-hizzartem</i> is vocalized like the word <i>ve-hippaltem</i> (and you shall divide)<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">60</sup><i class=\"footnote\">From the root <i>nun, peh, lamed</i>.</i> in, <i>and you shall divide the land</i> (Ezek. 45:1), for the <i>nun</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">61</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The root <i>nuns of ve-hizzartem</i> and <i>ve-hippaltem</i>.</i> is swallowed in the <i>dagesh</i>.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">62</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In the <i>zayin</i> of <i>ve-hizzartem</i> and the <i>peh of ve-hippaltem</i>.</i> IN THEIR UNCLEANLINESS. <i>Be-tumatam</i> (in their uncleanliness) is to be rendered because of their uncleanliness.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">63</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The <i>bet</i> of <i>be-tumatam</i> has the meaning of “because.”</i> Its meaning is, <i>when they defile My tabernacle</i>.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">64</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>When they defile My tabernacle</i> explains <i>because of their uncleanliness</i>. The point is that Scripture does not prohibit being “unclean.” It only does so when one enters the tabernacle in a state of impurity.</i> SO THAT HE IS UNCLEAN THEREBY. There is a Divine command for him to be in a state of ritual impurity. I will explain this later.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">65</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See I.E. on Lev. 18:20.</i>  <i>Whether it be a man</i> explains <i>the law of him that hath an issue</i> (v. 32).  <i>With her that is unclean</i> refers to a women who has an issue or menstruates. AFTER THE DEATH. After God warned Israel not to incur the death penalty<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">1</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In Lev. 15:31.</i> He also told Moses to caution Aaron not to die as his sons died.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">2</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See Lev. 10:1,2.</i> This section is proof that the sons of Aaron brought the incense within the veil.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">3</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Into the Holy of Holies. The veil separated the Holy of Holies and the rest of the tabernacle. Our chapter relates that after Aaron’s sons died, God told Moses to caution Aaron against entering the Holy of Holies so as not to die as his sons did. The implication of the latter is that Aaron’s sons died because they entered the Holy of Holies.</i> [WHEN THEY DREW NEAR.] The word <i>be-korvatam</i> (when they drew near) is an infinitive.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">4</sup><i class=\"footnote\">An infinitive with a pronoun suffixed to it.</i> Compare, <i>le-korvah</i> (to come unto) in <i>to come unto the work</i> (Ex. 36:2).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">5</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Korvatam</i> is made up of the infinitive <i>korvah</i> plus the pronominal suffix.</i> The <i>heh</i> in <i>le-korvah</i> has been turned into a <i>tav</i> in <i>be-korvatam</i> as is the practice with the feminine <i>heh</i>.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">6</sup><i class=\"footnote\">When a feminine word ending in a <i>heh</i> is connected to a pronominal suffix, the <i>heh</i> changes into a <i>tav</i>.</i> Rabbi Joshua,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">7</sup><i class=\"footnote\">A Karaite Bible commentator.</i> who says that <i>be-korvatam</i> is a noun following the paradigm of <i>chokhmatam</i> (their wisdom) (Jer. 49:7),<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">8</sup><i class=\"footnote\">That is; <i>korvatam</i> is made up of the noun <i>korvah</i> plus a pronominal suffix.</i> errs. INTO THE HOLY PLACE. In contrast to the tent of meeting.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">9</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The tent of meeting is also a holy place. Hence I.E. points out that <i>the holy</i> here refers to the place that is considered holy with regard to the tent of meeting, i.e., it is holier than the tent of meeting.</i> FOR I APPEAR IN THE CLOUD.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">10</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hebrew, <i>ki be-anan</i>, which I.E. renders: for only with a cloud.</i> It means Aaron shall only enter with incense. He shall produce smoke so that God’s glory will not be seen, and as a result he dies.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">11</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This interpretation renders <i>ki be-anan era’eh al ha-kapporet</i>,: for only with a cloud may I be seen over the ark-cover.</i> Note, the meaning of <i>ki be-anan era’eh</i> (for I appear in the cloud upon the ark-cover) is, I will not appear to him except through the agency of a cloud.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">12</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Aaron is not permitted to look directly at God’s glory. He must screen God’s glory with the smoke of the incense. According to this interpretation <i>ki be-anan era’eh al ha-kapporet</i> means, I may only be seen through the smoke of the incense.</i> There are those who say that the meaning of <i>ki be-anan era’eh al ha-kapporet</i> (for I appear in the cloud) is, because I dwell in a cloud upon the ark-covering.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">13</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hence Aaron shall <i>come not at all times into the holy place</i> (v. 2).</i> <i>For I appear in the cloud</i> is similar in meaning to <i>The Lord hath said that He would dwell in the thick darkness</i> (I Kings 8:12). WITH A YOUNG BULLOCK. Its meaning is not that Aaron should bring the bullock into the holy place<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">14</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Herewith shall Aaron come into the holy place: with a young bullock</i> might be taken to mean that Aaron should bring the bullock into the Holy of Holies. Hence I.E.’s comment.</i> but rather that he first bring a bullock of his own<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">15</sup><i class=\"footnote\">From his own property.</i> for a sin offering to atone for himself and the <i>kohanim</i>. Others say also for the Levites,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">16</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The bullock also atones for the Levites.</i> for they found, <i>And thou shalt write Aaron’s name upon the rod of Levi</i> (Num. 17:18).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">17</sup><i class=\"footnote\">We thus see that the Levites and the <i>kohanim</i> form one unit.</i> However, this is farfetched. On the contrary, the Levites are considered among the Israelites. THE HOLY LINEN TUNIC. Scripture does not mention the ephod,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">18</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See Ex. 28:6-12.</i> the breastplate,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">19</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Ex. 28:15-27.</i> and the robe of the ephod,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">20</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Ex. 28: 31-35.</i> for it earlier mentioned, <i>and the sound thereof</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">21</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The sound of the bells of the <i>ephod</i>.</i> <i>shall be heard when he</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">22</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The <i>kohen gadol</i>.</i> <i>goeth in unto the holy place</i> (Ex. 28:35).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">23</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The point is Ex. 28:35 tells us that the <i>kohen</i> must wear the robe when he enters the Holy of Holies. Now, the <i>ephod</i> and the breastplate were attached to the robe. Hence there was no need for Scripture to repeat once again that Aaron shall wear these garments when he enters the Holy of Holies. Rashbam on Ex. 28:35 explains similarly. It should be noted that this interpretation is contrary to the accepted <i>halakhic</i> opinion which rules that the <i>kohen gadol</i> does not enter the Holy of Holies wearing the <i>ephod</i>, its band, the breastplate, and the robe. See <i>Rosh Ha-Shanah</i> 26a. Also see Rashi, “This teaches us that he must not officiate in the interior (the Holy of Holies) robed in the eight garments which were the insignia of the High Priest…in which he performed the service outside…but in the four garments…like an ordinary priest” (Rosenbaum and Silbermann).</i> The men of the second temple who served without the <i>Urim</i> and the <i>Thummim</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">24</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Which was placed in the breastplate (Ex. 28:30).</i> learned from this verse [that their practice was proper].<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">25</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Since Scripture does not mention the <i>Urim</i> and the <i>Thummim</i> in our verse, it appears that the wearing of the <i>Urim</i> and the <i>Thummim</i> is not essential for the service to be valid.</i> There were also prophets there.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">26</sup><i class=\"footnote\">At the beginning of the second temple period. These prophets taught the Israelites that the <i>kohen gadol</i> may officiate without the <i>Urim</i> and the <i>Thumim</i> if the latter are not available.</i> AND AARON SHALL PRESENT THE BULLOCK OF THE SIN-OFFERING, WHICH IS FOR HIMSELF. To the opening of the tent of meeting as is the law.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">27</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See Lev. 4:4.</i> [AND MAKE ATONEMENT FOR HIMSELF.] This means that with it he will make atonement for himself and for his house after he slaughters it.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">28</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See verse 11.</i> There are those who say that presenting the bullock<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">29</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The confession of his and his family’s sins made by the <i>kohen gadol</i>. See <i>Sifra</i> and Rashi.</i> is the atonement.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">30</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Spoken of in our verse.</i> LOTS. We know what they are from the words of our sages.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">31</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See <i>Yoma</i> 36a.</i> The Gaon<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">32</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Rabbi Saadiah Gaon.</i> says that Azazel is the name of a mountain. It is so called because of its might.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">33</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hard and rocky. See <i>Yoma</i> 63a. Azazel is a combination of <i>az</i> (strong) and <i>el</i> (tall). Azazel thus means mighty and tall mountain (Krinsky).</i> God’s name<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">34</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The divine name El. El means mighty.</i> is mentioned in Azazel as it is in <i>ke-harere el</i> (the mighty mountains) (Ps. 36:7) and in <i>yakti’el</i> (Joktheel) (II Kings 14:7). The Gaon, the Levite,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">35</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Neither I.E. nor any of the commentaries identify him.</i> caught him in error. He pointed out that the <i>alef</i> of Azazel is placed between one <i>zayin</i> and the other <i>zayin</i>.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">36</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The word Azazel in Hebrew does not have the word <i>alef lamed</i> in it, for the word is spelled <i>ayin, zayin, alef, zayin lamed</i>.</i> There are those who say that Azazel is the name of a mountain close to Mount Sinai. God commanded that the goat be led and brought up there until it slipped down the mountain. Later on in the time of the temple, they led it to a different mountain. “And Aaron did” (v. 34) is proof of this.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">37</sup><i class=\"footnote\">I.E.’s paraphrase of <i>and he did</i>. I.E.’s point is that Scripture goes out of the way to state that Aaron did as God commanded him in the wilderness, for later on when Israel entered Israel some parts of the Yom Kippur ritual were performed a bit differently. The sending of the goat to Mount Azazel is an example.</i> The same, in my opinion, as I will explain in its place,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">38</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See I.E. on Lev. 23:11.</i> is true of the festival of Shavu’ot.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">39</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to I.E., God commanded Israel to observe the first Shavu’ot on a Sunday. However, the latter did not apply in succeeding years. See I.E. on Lev. 23:11.</i> There are those who say that the service<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">40</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The Yom Kippur service.</i> during the second temple was unlike that of the first, for the <i>kohen</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">41</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The high priest.</i> lacked the garments<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">42</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The priestly garments, <i>viz</i>., the ephod, its band, the breastplate, and the robe.</i> and there was no ark-cover. This commentator says that the goat was sent into the wilderness, for Scripture states, <i>and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness</i> (v. 22).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">43</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to this interpretation the goat was sent into the desert unaccompanied.</i> The latter is similar in meaning to the bird of the one who is cleansed from leprosy<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">44</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See Lev. 14:1-7. This bird was sent unaccompanied. According to the rabbis of the Talmud the goat was accompanied by a person set aside for this purpose. This commentator believes that this was not the case in the desert, for the ritual in the second temple period was not exactly the same as the one described in our chapter.</i> which is sent into the open field, an uninhabited place. <i>A land which is cut off</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">45</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Scripture’s description of the place where the goat is sent.</i> (v. 22) is proof of this.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">46</sup><i class=\"footnote\">That the goat is sent into a wilderness.</i> We answered him that they sent the goat into the wilderness as it is written.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">47</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In verse 22.</i> However, the goat was pursued<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">48</sup><i class=\"footnote\">By a person set aside for this purpose (v. 21), literally, he pursued.</i> until it fled and climbed up a rock. The rabbis therefore said, “and he<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">49</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The man who pursues it.</i> pushes it down.”<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">50</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Yoma</i> 67a. The point is that since a person accompanied the goat it was possible for him to push the goat off the mountain.</i> Rabbi Samuel<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">51</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Rabbi Samuel ben Hofni Ha-Gaon.</i> says that even though it is written that the goat offered as a sin offering is to be offered to God, the goat that was sent was also offered to God. There is no need for this interpretation, for the goat sent into the wilderness did not serve as an offering since it was not slaughtered. If you are able to understand the secret that follows Azazel<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">52</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Verse 10 reads, <i>la-azazel ha-midbarah</i> (for Azazel into the wilderness). According to I.E. the word <i>ha-midbarah</i> is the key to understanding the meaning of Azazel.</i> then you will know its secret and the secret of its name, for it has comrades in Scripture.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">53</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to I.E., Azazel is a compound word. It is made up of the two words <i>ez</i> (goat) and <i>azal</i> (to go). There are many such compound names in Scripture. Compare, Emmanuel (God is with us). According to I. E. the meaning of <i>la-azazel ha-midbarah</i> is, for a goat that goes into the wilderness.</i> I will reveal a bit of its secret to you in a hint. When you are thirty-three, you will understand it.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">54</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According Nahmanides what Ibn Ezra means is, if you count 33 verses you will understand why the goat was sent into the wilderness. If we count 33 verses we come to Lev. 17:7. The Torah there prohibits Israel from sacrificing to the <i>se’irim</i> (satyrs). According to I.E. the <i>se’irim</i> were demons that had the shape of goats. Now it is not clear what the purpose was of sending the goat to demons who were shaped like goats. According to Nahmanides the goat was a gift to Satan so that he would not interfere with Israel’s sacrifice. However, it is doubtful that I.E. had this in mind. Weiser suggests that the goat was sent to a place of demons so that the sins which it (literally or symbolically) bore would not contaminate people, for demons dwell in a place which is uninhabited.</i> AND OFFER HIM<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">55</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The goat.</i> FOR A SIN-OFFERING. He shall slaughter it. SHALL BE SET ALIVE. The word <i>yo’omad</i> (shall be set) is a <i>hofal</i>.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">56</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Literally, from the heavy conjugation which has a word added to it and whose subject is not mentioned.</i> The <i>yod</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">57</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Prefixed to the root.</i> should have been vocalized with a <i>shuruk</i>.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">58</sup><i class=\"footnote\">A <i>kubbutz</i>, for that is the way words in the imperfect are conjugated in the <i>hofal</i>. Compare, <i>yuktzar, yurad</i></i> However, it was enlarged<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">59</sup><i class=\"footnote\">It was enlarged from a minor vowel (a <i>kubbutz</i>) to a major vowel (a <i>kamatz</i>).</i> because of the guttural.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">60</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The <i>ayin</i>, for the root of <i>yo’omad</i> is <i>ayin, mem, dalet</i>.</i> The word <i>yochoram</i> (should be forfeited) in <i>all his substance should be forfeited</i> (Ez. 10:8) is similar.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">61</sup><i class=\"footnote\">It too is vocalized with a <i>kamatz</i> rather than with a <i>kubbutz</i> because of its guttural.</i> TO MAKE ATONEMENT OVER HIM.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">62</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Over it, over the goat.</i> For the atonement shall be upon it.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">63</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The sins will be placed upon the goat, who shall remove the sins by carrying them into the wilderness.</i> It means to send him away. AND AARON SHALL PRESENT. Scripture goes on to explain that after Aaron has presented the bullock and the two goats to the tent of meeting, he shall begin to slaughter his bullock. Scripture does this because<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">64</sup><i class=\"footnote\">After stating in verse 6, <i>And Aaron shall present the bullock of the sin-offering</i>.</i> it dwelt at length on the goats.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">65</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In verses 6-10. Our verse appears to repeat verse 6. Hence I.E.’s comment.</i> A CENSER. The meaning of <i>machtah</i> (censer) is known. HIS HANDS FULL. Both hands.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">66</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The word for a handful (<i>chofnayim</i>) always comes in the plural form. Hence I.E. points out that here the word is to be taken literally.</i> SWEET INCENSE. Mentioned earlier.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">67</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In Ex. 30:22-38.</i>  It would have appeared to us that <i>upon the ark-cover</i> (v. 14); <i>and before the arkcover</i> (<i>Ibid</i>.) are to be taken literally. However, the transmitters of tradition said that <i>upon the ark-cover</i> means between the staves.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">68</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to the Talmud the <i>kohen</i> stands between the staves of the ark and sprinkles from there. Furthermore, according to the rabbis the <i>kohen</i> does not actually sprinkle blood on the ark-cover but upward towards the ark-cover. See <i>Yoma</i> 53b.</i> The meaning of <i>and before the ark-cover</i> is known from their words.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">69</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to the Talmud <i>before the ark-cover</i> means downward in front of the ark-cover. The blood fell on the ground. See <i>Yoma</i> 53b.</i> What they said is true. THEN SHALL HE KILL THE GOAT OF THE SIN-OFFERING. He shall now, when he goes out,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">70</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Of the tabernacle</i> slaughter it. There are those who say that he should slaughter the goat before he slaughters the bullock.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">71</sup><i class=\"footnote\">These commentators interpret <i>And Aaron shall present the goat</i> (v. 9) as meaning, and Aaron shall slaughter the goat.</i> The latter is untrue.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">72</sup><i class=\"footnote\">For our verse is in chronological order.</i> AND HE SHALL MAKE ATONEMENT FOR THE HOLY PLACE. The reference is to the Holy of Holies. AND SO SHALL HE DO FOR THE TENT OF MEETING. He shall sprinkle seven times before the ark-cover (<i>kaporet</i>)<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">73</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Some editions read the veil-curtain (<i>parochet</i>).</i> and on the horns of the altar of incense.  The meaning of <i>And he shall make atonement for the holy place</i> is that the blood serves as a ransom so that the holy place does not destroy<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">74</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Those who desecrate it. That is, because of those who entered the temple in a state of impurity.</i> because of the uncleanliness of the unclean. AND THERE SHALL BE NO MAN. From among the <i>kohanim</i>.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">75</sup><i class=\"footnote\">For non<i>-kohanim</i> were never permitted to be in the tent of meeting.</i> TO MAKE ATONEMENT IN THE HOLY PLACE. Inside.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">76</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Of the Holy of Holies.</i> AND HAVE MADE ATONEMENT FOR HIMSELF, AND FOR HIS HOUSEHOLD. With his sin offering bullock. AND FOR ALL THE ASSEMBLY OF ISRAEL. With their sin offering goat. AND HE SHALL GO OUT UNTO THE ALTAR. The reference is to the burnt offering altar.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">77</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Which stood in the courtyard.</i> AND HE SHALL PUT THEM. After the sins are removed from Israel they are, as it were, placed on the head of the goat. The sins will go to a place were they will never again be remembered. Scripture speaks in a way that all will understand.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">78</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Scripture pictures the sins as physical objects carried away and deposited in a place where they will be forgotten. In reality, what happens is that God forgives Israel’s sins.</i> APPOINTED. <i>Itti</i> (appointed) means prepared for his time.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">79</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See Rashi, “prepared for this since yesterday.”</i> Or <i>itti</i> refers to an individual whose custom it was to always lead the goat on the Day of Atonement. The <i>yod</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">80</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Of <i>itti</i>.</i> relates to the word <i>et</i> (time).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">81</sup><i class=\"footnote\">It is not a first person pronominal suffix.</i> <i>Itti</i> is similar to <i>penimi</i> (internal).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">82</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In that its <i>yod</i> is the <i>yod</i> of relation. The <i>yod</i> suffixed to a word is often a first person pronominal suffix, hence I.E.’s comment.</i> The interpretation of those who explain <i>itti</i> to mean wise<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">83</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Compare, <i>the wise men, who knew the times</i> (ittim) (Est. 1:13). According to this interpretation a “timely” man is a man who is aware of what is currently happening, i.e., a wise man.</i> does not appear correct to me.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">84</sup><i class=\"footnote\">For what need is there for a wise man to drive the goat into the wilderness.</i> Our sages, of blessed memory, said that the “bearer”<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">85</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The one who drives the goat that bears the sin.</i> was a <i>kohen</i>.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">86</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Yoma</i> 66a.</i> Their words are true. IN A HOLY PLACE. In the courtyard of the tent of meeting. They used to spread a sheet for the <i>kohen</i>.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">87</sup><i class=\"footnote\">So that people would not see him changing his clothes. See <i>Yoma</i> 3:4.</i> HIS OTHER VESTMENTS.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">88</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Literally, his garments.</i> With which he serves every day.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">89</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The eight garments with which he ministers every day.</i> There are those who say that the reference is to the garments mentioned.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">90</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The four garments mentioned in verse 4.</i> The fact that Scripture does not say <i>and put on other garments</i> (Lev. 6:4) is proof of this.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">91</sup><i class=\"footnote\">That he put on the vestments he was wearing before he bathed.</i> HIS BURNT-OFFERING. The reference is to the ram<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">92</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Brought by the <i>kohen gadol</i>. See verse 3.</i> and the ram of the people,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">93</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See verse 5.</i> the bullock of the people,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">94</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Mentioned in Num. 29:8.</i> and the seven lambs,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">95</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Mentioned in Num. 29:8.</i> for it is so written in Scripture.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">96</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In Num. 29:8.</i> AND THE FAT OF THE SIN-OFFERING. The fat of the bullock sin offering<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">97</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Mentioned in verse 3.</i> and the fat of the goat sin offering<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">98</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Mentioned in verse 9.</i> and also the fat of the he-goat sin offering, which is a sin offering belonging to the <i>kohen</i> as is the law, and is not burned. The last named sacrifice is found in the Torah portion <i>Pinechas</i>.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">99</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Num. 29:11. It is not mentioned in our Torah portion.</i>  AND BATHE HIS FLESH IN WATER. This is sufficient for him,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">100</sup><i class=\"footnote\">He need not do anything more to cleanse himself.</i> for he does not become unclean until evening. SHALL BE CARRIED FORTH<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">101</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Literally, he shall carry.</i> WITHOUT THE CAMP. By command.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">102</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The <i>kohen gadol</i> shall command that they be carried outside of the camp.</i> AND THEY SHALL BURN. The <i>kohanim</i> shall burn them. All those who do the burning shall bathe in water and immediately come into the camp. The fact that Scripture immediately states, <i>and afterward he may come into the camp</i>, is proof of this, for what reason is there to states this.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">103</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Except for the purpose of letting us know that he enters the camp immediately after bathing.</i> AND IT SHALL BE A STATUTE FOR EVER UNTO YOU. This service.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">104</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This service shall be <i>a statute forever unto you</i>.</i> IN THE SEVENTH MONTH, ON THE TENTH DAY OF THE MONTH, YE SHALL AFFLICT YOUR SOULS. Since Scripture writes, <i>And let your soul delight itself in fatness</i> (Is. 55:2), we know that affliction is the reverse of delight and that affliction of the soul refers to fasting.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">105</sup><i class=\"footnote\">When a person eats, the soul is said to “delight itself.” Thus when Scripture speaks of the soul being afflicted it means the reverse; i.e., the reference is to a fast.</i> Furthermore, Scripture states, <i>And satisfy the afflicted soul</i> (Is. 58:10), the meaning of which is like <i>And if thou draw out thy soul to the hungry</i> (<i>Ibid</i>.), for it is the style of the prophets to repeat themselves.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">106</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>The hungry</i> is another way of saying <i>the afflicted soul</i>. We thus see that affliction of the soul refers to a lack of food. Hence it refers to fasting.</i> Now since we have tradition<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">107</sup><i class=\"footnote\">That affliction of the soul refers to fasting.</i> there is no reason to go on searching.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">108</sup><i class=\"footnote\">For proof that our verse speaks of fasting.</i> <i>I afflicted my soul with fasting</i> (Ps. 35:13) is no proof<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">109</sup><i class=\"footnote\">That afflicting the soul means fasting, for one may argue that since Scripture goes on to explain that the psalmist afflicted his soul by fasting, in cases where the “affliction of the soul” is not qualified, the reference is not to fasting.</i> because the word fast is mentioned.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">110</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In the verse.</i> The general rule is, whenever we find in Scripture the word affliction connected to soul, the reference is to a fast.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">111</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Whenever the Torah speaks of the affliction of the soul the reference is to fasting.</i> THE HOME-BORN, OR THE STRANGER THAT SOJOURNETH AMONG YOU. We are not permitted to let him<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">112</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The stranger.</i> do any work,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">113</sup><i class=\"footnote\">On Yom Kippur.</i> but we do not force him<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">114</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Reading <i>nachrichennu</i> as in <i>Vat. Ebr</i>. 38 instead of <i>nachritennu</i> (we shall cut him off).</i> to fast.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">115</sup><i class=\"footnote\">For Scripture does not mention the stranger when it speaks of fasting. It only mentions the stranger when it speaks of not doing work on Yom Kippur.</i> SHALL ATONEMENT BE MADE FOR YOU. By the <i>kohen</i>. The commentators therefore say regarding the goat which is sent into the wilderness, concerning which it is written, <i>shall be set alive…to make atonement over him</i> (v. 10), that the atonement becomes effective by the placing of the goat before the Lord.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">116</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In other words, atonement is not affected by driving the goat into the wilderness, for the latter is not done by the <i>kohen gadol</i>.</i> FROM ALL YOUR SINS. This is to be understood in accordance with my earlier explanation that the noun <i>chattat</i> (sin) is a general term. It is therefore found with reference to both accidental and deliberate sin. IT IS A SABBATH OF SOLEMN REST. Some say that <i>shabbat shabbaton</i> (a sabbath of solemn rest) means rest for the soul and rest for the body.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">117</sup><i class=\"footnote\">For the word <i>shabbat</i> is repeated in the phrase.</i> Others say that <i>shabbat shabbaton</i> means a rest above which there is no other rest.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">118</sup><i class=\"footnote\">It means a total rest.</i> Both words<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">119</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In the phrase.</i> are nouns. At times the other word comes first.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">120</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Our verse reads: <i>shabbat shabbaton</i>. However, Ex. 16:23 reads <i>shabbaton shabbat</i>.</i> They have one meaning,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">121</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Shabbat</i> and <i>shabbaton</i> have one meaning.</i> This interpretation is not farfetched. IT IS A STATUTE FOR EVER. To fast. AND THE PRIEST…SHALL MAKE ATONEMENT. Scripture now goes on to explain what the <i>kohen</i> shall make atonement for. WHO SHALL BE ANOINTED. By the anointer<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">122</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Our verse literally reads: And the priest who shall anoint him (<i>yimshach oto</i>) and who shall be consecrated…shall make atonement. Now the priest who anoints the <i>kohen gadol</i> does not make atonement. Neither is the priest who anoints consecrated to wear the high priestly vestments. Furthermore, the text omits with what the anointed shall do the anointing. Hence I.E. points out that <i>yimshach oto</i> is short for <i>yimshach ha-moshech oto</i>, which means whom the anointer shall anoint. Thus according to I.E. the first part of our verse should be rendered: And the priest whom the anointer shall anoint with the anointing oil.</i> with the anointing oil<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">123</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Scripture does not say with what the <i>kohen gadol</i> was anointed. Hence I.E. points out that <i>asher yimshach oto</i> is short for <i>yimshach oto be-shemen ha-mishchah</i>.</i> after he has been consecrated.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">124</sup><i class=\"footnote\">I.E.’s interpretation of <i>and who shall be consecrated</i>.</i> AND HE SHALL PUT ON. He<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">125</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The <i>kohen gadol</i>.</i> is the one who shall put on these holy garments, for another person may not wear them. THE MOST HOLY PLACE. Which is located on the inner side of the veil. AND SHALL MAKE ATONEMENT FOR THE PRIESTS AND FOR ALL THE PEOPLE OF THE ASSEMBLY. The Levites are included among the latter, for the Levites are not called <i>kohanim</i>. On the contrary, every <i>kohen</i> is a Levite<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">126</sup><i class=\"footnote\">For he is a member of the tribe of Levi.</i> but every Levite is not a <i>kohen</i>.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">127</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Only those descended from Aaron are <i>kohanim</i>.</i> AND THIS SHALL BE…UNTO YOU. Scripture already stated this.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">128</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In verse 29.</i> It is repeated to add <i>once in the year</i>. AND HE DID. And Aaron did. SPEAK UNTO AARON, AND UNTO HIS SONS. For they are the ones who slaughter<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">1</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The sacrifices.</i> for Israel.  If the Torah had read, <i>in the camp</i> (v. 3),<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">2</sup><i class=\"footnote\">That is, if verse 3 had only stated, <i>in the camp</i>.</i> then it would have been permissible to slaughter it<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">3</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Any one of the animals mentioned in our verse.</i> outside the camp.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">4</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hence verse 3 reads, <i>in the camp, or…without the camp</i>.</i> Also, this<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">5</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The law codified in verses 3 and 4.</i> commandment<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">6</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Like many others which precede it.</i> is dependent upon the Holy Temple.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">7</sup><i class=\"footnote\">It is in effect only when a central sanctuary for the bringing of sacrifices exists.</i> However, this law applies only to any place that is close to Jerusalem.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">8</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Even when the temple stood, the law applied only to places which were close to Jerusalem. I.E. is interpreting according to the plain meaning of the text. According to the rabbis, our verse speaks of sacrifices; i.e., sacrifices are not to be offered in any place except for the tabernacle or the temple. See <i>Sifra</i> and Rashi.</i> We know how close from the words of tradition,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">9</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See <i>Kiddishin</i> 57b.</i> for if the place is far, one is permitted to slaughter flesh.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">10</sup><i class=\"footnote\">He is permitted to slaughter an animal for the purpose of eating its flesh without presenting it for an offering.</i> The latter is so, for Scripture states it.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">11</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In Deut. 12:21.</i> Many say that it is forbidden to eat flesh in the exile.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">12</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This was a Karaite opinion.</i> They explain <i>neither came flesh nor wine in my mouth</i> (Dan. 10:3)<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">13</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Daniel, who lived in Babylon, tells us that he refrained from meat and wine while he fasted. This indicates that he ate meat when he did not fast.</i> as referring to the flesh of fish.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">14</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The Karaites explain the word “flesh” in <i>neither came flesh…in my mouth</i> as referring to the flesh of fish, for they maintain that one cannot eat meat outside of the Land of Israel.</i> They did not speak correctly. I do not want to dwell on this and answer them. TO THE END THAT THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL MAY BRING. This is the reason for this commandment. <i>And they shall no more sacrifice their sacrifices unto the satyrs</i> (v. 7) explains <i>in the open field</i>.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">15</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The reason Israel shall not sacrifice in the open field is so that <i>they shall no more sacrifice their sacrifices unto the satyrs</i> whom they believe to dwell there.</i> UNTO THE SATYRS. <i>Se’irim</i> (satyrs) are the demons. They are so called because the body of one who sees them “storms.”<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">16</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The person who sees them is agitated. This opinion connects <i>se’irim</i>, spelled with a <i>sin</i>, to the word <i>sa’arah</i> (storm), spelled with a <i>samekh</i>.</i> However, it appears that they are so called because the insane see them in the form of goats (<i>se’irim</i>). The word “more” teaches that the Israelites did so in Egypt. AFTER WHOM THEY GO ASTRAY. For whoever seeks after them and believes in them strays from under his God, for he thinks that there is someone aside from God the glorious and awe inspiring who does good or bad. This section<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">17</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Which prohibits the slaughter of meat except as an offering.</i> does not mention the stranger, for the commandment regarding sacrifices and burnt offerings falls on Israel. Scripture mentions the stranger<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">18</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In verse 8, which prohibits offering a sacrifice outside of the sanctuary.</i> in order to teach that Israel shall not permit a stranger to sacrifice to idols in the Land of Israel. The law regarding <i>all manner of blood</i> (v. 10) is similar.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">19</sup><i class=\"footnote\">It is the same case with the law regarding the prohibition of eating all manner of blood.</i> The eating of blood is prohibited<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">20</sup><i class=\"footnote\">To the Israelite and to the stranger.</i> because it is the very life, for the flesh lives by the blood.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">21</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The blood is offered on the altar to atone for the life of the sinner, life for life. It is therefore not to be eaten.</i> The truth of the matter is that the life by which a person lives is in the blood which is in the heart. THAT MAKETH ATONEMENT BY REASON OF THE LIFE.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">22</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hebrew, <i>ba-nefesh yekhapper</i>.</i> The blood makes atonement by the life which is in it.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">23</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This interpretation renders <i>ba-nefesh yekhapper</i> (makes atonement by reason of the life) as makes atonement with the life which is in it.</i> The reason for the latter is life for life.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">24</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The life of the animal is given in place of the life of the sinner.</i> There are others who explain <i>ba-nefesh yekhapper</i> (that maketh atonement by reason of the life) as, to make atonement for your souls.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">25</sup><i class=\"footnote\">They render <i>ba-nefesh</i> (by reason of the life) as for the soul, the reference being for the soul of the sinner.</i> However, the latter makes no sense, for what reason is there for Scripture to say this after stating <i>to make atonement for your souls</i>?<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">26</sup><i class=\"footnote\">What reason is there for Scripture to repeat itself?</i> THAT TAKETH IN HUNTING ANY BEAST OR FOWL THAT MAY BE EATEN. Such as a deer or a gazelle. OR FOWL THAT MAY BE EATEN. We also learn from this verse that we should not allow the stranger to eat in our land the flesh of a pig or a horse, or any bird of prey which is unclean. It is possible that God commanded that all blood which is not offered on the altar<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">27</sup><i class=\"footnote\">That is, <i>the blood of any beast</i> (chayyah) <i>or fowl that may be eaten</i>.</i> be covered so that the one who sees the blood of the deer, stag, or fowl not think that it comes from a sacrifice that was offered to an idol, for God had commanded that no blood be eaten and that no blood from God’s altar be spilled outside of the altar.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">28</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hence a person who sees blood pooled on the ground will assume that it is from blood offered to idols.</i> I will explain the secret of this verse in the Torah portion opening with the words <i>Behold, I set</i> (Deut. 11:26).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">29</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See I.E. on Deut. 12:25. I.E. there explains that eating the blood of an animal will harm one’s soul as well as have a bad effect on one’s children.</i> THE BLOOD THEREOF IS ALL ONE WITH THE LIFE THEREOF. The blood is coupled with the life thereof,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">30</sup><i class=\"footnote\">I.E. renders <i>damo be-nafsho</i> as the blood thereof is with the life thereof.</i> for it is known<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">31</sup><i class=\"footnote\">That was the belief of physicians in I.E.’s time.</i> that the threads<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">32</sup><i class=\"footnote\">What we call arteries and veins.</i> that go out from the left side of the heart are divided, half for blood and half for the breath, like the olive oil and the light thereof.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">33</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Breath and life are tied to the blood in the same way that light is coupled to oil. Blood maintains one’s breath and life.</i> THEREFORE I SAID UNTO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL. The meaning of <i>va-omar</i> (therefore I said) is, and I have previously said.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">34</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In verse 10.</i> The reference is to the section now mentioned.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">35</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This very section.</i>  Since Scripture mentions the beast (<i>chayyah</i>) which is not offered as a sacrifice, and similarly the fowl,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">36</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In verse 13.</i> it goes on to speak of <i>every soul that eateth that which dieth of itself</i> (v. 15), which is also not offered as a sacrifice. Scripture also mentions the latter because of its reference to an animal which is taken in hunting.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">37</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In verse 13. Animals taken in hunting are very likely to fall into the category of <i>nevelah</i> (dying of itself) or <i>terefah</i> (tom), for they are taken by bow and arrow or traps.</i> If one does so deliberately<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">38</sup><i class=\"footnote\">If he deliberately eats of an animal <i>which dieth of itself, or that which is torn of beasts</i>.</i> he violates a negative precept<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">39</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See Ex. 22:30; Deut. 14:21.</i> and is flogged.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">40</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Verse 15 tells us that one who <i>eateth that which dieth of itself</i> also is unclean. Hence I.E. points out that he is not only unclean but he violates the law which prohibits the eating of an animal that dies of itself or is torn.</i> If he does so accidentally, he brings a sin offering. If one should argue,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">41</sup><i class=\"footnote\">With I.E.’s earlier statement that verse 13 teaches that Israel is not permitted to allow the stranger to eat the flesh of a pig or a horse in the Land of Israel.</i> does not Scripture state, <i>thou mayest give it</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">42</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The flesh of an animal that dies of itself and, by extension, the flesh of all prohibited animals.</i> <i>unto the stranger that is within thy gates, that he may eat it</i> (Deut. 14:21)? The answer is that this<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">43</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Verse 13.</i> speaks of a stranger who dwells in the Land of Israel. Scripture similarly reads, <i>or the stranger that sojourneth among you</i> (Lev. 16:29). We shall not allow him to eat anything that dies of itself. However, we may give it<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">44</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Forbidden meat.</i> to the stranger that comes into our gates<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">45</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The stranger who does not live in the Land of Israel but visits it. This is what Deut. 14:21 deals with.</i> and he will eat it outside.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">46</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Outside the city gates.</i> THEN HE SHALL BEAR HIS INIQUITY. Permanently. He<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">47</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Filwarg emends to or. In this case I.E. reads: Permanently. Or he will be forgiven for his sin by the punishment which God shall bring upon him.</i> will be forgiven for his sin by the punishment which God shall bring upon him. This section<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">48</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Chapter 18, which opens with <i>After the doings of the land of Egypt…shall ye not do</i> (v. 13).</i> follows because Scripture mentioned<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">49</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In verse 7.</i> the topic of the satyrs which Israel sacrificed to in Egypt. The prohibited sexual practices<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">50</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Mentioned in chapter 18.</i> deal with those of the land of Canaan,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">51</sup><i class=\"footnote\">While <i>the doings of the land of Egypt</i> refers to offering to the satyrs.</i> for Scripture so states at the end.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">52</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In Lev. 18:27.</i> [I AM THE LORD YOUR GOD.] The meaning of this verse is, on this condition<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">1</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Keeping God’s ordinances (v. 4).</i> I will be your God. NEITHER SHALL YE WALK IN THEIR STATUTES.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">2</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hebrew, <i>chukkotehem</i>.</i> A person should not habituate himself to walk in this way<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">3</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The way of the Canaanites. I.E. interprets statutes as referring to the practices of the Canaanites because verses 27 and 28 make it clear that the practices enumerated in our chapter refer to Canaanite mores.</i> to the point where it becomes a statute for him.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">4</sup><i class=\"footnote\">It becomes his second nature.</i>  However, <i>after the doings of the land of Egypt</i> refers to their ordinances.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">5</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Their laws.</i> <i>Mine ordinances</i> (mishpatai)<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">6</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Not those of the Egyptians.</i> <i>shall ye do</i> (v. 4) is proof of this. The latter refers to the ordinances recorded in the Book of the Covenant,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">7</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See Ex. 24:7. The Book of the Covenant was given to Israel three months after the Exodus.</i> which is set forth in the Torah portion that opens with <i>Now these are the ordinances</i> (mishpatim) (Ex. 21:1).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">8</sup><i class=\"footnote\">I.E. interprets our verse as follows: Do not follow the laws of Egypt where you lived, nor the practices of the land of Canaan where I will bring you.</i> I AM THE LORD YOUR GOD. I will then be your God.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">9</sup><i class=\"footnote\">If you do not follow the laws of Egypt, nor the practices of the land of Canaan.</i>  The reason Scripture states, <i>Ye shall therefore keep My statutes, and Mine ordinances</i> (v. 5) is to make it clear that they are a source of life in both worlds<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">10</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This world and the world to come.</i> to those who observe them. God will give eternal life to the person who understands their secret. He will never die.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">11</sup><i class=\"footnote\">His soul shall live on after the death of the body.</i> Scripture, as I have explained, therefore reads, <i>I am the Lord your God</i>. NONE OF YOU. <i>Ish ish</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">12</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Literally, man, man.</i> (none of you) means each and every man. Since Scripture does not mention the house of Israel,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">13</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In our verse.</i> we learn that we are not permitted to allow the stranger to practice in our country any of the abominations mentioned, so that he does not defile the land. ANY THAT IS NEAR OF KIN TO HIM. <i>She’er</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">14</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hebrew, flesh, that is, one’s flesh, i.e., one’s near relative.</i> (near) is a general term for all those with whom one is prohibited to engage in sexual relations. Scripture then goes into detail.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">15</sup><i class=\"footnote\">And lists the people with whom one may not have sexual intercourse.</i> Rabbi Aaron Ha-Kohen<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">16</sup><i class=\"footnote\">A Gaon in Pumpaditha, author of a commentary on the Torah. Rabbi Hai Gaon was his student.</i> says that the reference is to the emission of semen in vain.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">17</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to Rabbi Aaron Ha-Kohen our verse does not speak of sexual intercourse but deals with approaching a near relative and uncovering her nakedness for the purpose of obtaining sexual pleasure (ejaculation).</i> NONE OF YOU SHALL APPROACH. Approach is a euphemism for lying with.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">18</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Engaging in sexual intercourse.</i> Similarly <i>And I approached the prophetess</i> (Is. 8:3).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">19</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The meaning of which is, I had intercourse with the prophetess.</i> Our verse is close to <i>come not near a woman</i> (Ex. 19:15).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">20</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The meaning of which is, do not have intercourse with a woman.</i> NAKEDNESS. <i>Ervah</i> (nakedness) refers to something unseemly which is exposed and has to be covered.  The meaning of <i>I am the Lord</i> is that God loves the one who separates himself to serve God and to obey his word. What happened at Mount Sinai is proof.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">21</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Before the revelation Israel had to separate themselves from sexual relations and sanctify themselves. See Ex. 19:15.</i> The first man is proof.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">22</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to I.E., Adam experienced sexual desire only after eating from the tree of knowledge. See I.E. on Gen. 3:6 (Vol. 1, p. 67). He was expelled from the presence of the Lord because of his lust.</i> This is the secret of man.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">23</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Man is to separate himself from the pleasures of this world and serve God. See the introduction to Vol. 4. Also, see <i>Yesod Mora</i> 10; 12.</i> Since the inclination of the heart of man is like that of beasts, it was not possible to prohibit all women.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">24</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Since people have sexual desire, the Torah did not prohibit it. It limited it.</i> Note, Scripture prohibited all women that are found around a person at all times.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">25</sup><i class=\"footnote\">If Scripture had permitted close relatives, then a person would indulge in sexual intercourse at all times.</i> I will reveal to you a hidden and sealed secret in the Torah portion <i>When thou goest forth in camp against thine enemies</i> (Deut. 23:10).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">26</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See I.E. on Deut. 23:10. So too Maimonides, <i>Guide</i> 3:64, “The female relatives whom a man may not marry…as a rule…(being) constantly together with him in his house; they would easily listen to him, and do what he desires; they are near at hand, and he would have no difficulty in procuring them” (Friedlander translation, p. 376).</i> Observe, whoever defiles himself is distanced from God, from receiving God.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">27</sup><i class=\"footnote\">God can only be received when a person is in a state of purity. God turns away from those who are defiled. See Deut. 23:15.</i> Scripture therefore mentions, <i>I am the Lord</i>. THE NAKEDNESS OF THY FATHER. Scripture begins<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">28</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The list of those with whom one is not permitted to engage in sexual intercourse.</i> with the father, who precedes the son.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">29</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Scripture begins the list of those with whom one is not allowed to engage in sexual intercourse with those related to one’s closest male relative.</i> Scripture states that anyone who is closely related to his father or mother<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">30</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Literally, of the nakedness of the father or the nakedness of the mother.</i> is prohibited. Note, the nakedness of the mother is the one that is mentioned first.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">31</sup><i class=\"footnote\">For she is the most closely related female.</i> The nakedness of the father’s wife, who is not the mother, follows. Then comes the sister, who is the daughter of his father or the daughter of his mother. BORN AT HOME. Who was born in accordance with the laws of the house of Israel following the first and second stage of marriage.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">32</sup><i class=\"footnote\">A Jewish marriage is effectuated in two stages, <i>erusin</i> and <i>nusu’in</i>. During the first stage the bride still lives with her parents. In the second step she moves into her husbands house. Today the two stages are combined.</i> BORN ABROAD. Unconventionally.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">33</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Out of wedlock.</i> Some say that <i>born at home</i> is similar to <i>were born upon Joseph’s knees</i> (Gen. 50:23).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">34</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to I.E., <i>were brought up on Joseph’s knees</i> means were brought up in Joseph’s house.</i> It means she grew up with you in the same house. It is possible that <i>born abroad</i> means she is in a different place and a different city and grew up away from you, outside of your father’s house. Scripture next mentions <i>thy son’s daughter</i> (v. 10).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">35</sup><i class=\"footnote\">After mentioning those closest to one’s father, his wives, and his daughters, it mentions those close to one’s son.</i> THE NAKEDNESS OF THY FATHER’S WIFE’S DAUGHTER. There are those who say that this refers to a sister from a father and mother.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">36</sup><i class=\"footnote\">While verse 9 speaks of a sister from one’s father or one’s mother. Hence our verse is not redundant.</i> We know<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">37</sup><i class=\"footnote\">From this verse; i.e., we learn from this verse.</i> that the one who sleeps with a sister from a father and mother violates two negative laws.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">38</sup><i class=\"footnote\">He transgresses the law prohibiting intercourse with the daughter of one’s father (v. 9) and the law forbidding intercourse with the daughter of the wife of one’s father.</i> There are those who say that our verse was written for emphasis.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">39</sup><i class=\"footnote\">It repeats what is written in verse 9 to emphasize that one is not to sleep with one’s sister.</i> The Sadducees<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">40</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The Karaites.</i> say that <i>thy father’s wife’s daughter</i> does not refer to the daughter of one’s mother. They explain that <i>begotten of thy father</i> means whom your father raised. Our verse deals with an instance in which the father took a woman who had a small daughter. They say the same thing regarding Tamar.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">41</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Tamar was the daughter of David. She was raped by her brother Amnon. See II Sam. 13:1-22. According to the Karaites, Tamar was not actually David’s daughter. She was his stepdaughter. When David married her mother she was already grown. According to the Karaites, Scripture only prohibits a stepsister that grew up in one’s home. Hence it was permitted for Amnon to take her in marriage,</i> Their proof is, <i>for he will not withhold me from thee</i> (II Sam. 13:13).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">42</sup><i class=\"footnote\">If she were his real sister, she would not have said this to Amnon.</i> She thus was not begotten by David. Now since the transmitters of tradition said that the daughter of your father’s wife is permitted, we have no need to answer those who invent things in their hearts. It is possible that “the daughter of thy father’s wife” refers to a daughter<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">43</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Of one’s father.</i> resulting from a rape.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">44</sup><i class=\"footnote\">While verse 9 speak of a sister born in wedlock. Hence our verse is not redundant.</i>  The word <i>she’er</i> (kin<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">45</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Literally, flesh.</i>) and <i>basar</i> (kin)<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">46</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Literally, flesh.</i> are close in meaning. SHE IS THINE AUNT. She is considered as your aunt.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">47</sup><i class=\"footnote\">For she is the wife of your uncle.</i> Similarly “Behold Hanamel, my uncle.”<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">48</sup><i class=\"footnote\">There is no such verse. The reference appears to be to Jer. 32:7, <i>Behold Hanamel, the son of Shallum thine uncle. Vat. Ebr</i>. 38 reads: <i>in the presence of Hanamel mine uncle</i> (Jer. 32:6). Be that as it may, I.E.’s point is that Hanamel was not Jeremiah’s uncle. He was the son of Jeremiah’s uncle. Nevertheless, Scripture refers to him as his uncle.</i> Now what will those who rely on the Torah alone for the commandments<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">49</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The Karaites.</i> do? For Scripture does not prohibit the wife of the brother of one’s mother, and not the mother of one’s father, or the mother of one’s mother.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">50</sup><i class=\"footnote\">They are prohibited by Rabbinic dictate. However, the Karaites, who do not accept Rabbinic tradition, have no basis for prohibiting these women.</i> We therefore need tradition. It is possible that the reason that Scripture did not mention that the wife of one’s mother’s brother is prohibited is that we learn this from the prohibition of the wife of the father’s brother. The prohibition of the wife of one’s brother is mentioned in the Torah (Lev. 19:3) portion <i>Ye shall be holy</i>. Also, the reason that those whom I mentioned<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">51</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The mother of one’s father and the mother of one’s mother.</i> are not listed in Scripture is that the Torah speaks of that which is prevalent.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">52</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Sexual intercourse with grandparents is extremely rare.</i> THOU SHALT NOT UNCOVER THE NAKEDNESS OF THY BROTHER’S WIFE. This is explained in the Torah portion <i>If brethren dwell together</i> (Deut. 25:5).  To the one who asks why didn’t Scripture mention a daughter, [I reply] that the daughter is stated in <i>Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter</i> (Lev. 18:17), whether or not it is his daughter, for once he has slept with the mother the daughter is prohibited. THEY ARE NEAR KINSWOMEN. <i>She’er</i> (kin) and <i>sha’arah</i> (kinswomen) are two nouns. If the <i>alef</i> of <i>sha’arah</i> were not a guttural, it would be quiescent like the <i>lamed</i> of <i>salmah</i> (raiment) (Ex. 22:8).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">53</sup><i class=\"footnote\">I.E.’s point is, if the <i>alef</i> of <i>sha’arah</i> were not a guttural, it would have been vocalized with a <i>sheva na</i>, rather than with a <i>chataf pattach</i>.</i> TO BE A RIVAL. <i>Li-tzeror</i> (to be a rival) is related to the word <i>tzaratah</i> (her rival) in <i>And her rival vexed her</i> (I Sam. 1:6). Note, Scripture does not mention in the Torah portion <i>Ye shall be holy</i> (Lev. 19:2)<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">54</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The Torah portion <i>Ye shall be holy</i> lists those with whom one is not permitted to have sexual intercourse and the punishment for violating these prohibitions.</i> the punishment for sleeping with two sisters, and it does not mention the punishment for sleeping with the daughter of one’s son and with the daughter of one’s daughter.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">55</sup><i class=\"footnote\">I.E. notes this. However, he does not explain why.</i> The one who says that Rachel and Leah<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">56</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Two sisters whom Jacob married.</i> were not sisters<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">57</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hence Jacob was permitted to marry them.</i> errs. His proof is, <i>for all these abominations…</i> (Lev. 18:27).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">58</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Marrying two sisters is thus an abomination. Jacob would not commit an abominable act.</i> However, this is not a rigorous proof. There are those who answer the one who asks, how could God punish for something He did not warn against,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">59</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Verses 27 and 28 tells us that the Canaanites were punished for practicing the sexual acts that the Torah prohibits. Hence the question arose from the anonymous commentator quoted by I.E.</i> by saying the sons of Noah were warned about these sexual offenses. Others say<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">60</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In reply to the problem raised by Jacob marrying two sisters.</i> that even though Scripture makes a general statement, <i>for all these abominations…</i>, the reference is not to all these abominations but to most of them.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">61</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The phrase does not include two sisters. Thus marrying two sisters is not an abomination. The law prohibiting two sisters did not apply to Jacob, who lived before the Torah was given to Israel.</i> You will learn my opinion<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">62</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Regarding why Jacob was permitted to marry two sisters.</i> in the Torah portion <i>And Moses went</i> (Deut. 31:1).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">63</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See I.E. on Deut. 31:16 and the notes thereto (Vol. 4, p. 227).</i>  One who sleeps with a menstruating woman is considered to have slept with a woman whose nakedness one is prohibited from uncovering.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">64</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Even though the prohibition to have intercourse with her is limited to the time of her menses and the child born from such an act is not considered a <i>mamzer</i> (illegitimate).</i> WITH THY NEIGHBOR’S WIFE. This excludes the captive woman.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">65</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See Deut. 21:10-14.</i> There are those who say that she<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">66</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Our verse does not deal with a non-Jewish woman, for a non-Jewish woman is prohibited to an Israelite whether she is married or not. However, a Jewish woman is prohibited to an Israelite only if she is married. Thus “thy neighbor’s wife” does not stand in contrast to a married captive woman but in contrast to an unmarried Jewish woman (Filwarg). For other interpretations see Rabbi Samuel Zarza, Krinsky, and Weiser.</i> was previously prohibited. Those whose sexual craving<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">67</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Literally, lust of their inclination.</i> overcame the intelligence of their heart erred in explaining the meaning of <i>le-zara</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">68</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Literally, to give seed.</i> (carnally).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">69</sup><i class=\"footnote\">These commentators read our verse as follows: You shall not lie with your neighbor’s wife for the purpose of seed that is to impregnate her.</i> We know that sexual intercourse is divided into three groups. One, to be fruitful and multiply<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">70</sup><i class=\"footnote\">For reproduction.</i> and not to satisfy lust. Two, to relieve the fullness of the body.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">71</sup><i class=\"footnote\">For release of sexual tension. So too Maimonides, <i>M.T. Hilkhot De’ot</i> 3:2, “He will…not engage in sexual intercourse whenever he lusts, but only when he knows that he has to ejaculate for reasons of health.”</i> Three, for the purpose of lust, which is similar to the lust of an animal.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">72</sup><i class=\"footnote\">For pure sexual pleasure.</i> Now since Scripture says <i>le-zara</i> (carnally), the meaning of which is even for seed,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">73</sup><i class=\"footnote\">I.E. renders our verse: You shall not lie with your neighbor’s wife even for the purpose of producing seed (children), that is, to impregnate her.</i> a married woman is prohibited by a very severe prohibition.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">74</sup><i class=\"footnote\">For a married woman is prohibited even if the adultery is not committed for the purpose of sexual lust.</i> <i>And thou shalt not give any of thy seed to set them apart to Molech</i> (v. 21) is proof.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">75</sup><i class=\"footnote\">That <i>le-zara</i> (for seed) means for the purpose of children, for the word seed in verse 21 definitely applies to children.</i> Scripture adds to <i>defile thyself with her</i> to let us know that the one who touches her will not be cleansed; he will be defiled forever. This verse<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">76</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Verse 21.</i> does not at all prohibit a non-Jewish woman.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">77</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to this interpretation verse 21 prohibits intercourse with a non-Jewish woman, who will offer her children to Molech (Weiser). See I.E. on Lev. 21:2. Other non-Jewish women are not included in this verse. <i>Vat. Ebr</i>. 38 reads: This verse (verse 21) prohibits all non-Jewish women.</i> There is no argument from the captive woman,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">78</sup><i class=\"footnote\">That one may marry non-Jewish women, for the captive woman is not Jewish and yet an Israelite may marry her.</i> for she converts to Judaism. TO MOLECH. Molech is the name of an image. The rabbis interpreted Molech as a general term for all<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">79</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Any idol.</i> whom a person accepts as a king over him.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">80</sup><i class=\"footnote\">For the word Molech is connected to the word <i>melekh</i> (king).</i> It is possible that Molech is the abomination of the Ammonites.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">81</sup><i class=\"footnote\">God of the Ammonites.</i>  The word <i>le-ha’avir</i> (to set apart) is to burn, for that was the way Molech was worshipped. Some say that they used to pass<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">82</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The word <i>le-ha’avir</i> (to set apart) literally means to pass over.</i> their sons over the fire. Some lived and some died. In view of the fact that the verse does not mention fire, some explained <i>le-ha’avir lamolekh</i> (to set apart to Molech) as meaning to cause to pass over from the Torah of God to another religion.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">83</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Our verse literally reads: You shall not give any of your seed to cause them to pass over to Molech.</i> You will defile the Lord who is known as your God<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">84</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Literally, the Lord who is called over you that He is your God.</i> when you give from the holy seed to Molech. The Gaon says that fornication has eight levels.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">85</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See I.E. on Ex. 20:13 (Vol. 2, p. 430).</i> The most severe is intercourse with a beast of another species; afterwards comes the male, the entire gender of which is prohibited; afterwards comes the nakedness of the father’s wife and her companions,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">86</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Other women who are similarly prohibited.</i> which are prohibited at all times. I will not dwell on this, for what purpose is there to these words since Scripture says, concerning all of them, <i>even the souls that do them shall be cut off</i> (v. 29). WITH MANKIND. Since we find, <i>Behold, I lay yester-night with my father</i> (Gen. 19:34), we see that the prohibition<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">87</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Thou shalt not lie</i>.</i> applies to the one who lay and the one who is lain with.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">88</sup><i class=\"footnote\">For Lot’s daughter was lain with and yet she said, <i>Behold, I lay yesternight with my father</i>.</i> Rabbi Hannanel, of blessed memory, says that there are those in whose body a female genitalia is newly formed.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">89</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to Rabbi Hannanel our verse speaks of anal intercourse and vaginal intercourse with a man who has an artificial vagina.</i> However, this is impossible according to the laws of nature.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">90</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Scripture would not prohibit something which does not normally exist.</i> There are those who say that the reference is to an androgynous person. All this pain was caused by the fact that Scripture employs the plural <i>mishkeve ishah</i> (as with womankind).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">91</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The literal meaning of <i>mishkeve ishah</i> is “intercourses of a woman.” Intercourses is plural. It implies more than one type of intercourse, i.e., anal and vaginal intercourse.</i> There is an individual opinion<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">92</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In the Talmud. See <i>San</i>. 55a.</i> that <i>mishkeve ishah</i> refers to two types of intercourse.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">93</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Vaginal and anal. This interpretation explains our verse as follows: You shall not sleep with a man by employing one of the two types of intercourse that one employs when having intercourse with a woman. In other words, do not engage in anal intercourse with a male.</i> I believe that the precept is to be taken literally.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">94</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The reference in our verse is to anal intercourse.</i> The men of sound wisdom<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">95</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The rabbis.</i> also applied the death penalty to those who performed this act.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">96</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See <i>Yevamot</i> 83b.</i> Scripture employed respectable language in saying [thou shalt not lie].<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">97</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Lie</i> is a euphemism for intercourse.</i> Compare, <i>thou shalt not approach</i> (v. 14).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">98</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Approach</i> is a euphemism for intercourse.</i> Now, since the male was created to make<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">99</sup><i class=\"footnote\">To penetrate the woman and thus impregnate her.</i> and the female to be made,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">100</sup><i class=\"footnote\">To be penetrated and impregnated.</i> Scripture notes that one should not reverse the words of God. There is a type of laying whose aim is to emit semen.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">101</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The term <i>mishkeve</i> literally means layings of. I.E.’s point is that <i>mishkeve</i> here refers to laying down for the purpose of pouring seed; i.e., it is a euphemism for intercourse.</i> Hence Scripture employs the term <i>mishkeve</i> which is a plural.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">102</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Both partners in the homosexual act emit semen. Hence the plural <i>mishkeve</i> (Krinsky).</i> It is unfit to dwell at length on this.  Scripture states <i>it is abomination</i>, for it is an abomination to a holy soul even by the laws of nature.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">103</sup><i class=\"footnote\">It is not only prohibited by the Torah, it is unnatural.</i>  I have already explained the word <i>shekhovtekha</i> (lie carnally).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">104</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See I.E. on verse 20.</i> It is possible that the word <i>shekhovtekha</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">105</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Literally, your laying.</i> is derived from <i>shekhivah</i> (lying), for the emission of semen comes along with lying.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">106</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hence laying is a euphemism for ejaculation.</i> As Scripture states to defile <i>thyself with her</i> (v. 20) with regard to a married woman, it similarly says so with regard to a beast. AND…ANY BEAST. A female beast. BEFORE A BEAST. A male beast. TO LIE DOWN THERETO.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">107</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hebrew, <i>le-rivah</i> (to lie her down) i.e., to have intercourse with her.</i> <i>Le-rivah</i> reverts to the beast, for the woman is the one who is penetrated.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">108</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Le-rivah</i> literally means to lie her down, i.e., to have intercourse with her. Hence I.E.’s interpretation.</i> The word <i>rivah</i> (lie down) is related to the word <i>arba’ah</i> (four).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">109</sup><i class=\"footnote\">An animals lies down on all fours.</i> IT IS PERVERSION. The grammarians say that the word <i>tevel</i> (perversion) comes from a double root.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">110</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Its root is <i>bet, lamed, lamed</i>.</i> Compare, <i>temes</i> (melteth)<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">111</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Whose root is <i>mem, samekh, samekh</i>.</i> in <i>which melteth and passeth away</i> (Ps. 58:9). The <i>tav</i> of <i>tevel</i> is superfluous.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">112</sup><i class=\"footnote\">It has no translatable meaning. It is a form letter.</i> They say that <i>tevel</i> means destruction.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">113</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The seed is destroyed, for conception cannot result.</i> There are those who say that the word <i>mabbul</i> (flood) is related to it.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">114</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to this interpretation <i>mabbul</i> means destruction.</i> However, the word <i>mabbul</i> is most likely related to the word <i>balal</i> (confound) in <i>the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth</i> (Gen. 11:9). This is the general rule: Scripture prohibits all kinds of women with which it is possible for a person to be alone;<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">115</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Close relatives. See I.E. on verse 6.</i> a married woman, a non-Jewish woman,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">116</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This comment seems to satisfy the reading in <i>Vat. Ebr</i>. 38 quoted in note 77.</i> and those with whom intercourse cannot result in children,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">117</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Bestiality.</i> for a kind cannot reproduce except with its own kind and with those like its kind. DEFILE NOT YE YOURSELVES. The <i>tet</i> of <i>tittamme’u</i> (defile ye yourselves) has a <i>dagesh</i> to compensate for the swallowed<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">118</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Missing.</i> <i>tav</i> of the <i>hitpa’el</i>.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">119</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Tittamme’u</i> is a <i>hitpa’el</i>.</i> The <i>dagesh</i> does not compensate for the <i>nun</i> of the <i>nifal</i>.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">120</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In other words, <i>tittamme’u</i> is not a <i>nifal</i> imperfect.</i> The <i>dagesh</i> in the <i>mem</i> of <i>tittamme’u</i>, which is there according to the rules of grammar, is proof of this.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">121</sup><i class=\"footnote\">A <i>dagesh</i> is not placed in the middle root letter in the <i>nifal</i> imperfect It is in the <i>hitpa’el</i>.</i> Observe, Scripture notes that each one of these acts defiles the soul. WHICH I CAST OUT FROM BEFORE YOU. It means, from the Holy Land, dead or expelled.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">122</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The nations of Canaan either were killed or fled from the land.</i> AND THE LAND VOMITED OUT HER INHABITANTS. Whatever a person regurgitates is despised in his eyes, and he will not take it back. YE THEREFORE SHALL KEEP MY STATUTES. The very ones that I enumerated<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">123</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In this chapter.</i> shall be prohibited to you. AND MINE ORDINANCES. You shall execute the judgment which I will command, upon the one who violates any of these. The reason that <i>and shall not do any of these abominations</i> is written a second time<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">124</sup><i class=\"footnote\">God had already told Israel not to follow Canaanite practices in verse 3. Why then repeat the same idea in our verse?</i> is to include the stranger, for this precept<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">125</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Not do any of these abominations</i>.</i> applies equally to the native and to the stranger who dwells in the Land of Israel. If you have any intelligence<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">126</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Literally, a heart.</i> you can understand why in past days Jacob took two sisters in Haran and later Amram took his aunt in Egypt, and they were not defiled through them.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">127</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See I.E. on Deut. 31:16 and the notes thereto (Vol. 4, p. 227).</i>  The meaning of <i>for all these abominations</i> <sup class=\"footnote-marker\">128</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>For all these abomination have the men of the land done…and the land…vomited out the nation that was before you</i>.</i> (Lev. 18:27) is, you and your children shall know this so that you shall keep these precepts, and the land will be pure and the land will not regurgitate you. THESE. <i>Ha-el</i> (these) and <i>ha-elleh</i> (these) (v. 29) have one meaning. Compare, <i>ha-hem</i> (those) and <i>ha-hemah</i> (those). However, this is not the opinion of the Gaon.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">129</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See I.E. on Gen. 19:8 (Vol. 1, p. 204).</i> AS IT VOMITED OUT. <i>Ka’ah</i> (vomited out) is a verb in the perfect. It is related to the word <i>keyo</i> (spew)<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">130</sup><i class=\"footnote\">From the root <i>kof, yod, heh</i>.</i> in <i>Drink ye, and be drunken, and spew</i> (Jer. 25:27), for the letters <i>alef, heh, vav, yod</i> interchange.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">131</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The <i>alef</i> of <i>ka’ah</i> is in place of a <i>yod</i>.</i> The word <i>eretz</i> is found in the masculine.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">132</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Ka’ah</i> is masculine. Hence the noun <i>eretz</i>, which it governs, has to be masculine.</i> Compare, <i>netam aretz</i> (the land burnt up)<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">133</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Netam</i> is masculine. Hence the noun <i>aretz</i>, which it governs, is masculine.</i> (Is. 9:18), and <i>ve-lo nasa otam ha-aretz</i> (and the land was not able to bear them)<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">134</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Nasa</i> is masculine. Hence the noun <i>eretz</i>, which it governs, is masculine.</i> (Gen. 13:6).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">135</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Eretz</i> is usually feminine. Hence I.E.’s comment.</i> On the other hand, the word <i>hiy</i> (it)<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">136</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Literally, she.</i> might be missing.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">137</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In this case, <i>ka’ah</i> is a feminine participle from the root <i>kof, alef, heh</i>, and <i>eretz</i> is feminine.</i> Our verse should be interpreted as if it read, <i>ka’asher hiy ka’ah</i> (as it vomited out). In this case, <i>ka’ah</i> is similar to <i>ba’ah</i> (cometh) in <i>cometh with the sheep</i> (Gen. 29:6).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">138</sup><i class=\"footnote\">For <i>ba’ah</i> is a feminine participle from the root <i>bet, alef, heh</i>.</i> EVEN THE SOULS THAT DO THEM SHALL BE CUT OFF. If they do so in public you shall put them to death. If they do so in secret then I will cut them off. THEREFORE SHALL YE KEEP MY CHARGE. This charge. The charge being not to do [any of these abominable practices].  The meaning of <i>which were done before you</i> is, a person shall not say, since the earlier ones did so, I will also do so.  <i>I am the Lord your God</i> is connected to <i>My charge</i>.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">139</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Not to <i>that ye defile not yourselves therein</i>, which precedes it. The thrust of our verse is, <i>Therefore shall ye keep My charge</i>, for <i>I am the Lord your God</i>.</i> One who lacks intelligence<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">140</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Literally, an intelligent heart.</i> shall not ask,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">141</sup><i class=\"footnote\">An intelligent person would not ask this question, for the prohibitions are based on reason.</i> “Why this charge?”<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">142</sup><i class=\"footnote\">What reason is there for this charge?</i> For I am the Lord your God. Do all that I command you. [UNTO ALL THE CONGREGATION OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL.] The reason that Scripture states <i>unto all the congregation of the children of Israel</i> is to exclude strangers<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">1</sup><i class=\"footnote\">So <i>Vat. Ebr.</i> 38. <i>Mikra’ot Gedolot</i> reads, <i>The reason why Scripture states unto all the congregation of the children of Israel is to <span class=\"underline\">include</span> the strangers</i>. The reading in <i>Vat. Ebr.</i> 38 appears correct, for <i>unto all the congregation of the children of Israel</i> seems to imply that what follows only applies to the children of Israel. Furthermore, in his comments on Lev. 20:1, I.E. explicitly says that our chapter applies only to the children of Israel. By strangers I.E. means non-Jews living in Israel. See I.E. on Ex. 20:9 (Vol. 2, p. 427).</i> since they, like the Israelites, are commanded to abstain from prohibited sexual relations.  The reason this chapter follows the one dealing with prohibited sexual relations is that the Israelites should not imagine that they would remain in the land by observing only the laws dealing with the prohibited sexual relations. God informs them that there are other commandments. If they do not observe them, they will be exiled from the land. The aforementioned are the ten statements.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">2</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In our chapter. Our chapter, as I.E. goes on to explain, contains ten precepts which parallel the Decalogue.</i> God warns against idol worship after stating, <i>I the Lord…am holy</i> which, according to many commentators, is parallel to the first statement of the Decalogue.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">3</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>For I the Lord…am holy</i> (Ex. 20:7).</i> <i>And ye shall not swear by my name falsely</i> (v. 12) is parallel to <i>Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain</i> (Ex. 20:7). AND YE SHALL KEEP MY SABBATHS. This parallels <i>Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy</i> (Ex. 20:8). <i>Ye shall fear every man his mother, and his father</i> is similar to <i>Honor thy father and thy mother</i> (Ex. 20:12). <i>Neither shalt thou stand idly by the blood of thy neighbor</i> (v. 16) is likewise the same as the statement <i>Thou shalt not murder</i> (Ex. 20:13). The law regarding the bondmaid designated for a man (v. 20) is parallel to <i>Thou shalt not commit adultery</i> (Ex. 20:13 with a free woman. Similarly, <i>Ye shall not steal; neither shall ye deal falsely, nor lie one to another</i> (v. 11); <i>Thou shalt not oppress thy neighbor</i> (v. 13) are parallel to the three remaining statements.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">4</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Of the Decalogue. <i>Ye shall not steal</i> is parallel to <i>Thou shalt not steal</i> (Ex. 20:13). <i>Neither shall ye deal falsely, nor lie one to another</i> is parallel to <i>Thou shalt not bear false witness</i> (<i>Ibid</i>.). <i>Thou shalt not oppress thy neighbor</i> is parallel to <i>Thou shalt not covet</i> (Ex. 20:14).</i> I have previously told you in my comments on the Torah portion <i>Ve-Elleh Ha-Mishpatim</i> (now these are the ordinances) (Ex. 21:1) that each and every precept stands by itself.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">5</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Each and every precept is an independent statement. It is not connected to what comes before nor to what follows. See I.E. on Ex. 21:2 (Vol. 2, p. 448).</i> However,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">6</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hebrew, <i>lakhen</i> (literally, therefore). However, I.E. occasionally uses the term <i>lakhen</i> in the sense of however (Filwarg). It is also possible that we should read <i>akeh</i> rather than <i>lakhen</i>.</i> there is some support for connecting the verses.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">7</sup><i class=\"footnote\">If we try, we can find a reason that the commandments follow each other.</i> Note, the section that opens with the words <i>Ye shall be holy</i> (v. 2) begins with <i>Ye shall fear every man his mother, and his father</i> (v. 3). Now Scripture tells us that the years of the one who honors his parents will be long (Ex. 20:12). This implies that the days of one who disrespects his parents will be shortened. Scripture therefore says, <i>Ye shall fear</i>.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">8</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Ex. 20:12 reads, <i>Honor thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long</i>. The implication is that one who disrespects his parents will suffer premature death. According to I.E. the meaning of <i>Ye shall fear every man his mother, and father</i> is, be afraid of disrespecting your parents, for if you dishonor them you will suffer dire consequences. Our verse is thus parallel to Ex. 20:12.</i> The reason Scripture mentions the mother before the father is that a child first recognizes only its mother.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">9</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to I.E. our verse is directed at a child. Hence it mentions the mother first. When the Bible mentions the father first (Ex. 20:12) it is directed at an adult.</i> Then it recognizes its father. The Torah next mentions the Sabbath because, unlike all the other festivals, a child is commanded to keep the Sabbath.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">10</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to I.E. a father is obligated to prevent his child from doing work on the Sabbath. See I.E. on Ex. 20:8 (Vol. 2, p. 426).</i> The child shall then recognize his God who rested on the seventh day.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">11</sup><i class=\"footnote\">By resting on the Sabbath the child will come to know that there is a God in the world. Hence our verse concludes with <i>I am the Lord your God</i>. I.E. speaks of a progression. The child learns to recognize its mother, then its father, and then God.</i> Scripture next mentions, <i>Turn ye not unto the idols</i> (v. 4). We know from tradition what Scripture means by fearing parents.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">12</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to the <i>Sifra</i> fearing one’s father refers to sitting in his place, speaking in his turn, and contradicting him. See <i>Sifra</i> on this verse.</i> Our verse employs the word <i>ish</i> (every man) once<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">13</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Elsewhere the Torah uses the term <i>ish ish</i>. See Lev. 17:3,10,13; Lev. 15:2.</i> because it wants to be brief. Scripture employs the plural <i>tira’u</i> (ye shall fear)<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">14</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Ish</i> is in the singular. Thus the verb governing it should be in the singular. Hence I.E.’s comment.</i> because those who observe the child have to teach him and force him to fear his parents. It is the same case regarding Sabbath observance.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">15</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Those who observe the child violating the Sabbath have to correct him.</i>  The meaning of <i>I am the Lord your God</i> is, act as I did, for I rested from all work on the Sabbath. TURN YE NOT. Even in your hearts to look upon them.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">16</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Do not even think about looking at idols.</i> UNTO THE IDOLS.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">17</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hebrew, <i>elilim</i>.</i> The reference is to statues. They are called <i>elilim</i> because they are false objects. Compare the word <i>elil</i> (no value) in <i>Ye are physicians of no value</i> (Job 13:4). It is possibly related to the word <i>al</i> (not). <i>Elilim</i> means things that do not exist. NOR…MOLTEN GODS. Made to receive power from those who are on high, for there is no need for another god along with Me.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">18</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See I.E. on Gen. 31:19 (Vol. 1, p. 300); Ex. 20:20 (Vol. 2, p. 437).</i> Scripture therefore states,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">19</sup><i class=\"footnote\">At the end of our verse.</i> <i>I am the Lord your God</i>. Scripture employs the plurals <i>tifnu</i> (turn ye) and <i>ta’asu</i> (make), for the one who sees idol worship and does not reveal the matter is a partner of the idolater. AND WHEN YE OFFER A SACRIFICE OF PEACE-OFFERINGS. This is connected to what is written above.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">20</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The previous verse.</i> It means that one shall not sacrifice to the demons, no-gods,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">21</sup><i class=\"footnote\">I.E.’s paraphrase of Deut. 32:17’s description of idols.</i> but only unto God. Scripture employs the plural <i>tizbechu</i> (ye offer), for Scripture is speaking about what is most prevalent, for people to join together to offer a sacrifice.  Scripture reads <i>li-retzonekhem</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">22</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Literally, in accordance with your will.</i> (that ye may be accepted) because they shall not be forced to bring the offering but shall offer it of their own free will. BUT EVERY ONE THAT EATETH IT. The meaning of <i>okhelav</i> is every one that eats of it.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">23</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Okhelav</i> is a plural. It literally means they that eat of it. Our verse thus literally reads, they that eat of it shall bear his iniquity. Hence I.E.’s interpretation.</i> Similarly <i>But the righteous are secure as a young lion</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">24</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Translated literally.</i> (Prov. 28:1).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">25</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to I.E. the meaning of Prov. 28:1 is, each one of the righteous is secure as a young lion. See I.E. on Gen. 49:22 (Vol. 1, p. 44, notes 156,157).</i> BECAUSE HE HATH PROFANED THE HOLY THING OF THE LORD. After he offered the parts designated to God by Scripture, all the flesh<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">26</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Of the sacrifice.</i> is holy. <i>Chillel</i> (profaned) is related to the word <i>chol</i> (profane). It is something that has no significance.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">27</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Literally, meaning.</i> It is like an empty space (<i>challel</i>). In this section<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">28</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Unlike Lev. 7:18.</i> Scripture explains the punishment,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">29</sup><i class=\"footnote\">For eating on the third day from that which remains of a peace offering.</i> namely, <i>and that soul shall be cut off</i>. [AND WHEN YE REAP THE HARVEST.] This follows the law dealing with the peace offering, for as you gave to God the parts designated in Scripture, so shall you, out of respect for God, give what Scripture designates from the harvest of your land<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">30</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In verses 9 and 10.</i> for the poor and the stranger. The word <i>u-ve-kutzrekhem</i> (and when ye reap the harvest) is grammatically irregular.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">31</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The word should have been vocalized with a <i>kamatz katan</i> rather than with a <i>kubbutz</i>. In other words, <i>u-ve-kutzrekhem</i> should have read <i>u-ve-kotzrekhem</i>.</i> It is an infinitive<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">32</sup><i class=\"footnote\">With a pronominal suffix.</i> in the <i>kal</i>. THE CORNER OF THY FIELD. The Israelite shall leave a corner in the field.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">33</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In other words, <i>thou shalt not wholly reap the corner of thy field</i> means you shall leave a corner of the field.</i> THE GLEANING. The meaning of <i>leket</i> (gleaning) is known. GLEAN. <i>Te’olel</i> (glean) means to cut off the <i>olelot</i>, that is the young grapes. Compare, <i>olel</i> (young child). Very young children are also called <i>yonekot</i> (sucklings).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">34</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See Lam. 2:11, <i>olel ve-yonek</i> (young children and the sucklings).</i> This word<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">35</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Olel</i> means a young child or a young plant. <i>Te’olel</i> thus appears to mean to plant a young shoot. However, it has the opposite meaning. It means to harvest a young plant. Thus a word coming from a root meaning a young plant can, in the <i>pi’el</i>, have the opposite meaning, i.e., to destroy a young plant.</i> is similar to <i>shereshkha</i> (root thee out)<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">36</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Shereshkha</i> comes from the stem meaning root. Thus the word might be taken to mean to root. However, it has the opposite meaning in the <i>pi’el</i>.</i> in <i>And root thee out of the land of the living</i> (Ps. 52:7), the meaning of which is, to cut the root. Similarly the meaning <i>of mesa’ef</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">37</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Mesa’ef</i> comes from the same root as <i>se’if</i> (a branch). However, in the <i>p’iel</i> it means to cut the branches.</i> <i>purah</i> (Is. 10:33) is to lop the boughs. THE FALLEN FRUIT. The meaning of <i>peret</i> (fallen fruit) is known in the words of tradition.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">38</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The word <i>perat</i> is often used in Rabbinic tradition and there has the meaning of that which is singled out. See <i>Sotah</i> 37b; <i>Chagigah</i> 6a. Thus <i>peret</i> means the single grapes that fall off the vine. See <i>Pe’ah</i> 6:5, <i>Two grapes are peret; three are not peret</i>.</i> It is related to the word <i>poretim</i> (thrum)<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">39</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to I.E. <i>ha-poretim…al ha-navel</i> means those that pluck on each one of the strings of the psaltery.</i> in <i>That thrum on the psaltery</i> (Amos 6:5). FOR THE POOR. Of Israel. AND FOR THE STRANGER. Who lives among you.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">40</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The non-Jewish stranger. See I.E. on verse 2 and the notes thereto.</i> [YE SHALL NOT STEAL.] <i>Ye shall not steal</i> follows,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">41</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The laws of leaving part of the produce to the poor.</i> for Scripture, as it were, says I have commanded that you give from your property to the poor out of respect for God.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">42</sup><i class=\"footnote\">I.E.’s interpretation of <i>I am the Lord your God</i> (v. 10) which concludes the laws of leaving part of the produce to the poor.</i> You shall certainly not take what belongs to others.  Scripture employs the plural <i>Ye shall not steal</i>, for the one who sees and is silent is also a thief. NEITHER SHALL YE DEAL FALSELY. This applies to something which has been deposited with you. The one who knows and does not testify also deals falsely.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">43</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hence the plural, “ye.”</i> NOR LIE. Seek money from one who does not owe you anything.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">44</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The verse deals with appropriating someone else’s property. Hence I.E.’s comment.</i> [AND YE SHALL NOT SWEAR BY MY NAME FALSELY.] This follows <i>Ye shall not steal</i>, for the one who is suspected of theft and dealing falsely with regard to a deposit swears.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">45</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See Lev. 5:20-25.</i> Scripture employs the plural <i>ye shall not swear</i> because it wants to include the one who causes an oath to be taken.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">46</sup><i class=\"footnote\">One is not permitted to concoct a story and force someone to take an unnecessary oath (Krinsky).</i>  Scripture reads, <i>so that thou profane the name of thy God</i> because, as I have noted,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">47</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See I.E. on Ex. 20:7 (Vol. 2, pp. 423-425).</i> the one who swears falsely denies God. THOU SHALT NOT OPPRESS THY NEIGHBOR. In secret. NOR ROB HIM. Openly by the use of force. THE WAGES. <i>Pe’ulat</i> means the wages of.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">48</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The word <i>pe’ulat</i> literally means labor of. Hence I.E.’s comment.</i> Compare, <i>Behold, His reward</i> (u-fe’ulato) <i>is with Him</i> (Is. 40:10). It is possible that Scripture is elliptical and that <i>pe’ulat</i> is short for <i>sekhar pe’ulato</i> (the wages of his labor). Many say that Scripture speaks of a person hired for the day.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">49</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to this opinion a person hired for the day must be paid as soon as the day is over.</i> One is not permitted to tell him to work the next morning and in the morning say I will pay you for two days’ work. The transmitters of tradition<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">50</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See <i>Bava Metzi’a</i> 61a.</i> say that our verse<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">51</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Which states that a worker must be paid before the morning.</i> refers to someone hired for a day,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">52</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to the rabbis a person hired for the day must be paid before the arrival of the next morning.</i> for the sun is not permitted to set on a worker<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">53</sup><i class=\"footnote\">An unpaid worker.</i> who is hired for the night.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">54</sup><i class=\"footnote\">That is, the verse in Deut. 19:24 which states that a worker’s wages are to be paid before the sun sets speaks of a worker hired for the night; that is, the employer has the entire following day to pay him.</i> [THOU SHALT NOT CURSE THE DEAF.] Because you have the power to do so.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">55</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hence our verse follows verse 13, which speaks of the misuse of power to oppress and rob.</i> You shall likewise not put a stumbling block before the blind. BUT THOU SHALT FEAR THY GOD. For He is able to punish you and make you deaf and blind. YE SHALL DO NO UNRIGHTEOUSNESS. Scripture speaks of the judges and the witnesses.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">56</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hence it employs the plural.</i> THE PERSON OF THE MIGHTY. Great in money such as Barzillai (II Sam. 19:33).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">57</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Barzillai the Gileadite, a friend of King David. Scripture described Barzillai as a very great man. The context makes it clear that the reference is to great wealth, for Barzillai sustained King David when David dwelt in Mahanim.</i> A TALEBEARER. The word <i>rakhil</i> (talebearer) is similar to <i>rekhulltekh</i> (thy merchandise) (Ezek. 26:12) and <i>rokhel</i> (merchant) in <i>With all powders of the merchant</i> (Cant. 3:6). <i>Rakhil</i> means a slanderer, for the merchant moves goods. He buys from one person and sells to another. The talebearer reveals to one person what he heard from another person. NEITHER SHALT THOU STAND IDLY BY THE BLOOD OF THY NEIGHBOR. A person should not join bloodthirsty men.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">58</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Literally, men of blood, persons who resort to violence to gain their end. See Prov. 29:10.</i> It is known that many people have been murdered and killed because of slander.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">59</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hence <i>Neither shalt thou stand idly by the blood of thy neighbor</i> follows the law prohibiting tale-bearing.</i> Doeg the Edomite<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">60</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Doeg told King Saul that Achimelech, the <i>kohen</i> of Nob, fed David. This resulted in the destruction of the city of Nob. See I Sam. 22:19.</i> is proof of this.  The meaning of <i>I am the Lord</i> is, I see what you do in secret. THOU SHALT NOT HATE THY BROTHER IN THY HEART. This is the reverse of <i>but thou shalt love thy neighbor</i> (v. 18). Now all of these commandments are implanted in the heart.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">61</sup><i class=\"footnote\">They are rational laws. See I.E. on Ex. 20:1 (Vol. 1, pp. 407,408); <i>Yesod Mora</i>, Chapter 5.</i> Israel will dwell in the land when they observe them, for the second temple was destroyed because of hatred of one’s neighbor for no reason.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">62</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Yoma</i> 10:9.</i> THOU SHALT SURELY REBUKE THY NEIGHBOR. Perhaps you suspected him of something which was not so.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">63</sup><i class=\"footnote\">If you rebuke your neighbor he may explain himself and you will learn that you had no reason to be angry at him.</i> The meaning of <i>and not bear sin because of him</i> is that you be punished because of him.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">64</sup><i class=\"footnote\">If you suspect him of something of which he is innocent (Weiser).</i> THOU SHALT NOT TAKE VENGEANCE, NOR BEAR ANY GRUDGE. This is explained in the words of our rabbis of blessed memory.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">65</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See Rashi on this verse. “If one says to another, Lend me your sickle, and he replies, No. The next day the latter says to the former, Lend me your hatchet, and he replies, I am not going to lend it to you, just as you refused to lend me your sickle—this is taking vengeance…If one says to another, Lend me your sickle, and he replies, No! and the next day the latter says to the former, Lend me your hatchet, and he replies, Here it is; I am not like you, because you would not lend me—this is called bearing a grudge.” See also <i>Yoma</i> 23a.</i> BUT THOU SHALT LOVE THY NEIGHBOR. Many are of the opinion that the <i>lamed</i> of <i>le-re’akha</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">66</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Le-re’akha</i> literally means to thy neighbor.</i> (thy neighbor) is superfluous.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">67</sup><i class=\"footnote\">If we take <i>le-re’akha</i> literally, then our verse reads, but thou shalt love to thy neighbor as thyself. This does not appears to make sense. Hence this interpretation means that we should ignore the <i>lamed</i> prefixed to <i>re’akha</i> and interpret our verse as reading, but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.</i> It is like the <i>lamed</i> of <i>le-avner</i> (Abner) (II Sam. 3:30).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">68</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Le-avner</i> is to be interpreted as if written <i>avner</i>.</i> I believe that <i>le-re’akha</i> is to be taken literally.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">69</sup><i class=\"footnote\">That is, the <i>lamed</i> of <i>le-re’akha</i> (thy neighbor) is not superfluous.</i> Its meaning is that one should love that which is good for one’s neighbor as he does for himself.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">70</sup><i class=\"footnote\">I. E. interprets the <i>lamed</i> of <i>le-re’akha</i> as meaning “for.” He interprets our verse as follows: You shall love for your neighbor what you love for yourself (Krinsky). Weiser claims that I.E. interprets the <i>lamed</i> of <i>le-re’akha</i> as meaning “of.” He interprets our verse as follows: You shall love of your neighbor’s welfare as you love your own welfare.</i>  The meaning of <i>I am the Lord</i> is, I the Lord alone created all of you. [THOU SHALT NOT LET THY CATTLE GENDER WITH A DIVERSE KIND.] The reason Scripture states <i>Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind</i> is to warn us. Since you are holy, in that you do not act violently towards your fellow human being, you must also not do anything to an animal which entails changing God’s work. Scripture therefore reads, <i>Ye shall keep My statutes</i>; that is, each species is to be preserved. A kind is not to interbreed with another kind. WITH A DIVERSE KIND. <i>Kilayim</i> (a diverse kind) means two kinds. I will yet explain the meaning of <i>kilayim</i>.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">71</sup><i class=\"footnote\">I.E. apparently never got around to this (Weiser).</i> The reason for the law regarding a field and a garment is that they serve as reminders,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">72</sup><i class=\"footnote\">They remind us not to alter the species, which God has created, by crossbreeding or cross-planting.</i> for many commandments serve as reminders. Examples of the latter are: the festival of unleavened bread,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">73</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The unleavened bread serves as a reminder of Exodus. See Deut. 16:3.</i> Sukkot,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">74</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The <i>sukkot</i> serve as a reminder of booths in which the Israelites dwelled during their sojourn in the desert (Lev. 23:43).</i> <i>tzitzit</i>,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">75</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The <i>tzitzit</i> serve as a reminder of God’s commandments (Num. 15:39).</i> <i>shofar</i>,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">76</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Scripture speaks of Rosh Ha-Shanah as being a memorial proclaimed with the blast of the horn. The commentaries offer various interpretations of what the sounding of the <i>shofar</i> is to serve as a reminder, among them, God’s revelation, to repent.</i> <i>mezuzah</i>,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">77</sup><i class=\"footnote\">To study and to teach Torah to one’s children. See Deut. 6:4-9; 13-21.</i> and <i>tefilin</i>.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">78</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The <i>tefilin</i> serves a reminder of the Exodus (Ex. 13:9) and of our obligation to study and to teach Torah to our children (Deut: 6:4-9; 13-21). See <i>Yesod Mora</i>, Chapter 5.</i> I will hint to you here at a secret. Know that “the complete is very complete.”<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">79</sup><i class=\"footnote\">A person who is spiritually perfect does not need any reminder of what God desires of him, for on his own he knows God’s will.</i> Scripture therefore says with regard to Abraham,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">80</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Who was complete.</i> <i>and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws</i> (Gen. 26:5).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">81</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Abraham on his own knew and kept God’s charge, commandments, statutes, and laws</i> OF TWO KINDS. The transmitters of tradition said that the word <i>shatnez</i> (two kinds) is made up of three words.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">82</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to the rabbis the term <i>shatnez</i> is a combination of <i>shu’a</i> (hackled), <i>tavuy</i> (spun), and <i>nuz</i> (twined).</i> It may come from a five-letter root.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">83</sup><i class=\"footnote\">It comes from the root <i>shin, ayin, tet, nun, zayin</i>.</i> The meaning of <i>shatnez</i> is “mixed.”<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">84</sup><i class=\"footnote\">It refers to a garment made out of a mixture of linen and wool. See Deut. 22:11.</i> It is a noun which stands alone in Scripture.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">85</sup><i class=\"footnote\">It is not found in the construct, and no word is found to be in the construct with it (Weiser).</i> A BONDMAID, DESIGNATED FOR A MAN. The deniers<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">86</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The Karaites.</i> say that the bondmaid is not a Jewess. However, the correct interpretation according to the plain meaning of the text is that the bondmaid is the one mentioned in <i>And if a man sell his daughter to be a maid-servant</i> (Ex. 21:7) and that she is an Israelite. Our verse deals with an instance in which the bondmaid was designated for marriage to her master or his son.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">87</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See Ex. 21:8,9.</i> However, she had not undergone the first stage of marriage.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">88</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In ancient times marriage was effectuated in two stages. The first stage was called <i>erusin</i>. During the period of <i>erusin</i>, which lasted for a year, the bride remained with her family. In the second stage, called <i>nesu’im</i>, the bride went to live with her husband.</i> The meaning of <i>nor was freedom given her</i> is that she is not free until she undergoes the first stage of marriage as is the practice of young ladies.  Many believe that <i>necherefet</i> means designated. However, I believe that <i>necherefet</i> is related to the word <i>cherpah</i> (reproach) because she is an unmarried virgin maidservant under the control of a stranger. REDEEMED. <i>Hofdeh</i> (redeemed) is an infinitive in the <i>hofal</i>. The meaning of <i>and not at all redeemed</i> is that her father or any other family member did not redeem her before she became a young woman. FREEDOM. The <i>shuruk</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">89</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The <i>kubbutz</i>.</i> in <i>chufshah</i> (freedom) is in place of a furtive <i>kamatz</i>, for the individual form of the word is <i>chofesh</i>.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">90</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Nouns that are vocalized <i>cholam, segol</i> are vocalized with a <i>kamatz katan</i> when declined. Compare, <i>kotel, kotlah</i>; <i>chodesh, chodshah</i>. Thus <i>chufshah</i> should have read <i>chofshah</i>, for the word <i>chufshah</i> (freedom) is the word <i>chofesh</i> plus the pronominal suffix.</i> Scripture states, <i>nor was freedom given her</i>, because it was traditional to write a writ of manumission<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">91</sup><i class=\"footnote\">When she was released from bondage.</i> if her father sold her for a set time. The transmitters of tradition said that our verse speaks of a woman who was half free and half servant.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">92</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See <i>Keritot</i> 2:5. “What manner of bondwoman [does Scripture speak of in Lev. 19:20]? She that is half bondwoman and half freedwoman.”</i> What they said is true. THERE SHALL BE AN INQUISITION. Some say that <i>bikkoret</i> (inquisition) means a concubine.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">93</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This interpretation renders <i>bikkoret tiheyeh</i> (there shall be an inquisition) as she shall be a concubine; that is, she shall not be considered a fully married woman.</i> They say that the same applies to the word <i>biykkrotekha</i> (among thy favorites) in <i>Kings’ daughters are among thy favorites</i> (Ps. 45:10).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">94</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This interpretation renders Ps. 45:10, Kings’ daughters are your concubines.</i> However, they did not explain it correctly, for the meaning of <i>biykkrotekha</i> is, among the precious handmaidens.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">95</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In other words, <i>biykkrotekha</i> is the word <i>yikkrotekha</i> (your precious ones), i.e., your precious maidens plus the <i>bet</i> prefix. There is no connection between <i>bikkoret</i> and <i>biykkrotekha</i>, for the former comes from the root <i>bet, kof, resh</i> and the latter from the root <i>yod, kof, resh</i>.</i> The <i>yod</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">96</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In <i>biykkrotekha</i>.</i> is missing<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">97</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Is silent.</i> because the <i>bet</i>, which serves as a preposition, is vocalized with a <i>chirik</i>.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">98</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The <i>yod</i> of <i>yikkrotekha</i> is swallowed up by the <i>chirik</i>.</i> It is vocalized with a <i>chirik</i> because of the confluence of two mobile <i>shevas</i>,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">99</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Biyikkrotekha</i> is a combination of the prefix <i>be</i> plus the word <i>yekkrotekha</i>. In such cases the prefix is vocalized with a <i>chirik</i> and the <i>yod</i> is not sounded.</i> the first beneath the prefix<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">100</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The <i>bet</i>.</i> and the second beneath the first root letter of the word <i>yikkrotekha</i>, which is in the feminine.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">101</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Yikkrotekha</i>.</i> The tongue does not have the power to enunciate two mobile <i>shevas</i> in succession.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">102</sup><i class=\"footnote\">It is hard to pronounce two mobile <i>shevas</i> back to back.</i> The same is true for the entire language.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">103</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This rule does not apply only to the word <i>biyikkrotekha</i>. It applies to all cases where we have two furtive <i>shevas</i> in succession.</i> There is no exception to this except for the word <i>mi-yeshene</i> (that sleep) in <i>And many of them that sleep in the dust</i> (Dan. 12:2),<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">104</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to the rule, <i>mi-yeshene</i> should have read <i>miyyshene</i>.</i> according to the reading of Ben Naphtali.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">105</sup><i class=\"footnote\">A tenth-century Massoretic scholar who lived in the Land of Israel. He edited the punctuation and accentuation of Scripture according to the tradition of his school.</i> There are those who say that <i>bikkoret</i> is related to the word <i>yevakker</i> (seek) in <i>shall not seek</i> (Lev. 13:36). The meaning of <i>bikkoret</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">106</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to this opinion.</i> is that the matter shall be searched out. The transmitters of tradition say he<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">107</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The one who sleeps with the bondwoman. There appears to be a scribal error in the text, for according to <i>Keritot</i> 11a it is the bondwoman who is lashed. Hence some emend <i>alav</i> to <i>aleha</i>.</i> incurs the penalty of being lashed with a strap made from the skin of cattle (<i>bakar</i>).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">108</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Miscreants were lashed with a whip made of calf hide. See <i>Makkot</i> 3:12. This interpretation renders <i>bikkoret</i> as cattled, i.e., lashed with a strap made of cattle hide. In our texts of Rabbinic literature there is no such interpretation. Radak quotes this interpretation in the name of Rabbi Saadiah Gaon. See Weiser.</i> This is true by way of tradition.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">109</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The law that the bondwoman is whipped with a strap made from cattle hide is true. The latter is known from tradition. It is not derived from the plain meaning of the text.</i> The word <i>bikkoret</i> is used as a support for the tradition.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">110</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The literal meaning of <i>bikkoret</i> is not “lashed by cattle skin.”</i> This section is placed here because the one who sleeps with the bondwoman oppresses the master of the bondwoman.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">111</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The previous verses speak of wronging one’s neighbor.</i> He therefore brings a ram as a guilt offering.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">112</sup><i class=\"footnote\">One who oppresses his neighbor brings a ram as a guilt offering. See Lev. 5:21-26.</i> Furthermore, this type of intercourse can be interpreted midrashically as mixing diverse kinds, namely, a free man and a bondwoman.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">113</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The verse immediately preceding deals with the prohibition of mixing different kinds.</i> AND HE SHALL BE FORGIVEN.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">114</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hebrew, <i>ve-nislach lo</i>.</i> I will explain this later.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">115</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In his comments on Num. 14:19, I.E. explains that the meaning of <i>ve-nislach</i> is that punishment shall be delayed until the person fully repents. See Volume 4, p. 110.</i> The reason Scripture now discusses forbidden fruit is that Scripture had previously mentioned the seed of the field<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">116</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Verse 19.</i> and the seed of the woman,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">117</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Verse 20.</i> who is likened to the ground.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">118</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See I.E. on Lev. 12:2.</i> Scripture therefore<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">119</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Because it had previously mentioned seed with regard to the field and a woman.</i> now mentions that which is planted. It is known that fruit which grows before three years have passed is of no value and is harmful to the body. It is like all fish that have no fins and scales that are injurious to the body,0 and like all flesh of birds of prey and unclean animals that harm the wise soul. The intelligent will understand this.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">120</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See I.E. on Lev. 11:43.</i> [THEN YE SHALL COUNT THE FRUIT THEREOF AS FORBIDDEN.] The meaning of <i>ve-areltem et orlato</i> (then ye shall count as forbidden) is that the fruit is counted as a foreskin<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">121</sup><i class=\"footnote\">I.E. renders <i>ve-areltem et orlato</i> as, and you shall consider its fruit as foreskin. <i>Orlah</i> means a foreskin. Hence I.E.’s interpretation.</i> which is harmful and serves no purpose, such as the “foreskin” of the lips,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">122</sup><i class=\"footnote\">A “foreskin of the lips” is a metaphor for a speech impediment. See Ex. 6:12.</i> the ear,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">123</sup><i class=\"footnote\">A metaphor for something which interferes with hearing. See Jer. 6:10.</i> and the foreskin of the penis.  The meaning of <i>ve-areltem</i> (then ye shall count) is, you shall consider it as a foreskin. It is also beautifully explained in the Aramaic translation.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">124</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Onkelos renders <i>ve-areltem et orlato</i>, you shall surely distance.</i>  SHALL IT BE AS FORBIDDEN<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">125</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Hebrew, arelim</i> (literally, foreskins).</i>  UNTO YOU.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">126</sup><i class=\"footnote\">I.E. renders this, it shall be as foreskins forbidden unto you.</i> This explains the meaning of <i>ve-areltem</i> (then ye shall count).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">127</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to I.E. the meaning of <i>ve-areltem</i> is, then you shall consider it as a foreskin.</i> SHALL BE HOLY, FOR GIVING PRAISE. For giving praise to the Lord. The <i>kohen</i> shall eat it. [THAT IT MAY YIELD UNTO YOU MORE RICHLY THE INCREASE THEREOF.] <i>That it may yield unto you more richly the increase thereof is</i> connected to <i>shall be holy, for giving praise</i> (v. 24) even though it is some distance from it.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">128</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>That it may yield unto you more richly the increase thereof</i> is connected to <i>shall be holy, for giving praise</i> even though it does not immediately follow it.</i> <i>If he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft</i> (Ex. 22:2) is similarly connected to <i>he shall pay five oxen for an ox</i> (Ex. 21:37). There are many other similar instances.  The meaning of <i>I am the Lord your God</i> is, I will place a blessing upon the produce. YE SHALL NOT EAT WITH THE BLOOD. This is connected<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">129</sup><i class=\"footnote\">That is, related.</i> to what is written above it.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">130</sup><i class=\"footnote\">To the law which precedes it.</i> Scripture warned against eating from the fruit of any planted tree until the fifth year. It similarly also prohibited one, if he is in the proximity of the sanctuary, to eat from any permitted flesh unless its blood first be sprinkled on the altar of God. The account of King Saul is a faithful witness to this interpretation, for the ark of the Lord was with Saul, and Scripture explicitly states, “Behold, the people are eating with the blood.”<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">131</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See I Sam. 14:33. The exact reading of the latter is, <i>Behold, the people sin against the Lord, in that they eat with the blood</i>.</i> As I explained,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">132</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See I.E. on Lev. 17:7.</i> it was as if the people were sacrificing to the demons, for this was their custom in Egypt. There they were accustomed to sacrifice in the name of the demons. Now this is clear,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">133</sup><i class=\"footnote\">That the animal was sacrificed to the demons (Weiser). Or I.E.’s interpretation of <i>Ye shall not eat with the blood</i> is clear (Krinsky).</i> since the blood was not poured on the altar in the worship of God. <i>Neither shall ye practice divination</i> is connected to <i>ye shall not eat with the blood</i> because they used to eat with the blood and go astray after the demons in Egypt, and they used to practice divination and soothsaying in Canaan. The aforementioned is clearly stated in Scripture.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">134</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See Deut. 18:10-14.</i> This too was like the <i>doings of the land of Egypt;</i>…and…<i>the doings of the land of Canaan</i> (Lev. 18:3). The word <i>menachesh</i> means divines. Compare, <i>I have observed the signs</i> (nichashti), <i>And the Lord hath blessed me</i> (Gen. 30:27). Divinations take many forms. There are types of divination that employs images,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">135</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Making predictions based on the images drawn on cards (Krinsky).</i> sticks,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">136</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Such as making predictions based on the way sticks fall.</i> actions,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">137</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Making predictions based on whom a person meets or what happens to something a person owns, i.e., a black cat crossing one’s path or a mirror breaking.</i> movements,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">138</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Bodily movements.</i> days,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">139</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Lucky days.</i> and hours.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">140</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Lucky hours.</i> SOOTHSAYING. Some say that the word <i>te’onennu</i> (soothsaying) is related to the word <i>anah</i> (answer). The soothsayer imagines something in his heart and inclines his ear to hear what the speaker will answer.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">141</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The practitioner of this type of divination has a question in mind. He does not reveal the question to the person whom he is speaking to. However, he divines an answer to his question from what the person with whom he is conversing says. According to this interpretation <i>ve-lo te’onennu</i> means “and do not practice answering.”</i> However, the rule of grammar rejects this interpretation.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">142</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Anah</i> (answer) comes from the root <i>ayin, nun, heh</i>. Verbs from this root do not double their middle stem.</i> There are those who say that <i>te’onennu</i> comes from the word <i>onah</i> (time). It is similar to the word <i>onatah</i> (her conjugal rights)<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">143</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The time set aside for conjugal rights.</i> in <i>and her conjugal rights, shall he not diminish</i> (Ex. 21:10).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">144</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The meaning of <i>ve-lo te’onennu</i> is, and do not set times; that is, do not divine by setting aside lucky days.</i> However, it appears to me that <i>te’onennu</i> is related to the word <i>anan</i> (cloud), for it is known that the one who practices divination looks at the clouds and observes their forms and their movements. <i>Te’onennu</i> probably comes from a verb with a doubled root.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">145</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Its root is <i>ayin, nun, nun</i>.</i> It is like the word <i>tesovevu</i> (you will go round about),<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">146</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Which comes from the root <i>samekh, bet, bet</i>.</i> for we find, <i>And with soothsayers</i> (onenim) <i>like the Philistines</i> (Is. 2:6).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">147</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Onenim</i> is a <i>kal</i>. There is no question that <i>onenim</i> comes from the root <i>ayin, nun, nun</i>.</i> [I note this] for it is possible that <i>te’onennu</i> is a doubled form.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">148</sup><i class=\"footnote\">A word from the root <i>ayin, vav, nun</i>. A verb which has a <i>vav</i> as it middle letter has its last stem letter doubled in the <i>pi’el</i>. In other words, the root of <i>te’onennu</i> is <i>ayin, vav, nun</i>. The last stem letter is doubled in the <i>pi’el</i>. Compare, <i>te-komem</i> from <i>kof, vav, mem</i>.</i> <i>Me’onen</i> (one that uses divination) <i>u-menachesh</i> (Deut. 18:9) is proof. [YE SHALL NOT ROUND THE CORNERS OF YOUR HEADS.] Scripture states, <i>Ye shall not round the corners of your heads</i> as the non-Jewish nations do, so that you will be separated from them. Now since the hair on the head and the beard serve to glorify a person it is unfit to destroy them. Some say that this verse is connected to <i>Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead</i> (v. 28), for there are people who destroy the hair on the corner of their heads and also on the corner of their beards for the dead. CUTTINGS. We know the meaning of the corners of the head and of the beard from the words of tradition.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">149</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See <i>Kiddushin</i> 32b.</i>  The word <i>le-nefesh</i> means for a dead body. It is also so rendered in the Aramaic translation.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">150</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Onkelos renders <i>la-nefesh, al mit</i>.</i> This is its true meaning. The <i>nun</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">151</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Of <i>la-nefesh</i>.</i> does not receive a <i>dagesh</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">152</sup><i class=\"footnote\">A preposition prefixed to a stressed syllable of a noun can be vocalized with a <i>sheva, pattach</i>, or <i>kamatz</i>. If it is vocalized with <i>a pattach</i>, the letter which follows it receives a <i>dagesh</i>. I.E. explains that Scripture chose to vocalize <i>la-nefesh</i> with a <i>kamatz</i> to simplify enunciation (Weiser). However, it should be noted that if the <i>lamed</i> of <i>la-nefesh</i> was vocalized with a <i>sheva</i>, then the <i>nun</i> would also not receive a <i>dagesh</i>. Thus I.E.’s interpretation does not explain why the <i>lamed</i> of <i>la-nefesh</i> was not vocalized with a <i>sheva</i>. It is possible that in I.E.’s version of the Torah <i>la-nefesh</i> was vocalized with a <i>pattach</i> and that I.E. is explaining why, contrary to the laws of grammar, there is no <i>dagesh</i> in the <i>nun</i> of <i>la-nefesh</i>.</i> in order to simplify enunciation. IMPRINT ANY MARKS. Some say that this is connected to <i>Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh</i>, for there are people who, employing fire, mark their bodies with a recognizable form for the dead.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">153</sup><i class=\"footnote\">They brand an image of the deceased into their flesh (Weiser).</i> Even today there are those who, while young, mark their faces so that they [may] be recognized.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">154</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This is still practiced among certain Arab tribes (Weiser).</i> The word <i>ka’aka</i> (marks) is doubled.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">155</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The <i>kof</i> and <i>ayin</i> root letters are doubled.</i> Compare, <i>He that spread forth</i> the <i>earth and that which cometh out of it</i> (ve-tze’etza’ehah)<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">156</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The <i>tzadi</i> and <i>alef</i> of the root <i>yod, tzadi, alef</i> are doubled in <i>ve-tze’etza’ehah</i></i> (Is. 42:5). <i>Ka’aka</i> is related to the word <i>ve-hoka</i> (and hang)<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">157</sup><i class=\"footnote\">From the root <i>resh, kof, ayin</i>.</i> in <i>and hang them up</i> (Num. 25:4).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">158</sup><i class=\"footnote\">So too Rashi. “[<i>ka’aka</i> ] is a writing dug into the flesh. <i>Ka’aka</i> is related to <i>ve-hoka</i> in <i>and hang them up</i> (Num. 25:4)…” They were hanged upon poles which were driven into the ground.</i> According to the Aramaic translator, it is also an irregular word. He is also correct [in translating <i>ka’aka</i> as engraved]. [PROFANE NOT THY DAUGHTER.] Scripture now mentions <i>profane not thy daughter</i> because it earlier stated <i>Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh</i> (v. 28). The import of our verse is, your daughter shall not be displayed before the public.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">159</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Your daughter shall not make markings upon her flesh for the dead because she may expose the place of the mark to show that she cut her flesh as a sign of mourning.</i> Now the voice of a woman is like her nakedness.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">160</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Berachot</i> 24a.</i> A cutting is certainly so.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">161</sup><i class=\"footnote\">If it is prohibited to hear a women’s voice, it is certainly prohibited to look upon any part of her body that is exposed.</i> LEST THE LAND FALL INTO HARLOTRY. The reference is to the harlotry of the people of the land.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">162</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In other words, <i>lest the land</i> is short for lest the people of the land.</i> Compare, <i>when a land sinneth against Me</i> (Ezek. 14:13).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">163</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The meaning of which is, when the people of the land.</i> [YE SHALL KEEP MY SABBATHS.] Scripture now says, <i>Ye shall keep My sabbaths</i>, because it earlier<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">164</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In verse 28.</i> dealt with the dead, for there is no mourning on the Sabbath.  <i>And reverence My sanctuary</i> is to be understood as referring to the <i>kohen gadol;</i> he shall not act as other mourners do.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">165</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The <i>kohen gadol</i> is not to observe mourning customs. See Lev. 21:10-12.</i> There is a similar prohibition upon all the people of the sanctuary.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">166</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>And reverence My sanctuary</i> applies to all those who serve in the sanctuary.</i>  The meaning of <i>I am the Lord</i> is, God will punish you if you do not revere the sanctuary and respect it. Scripture similarly next mentions <i>the ghosts</i> and <i>the familiar spirits</i> (v. 31) because of the dead.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">167</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Scripture earlier spoke of the dead. It now tells us that we are not to inquire of the dead by employing a ghost or a familiar spirit.</i> It similarly writes in Isaiah <i>on behalf of the living unto the dead</i> (Is. 8:19).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">168</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The full verse reads: <i>And when they say unto you: Seek unto the ghosts and the familiar spirits, that chirp and that mutter; should not a people seek unto their God? On behalf of the living unto the dead</i>; i.e., instead of seeking ghosts and familiar spirits and the dead concerning the welfare and future of the living, a people should inquire of God.</i> THE GHOSTS. <i>Ovot</i> (ghosts) is related to the word <i>ovot</i> (wineskins) in <i>Like new wine-skins</i> (Job 32:19), for wineskins are the main instruments in this “art.”<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">169</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The practitioners of this “art” use wineskins to make ghost-like sounds.</i> NOR UNTO FAMILIAR SPIRITS. <i>Yidonim</i> (familiar spirits) is related to the word <i>da’at</i> (knowledge). Those who turn to <i>yidonim</i> seek to know the future. The empty heads say if there were no truth in the <i>ovot</i> (ghosts) and in various magical practices, then Scripture would not have prohibited them. However, I say the reverse. Scripture would not have permitted that which was true. It only prohibited that which is false. <i>The idols</i> (elilim)<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">170</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to I.E. <i>elilim</i> means something which does not exist. See I.E. on verse 4.</i> and <i>the images</i> (v. 4) are proof of this. Were it not that I do not want to go on at length, I would have explained the incident of the woman who was an expert in divining by ghosts.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">171</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The witch of En-dor. See I Sam 28:15. According to I.E the witch did not actually bring up the prophet Samuel. She employed trickery. See I.E. on Ex. 20:3 (Vol. 2, p. 418, and the notes thereto).</i> I would have brought unquestionable proof to my explanation.  The meaning of <i>Turn ye not</i> is, do not turn to the one who knows the art.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">172</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Of communicating with the dead.</i>  The meaning of <i>seek them not out</i> is, do not inquire of them as king Saul did.  The meaning of <i>I am the Lord your God</i> is, you shall not seek except for the Lord alone. Note, Scripture reads, <i>to be defiled by them</i>, because the soul of the one who inquires of a ghost or a familiar spirit is defiled, for it does not cleave to the Lord. [THOU SHALT RISE UP BEFORE THE HOARY HEAD.] Scripture mentions the hoary head because it earlier mentioned the dead<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">173</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Verse 28.</i> and the aged are close to death, for the bodies of the old are considered dead.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">174</sup><i class=\"footnote\">They do not fully function.</i> Note, our verse refers to all the old and to every hoary head.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">175</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Contrary to the opinion that our verse refers only to an old man who has acquired wisdom. See <i>Kiddushin</i> 32b. Also see Rashi.</i>  The meaning of <i>and thou shalt fear thy God</i> is, fear the Lord who shall punish you in your old age.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">176</sup><i class=\"footnote\">If you do not respect the aged when you are young.</i> AND IF A STRANGER SOUJORN WITH THEE. Scripture mentions the stranger after the old man. It does so to, as it were, to say, as I warned you to respect the old Israelite because he has no strength, I warn you not to wrong the foreigner because you are stronger than he is, or who has no power because he is in your country and subject to you.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">177</sup><i class=\"footnote\">But is otherwise not powerless.</i> AND THOU SHALT LOVE HIM AS THYSELF. This has been explained.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">178</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See I.E. on verse 18.</i> [YE SHALL DO NO UNRIGHTEOUSNESS.] Scripture states, <i>Ye shall do no unrighteousness</i> because it earlier dealt with the stranger. Our verse is similar to <i>and judge righteously between a man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him</i> (Deut. 1:16). You shall similarly not cheat in measurements; that is, you shall not deceive in measuring cubits, for the cubits vary.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">179</sup><i class=\"footnote\">From person to person.</i> It is also possible that the meaning of <i>in judgment</i> is according to the known practice of the land.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">180</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Use a measure which is accepted in the land. Do not use a foreign measure.</i> JUST BALANCES, JUST WEIGHT. <i>Avne tzedek</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">181</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Literally, just stones.</i> means just weights. A JUST EPHAH. For that which is dry. AND A JUST HIN. For liquid. <i>A just hin</i> explains <i>in measure</i> (v. 36).  Scripture states, <i>I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt</i>, because it earlier mentioned <i>for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt</i> (v. 34). Therefore, you are obligated to keep My statutes and ordinances in mind and observe them.  The meaning of <i>I am the Lord</i> is, you shall pursue my statutes which I placed upon you, for they are all righteous. [AND THE LORD SPOKE UNTO MOSES, SAYING.] Scripture earlier<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">1</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Lev. 19:2.</i> stated, <i>unto all the congregation…of Israel</i>, because the commandments, which followed, are obligatory upon all of Israel.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">2</sup><i class=\"footnote\">That is, only upon Israel.</i> Strangers have no part in them.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">3</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Non-Jews do not share these laws with Israel.</i> Scripture now begins to mention the punishment for harlotry, which will befall anyone who lives in the Land of Israel, be he native born<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">4</sup><i class=\"footnote\">An Israelite.</i> or resident alien.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">5</sup><i class=\"footnote\">A non-Jew living in Israel. Hence our chapter explicitly notes that what follows applies to both an Israelite and a non-Israelite.</i> It begins with the most severe of them all, namely, with the individual who gives of his seed to Molech, that is, the one who has intercourse with a woman who worships idols.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">6</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This interpretation is rejected by the Mishnah. See <i>Megillah</i> 4:9: “If a man says <i>And thou shalt not give any of thy seed to set them apart to Molech</i> (Lev. 18:21) means, and thou shalt not give of thy seed to make it pass to heathendom, they put him to silence with a rebuke.”</i>  The meaning of <i>the people of the land</i> is, the people of the land wherein the culprit resides, be he a native or a resident stranger.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">7</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The term “the land” indicates a specific land. Hence I.E.’s comment.</i> This<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">8</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Stoning.</i> applies to one who publicly offers his offspring to Molach. I ALSO WILL SET MY FACE AGAINST THAT MAN. If the sin was committed secretly.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">9</sup><i class=\"footnote\">For if the sin is committed in public, the culprit is executed (v. 2).</i> Others say that the reference<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">10</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>I also will set my face against that man</i>.</i> is to the extirpation of the culprit’s seed. TO DEFILE MY SANCTUARY. Which is in the Land of Israel. AND TO PROFANE MY HOLY NAME. For nations will hear.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">11</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Of the sin that was committed in the Land of Israel.</i>  It would have appeared to us that <i>ba-even</i> (with stones)<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">12</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Literally, with a stone.</i> (v. 2) is a collective noun.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">13</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hence <i>ba-even</i> is to be rendered with stones.</i> Compare, <i>And I have oxen</i> (shor),<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">14</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Literally, an ox.</i> <i>and asses</i> (chamor)<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">15</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Literally, an ass.</i> (Gen. 32:6).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">16</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Literally, and I have an ox and an ass.</i> However, the words of tradition are correct.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">17</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The rabbis took <i>ba-even</i> literally. According to the Midrash the culprit was first stoned by one stone. See <i>Sanhedrin</i> 6:4, “The place of stoning was twice the height of a man. One of the witnesses knocked him down…If he died that sufficed; but if not, the second witness took a stone and dropped it on his heart. If he died that sufficed; but if not, he was stoned by all Israel.”</i> They are true. Rabbi Jonah the Spanish grammarian who rests in paradise says that <i>and against his family</i> (v. 5) means all those like him.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">18</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Rabbi Jonah was bothered by God’s threatening the family of the sinner with punishment when they apparently did not commit any sin.</i> Who brought us into this trouble?<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">19</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Of not interpreting our verse literally.</i> Our verse is to be taken literally. The people of the land<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">20</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Spoken of in verse 4.</i> will hide their eyes because they are of his family.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">21</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In other words, the family spoken of in our verse is to be identified with the earlier mentioned (v. 4) people of the land who hid their eyes from the sinner</i> [AND ALL THAT GO ASTRAY AFTER HIM.] This means others will go astray if the culprit is not put to death. AND THE SOUL THAT TURNETH UNTO THE GHOSTS. This means as I will cut off the one who gives from his seed to Molech in secret or in public if the people of the land do not kill him, so will I cut off the one who strays from me and turns to ghosts. We find the term <i>nefashim</i> (souls) (Ezek. 20:13) in Scripture.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">22</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Nefashim</i> (souls) is masculine. <i>Nefesh</i> (soul) is usually feminine. However, our verse reads, <i>ve-hikhratti oto</i> (and will cut him [the soul] off). It thus treats <i>nefesh</i> as masculine. I.E. therefore points out that <i>nefesh</i> is sometimes treated as a masculine in Scripture.</i> We also find <i>all the souls</i> (nefesh) <i>were fourteen</i> (arba’ah asar)<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">23</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Arba’ah asar</i> (fourteen) is masculine. Thus Gen. 46:22 treats <i>nefesh</i> as masculine.</i> (Gen. 46:22). We similarly read,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">24</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In our verse.</i> <i>and will cut him</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">25</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The soul.</i> (oto) <i>off</i>. SANCTIFY YOURSELVES THEREFORE, AND BE YE HOLY; FOR I AM THE LORD YOUR GOD. <i>Ki ani Adonai Elohekhem</i> (for I am the Lord your God) means for I the Lord your God am holy. I have given you statutes to observe in order to sanctify you.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">26</sup><i class=\"footnote\">That is, I who am holy have given you statutes in order to sanctify you.</i> Scripture has already mentioned this.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">27</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See Lev. 11:44.</i> It repeats this command so as to include the strangers residing among Israel, for they too are obligated to be holy so that they may continue to be allowed to dwell in a holy land.  Scripture begins the list of punishments at the beginning of the section<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">28</sup><i class=\"footnote\">That is, the list of punishments for the sins following verse 7, which reads, <i>Sanctify yourselves therefore and be holy</i>.</i> with the person who curses his father in the same manner that Scripture earlier starts with <i>Ye shall fear every man his mother, and his father</i> (Lev. 19:3).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">29</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The preceding verse is, <i>Ye shall be holy; for I the Lord your God am holy</i> (Lev. 19:2).</i> Our verse mentions the father before the mother out of respect for the father. It is unlike <i>Ye shall fear every man his mother, and his father</i>,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">30</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Where the mother is placed before the father.</i> for he is not put to death if he has not reached the age of <i>mitzvah</i> observance.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">31</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hence our verse speaks of an adult. Scripture thus places the father before the mother. However, Lev. 19:3 speaks of a minor. Hence it places mother before father. See I.E.’s comment on Lev. 19:3: “The reason Scripture mentions the mother before the father is that a child first recognizes only its mother. Then it recognizes its father.”</i> FOR WHATSOEVER MAN THERE BE THAT CURSETH HIS FATHER OR HIS MOTHER SHALL SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">32</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Literally, For whatsoever man there be that curses his father and his mother shall surely be put to death.</i> The phrase <i>asher yekallel</i> (that curseth) is to be read as if written twice. Our verse is to be read as if written, “and whoever curses his mother.”<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">33</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Our verse should be interpreted as if written: For whatsoever man there be that curses his father or that curses his mother shall surely be put to death.</i> <i>He hath cursed his father or his mother</i> is another way of saying he has committed a great abomination. HIS BLOOD SHALL BE UPON HIM. Compare, <i>his blood shall be upon his head</i> (Josh. 2:19).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">34</sup><i class=\"footnote\">He, not the one who executes him, is responsible for his death.</i> The blood of those who are stoned and strangled is upon them.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">35</sup><i class=\"footnote\">They are responsible for their deaths.</i> I will now state a general rule concerning all executions. We cannot derive the manner of execution from Scripture. Hence we need the tradition of our fathers.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">36</sup><i class=\"footnote\">If we want to know how the death penalty is applied.</i> Scripture similarly does not state at what age one is obligated to observe the commandments.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">37</sup><i class=\"footnote\">And is subject to the death penalty.</i> [AND THE MAN THAT COMMITTETH ADULTERY WITH ANOTHER MAN’S WIFE.] Scripture next mentions, <i>and the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife</i>,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">38</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Shall be put to death.</i> for she was prohibited.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">39</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Scripture earlier prohibited adultery (Lev. 18:20). However, Lev. 18:20 does not describe the punishment for this sin. Our verse does. The prohibition against adultery is not stated in our verse, for it was stated in Lev. 18:20.</i> The meaning of <i>even he that committeth adultery with his neighbor’s wife</i> is similar to <i>he hath cursed his father or his mother</i> (v. 9). It means he committed an evil act. AND THE ADULTERESS. Women who are raped would not be so termed.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">40</sup><i class=\"footnote\">A married woman who is raped is not executed, for a raped woman is not an adulteress.</i> HE HATH UNCOVERED HIS FATHER’S NAKEDNESS. He has committed a great sin. HIS DAUGHTER-IN-LAW. <i>Kallato</i> means his daughter-in-law. CORRUPTION. I have previously explained the meaning of <i>tevel</i> (corruption).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">41</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See I.E. on Lev. 18:23.</i> BOTH OF THEM HAVE COMMITTED ABOMINATION. If the one who was penetrated was not raped. AND IF A MAN TAKE WITH HIS WIFE ALSO HER MOTHER, IT IS WICKEDNESS. <i>Zimmah</i> (wickedness) means a promiscuous thought.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">42</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Such an act is the result of promiscuous thinking or planning. The word <i>zimmah</i> comes from the Hebrew root <i>zayin, mem, mem</i> which means to plan, devise, purpose. Hence I.E.’s comment.</i> AND THEY. This one or that one. If the mother<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">43</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Of the woman with whom he had intercourse.</i> was his wife, then the daughter is burned.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">44</sup><i class=\"footnote\">If the daughter of the woman with whom he had intercourse was his wife, then the mother is burned.</i> The same is true in the reverse. AND YE SHALL SLAY THE BEAST. So that it not cause another to sin.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">45</sup><i class=\"footnote\">If the animal had intercourse with a human being it might let another person approach it for sexual purposes.</i> Others say, to hide the shame.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">46</sup><i class=\"footnote\">People looking at the animal will be reminded that a human being committed a sexual act with it. See Mishnah, <i>San.</i> 7:4, “Lest the beast should go through the market and people say, this is the beast by reason of which so and so was stoned.”</i> AND LIE DOWN THERETO. <i>Le-rivah</i> (and lie down thereto) is an infinitive even though it is vocalized with a <i>chirik</i>,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">47</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Le-rivah</i> (and lie down thereto) is vocalized with a <i>chirik</i> rather than with a <i>kamatz katan</i> (<i>le-rovah</i>). Compare, <i>le-korvah</i> (Ex. 36:2).</i> for the forms of the infinitive change. Compare, <i>be-shivri</i> (when I break) (Lev. 26:26).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">48</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Be-shivri</i> is vocalized with a <i>chirik</i> rather than with a <i>kamatz katan</i> (<i>be-shovri</i>).</i> AND IF A MAN SHALL TAKE HIS SISTER, HIS FATHER’S DAUGHTER. In a place where he is unknown and afterwards the facts become known.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">49</sup><i class=\"footnote\">A person would not dare to marry a woman whom everyone knows to be his sister.</i>  The meaning of <i>and see</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">50</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hebrew, <i>ve-ra’ah</i>.</i> <i>her nakedness</i> is, or see her nakedness.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">51</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Engage in intercourse outside of marriage (Krinsky). According to I.E. our verse is to be understood as follows: If a man marries his sister or has sexual intercourse with her outside of marriage.</i> It is like <i>he hath cursed his father or his mother</i> (v. 9).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">52</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hebrew, <i>ve-et immo</i> (literally, and his mother). Here the <i>vav</i> has the meaning of or. See I.E. on verse 9.</i> See means uncover.  The meaning of <i>and she see his nakedness</i> is that they both agreed to this. IT IS A SHAMEFUL THING. The word <i>chesed</i> (shameful thing) is related to <i>yechassedkha</i> (revile thee) in <i>Lest he that heareth revile thee</i> (Prov. 25:9). <i>Chesed hu</i> (it is a shameful thing) means it is an inflated act of harlotry.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">53</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Chesed</i> usually has the meaning of an act of kindness, which is beyond the norm. Here it means an especially perverse evil act.</i> HE HATH UNCOVERED HIS SISTER’S NAKEDNESS. Employing force.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">54</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hence this additional clause.</i> HE SHALL BEAR HIS INIQUITY. He alone shall bear his iniquity. The reason scripture mentions these things<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">55</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Marriage, consensual intercourse outside of marriage, and rape. It does not mention all three with regard to the other prohibited relations.</i> regarding the sister is that they grew up in one house and are young people who play. The brother is always alone with his sister. Scripture does not mention the punishment for intercourse with the daughter of one’s son or the daughter of one’s daughter, for it relied on the oral Torah.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">56</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See <i>Sanhedrin</i> 51a.</i> It is possible that they are not mentioned because of the father’s lack of desire,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">57</sup><i class=\"footnote\">For his granddaughter.</i> for he is advanced in years when he has a mature daughter. It is for this reason that Scripture does not mention the mother of one’s father and the mother of one’s mother, for they are aged.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">58</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hence their grandsons have no desire to have intercourse with them.</i> SICKNESS. She is ill because of her blood.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">59</sup><i class=\"footnote\">She is menstruating.</i>  <i>And shall uncover her nakedness</i> means that he committed a great abomination.  The meaning of <i>and she hath uncovered</i> is that she willingly uncovered, for if she was forced to have intercourse the man alone is cut off. AND…THE NAKEDNESS OF THY MOTHER’S SISTER. Its meaning is, I have previously<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">60</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Lev. 18:12,13.</i> warned you not to uncover the nakedness of thy mother’s sister.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">61</sup><i class=\"footnote\">All the other verses open with, <i>And the man that… And if a man lie… And if a man take…</i> However, our verse reads, <i>And…the nakedness of thy mother’s sister…</i> Why the anomaly? Hence I.E.’s comment.</i> Now the one who uncovers the nakedness<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">62</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Of his mother’s sister or his father’s sister.</i> has made naked his near kin.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">63</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>For he hath made naked his near kin</i> is another way of saying he has committed a heinous act. See I.E. on verse 9.</i> THEY SHALL BEAR THEIR INIQUITY. If they willingly acted thus. Scripture does not mention the punishment for having intercourse with the sister of one’s father. It also does not even hint at the punishment for taking two sisters.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">64</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Regarding the one who marries his aunt, Scripture writes, <i>they shall hear their iniquity</i>. However, there is no mention of the punishment for marrying two sisters.</i> The intelligent will understand why.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">65</sup><i class=\"footnote\">For Amram married the sister of his father and Jacob married two sisters (Krinsky; Weiser).</i> The words of tradition are also true.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">66</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to the rabbis they shall be punished with <i>karet</i> (excision). See <i>Sifra</i> on the Torah portion <i>Tzav</i> 13:2.</i> WITH HIS UNCLE’S WIFE. <i>Dodato</i> refers to his uncle’s wife.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">67</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The wife of his father’s brother. See Lev. 18:14.</i> THEY SHALL DIE CHILDLESS. The Sadducees<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">68</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This is the opinion of Anan and other Karaites (Krinsky). I.E. often refers to the Karaites by the term Sadducees.</i> say that <i>aririm</i> (childless) means naked and that the meaning of <i>yamutu</i> (they shall die) is, they shall be put to death.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">69</sup><i class=\"footnote\">They shall be executed naked.</i> They did not speak the truth. The correct interpretation is found in the words of the Aramaic translator,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">70</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Onkelos renders <i>aririm yamutu</i>, they shall die childless.</i> for <i>aririm</i> is similar to <i>ariri</i> (childless) in <i>I go hence childless</i> (ariri) (Gen. 15:2).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">71</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In other words, <i>aririm</i> means childless.</i> I have previously explained <i>Write ye this man childless</i> (ariri) (Jer. 22:30).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">72</sup><i class=\"footnote\">We do not have I.E.’s comment on Jeremiah.</i>  [IT IS IMPURITY.] Scripture employs the term <i>niddah</i> (impurity) with regard to a brother’s wife. The meaning of <i>niddah hiy</i> (it is impurity)<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">73</sup><i class=\"footnote\">I. E. renders <i>niddah hiy</i>, she is distanced. The term <i>niddah</i> usually refers to a menstruating women.</i> is, it is fitting for him to distance himself from her.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">74</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The word <i>niddah</i> comes from the root <i>nun, dalet, dalet</i>, which means to wander.</i> Similarly, <i>Your brethren that hate you, that cast you out</i> (menaddekhem)…<i>have said</i> (Is. 66:5).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">75</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The word <i>menaddekhem</i>, which is related to the word <i>niddah</i>, has the meaning of to distance.</i> Note, there is no mention of <i>niddah</i> in all of the prohibited sexual partners<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">76</sup><i class=\"footnote\">None of the prohibited sexual partners is termed a <i>niddah</i>.</i> except with regard to a brother’s wife. A <i>niddah</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">77</sup><i class=\"footnote\">A menstruating woman.</i> is prohibited.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">78</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Verses 18,19.</i> However, a time comes when she is permitted.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">79</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Seven days after the start of her menstrual flow. See Lev. 15:19. It should be noted that today all women experiencing a menstrual flow are considered <i>zibbot</i>, and they immerse themselves seven days after the cessation of their menstrual flow, with 12 days being the minimum.</i> This possibility,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">80</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The possibility of permissibility.</i> as I will explain in the section <i>If brethren dwell together</i> (Deut. 25:5), also arises in the case of a brother’s wife. My reply to those who say,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">81</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The reference is to the Karaites.</i> as it is prohibited to marry the sister of the father (v. 19) so it is prohibited for a woman to marry her uncle<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">82</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The Karaites believe that it is prohibited for a woman to marry the brother of her father. They argue that there is no difference between a man taking his aunt, which is explicitly prohibited by Scripture (v. 19), and a woman marrying her uncle.</i> is: this is not the way of Scripture.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">83</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Scripture does not legislate prohibitions of choosing sexual partners upon women, for it is the man who does the “taking” (Weiser). Or, the male plays the dominant role in the marriage. Thus it is proper to dominate a niece. However, it is unseemly for a nephew to dominate the sister of his father or his mother (Filwarg).</i> It is the males who are dominant<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">84</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See Gen. 3:16, <i>And he</i> (your husband) <i>shall rule over thee</i>.</i> with regard to the prohibited sexual practices.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">85</sup><i class=\"footnote\">It is the male who does the taking. If Scripture had wanted to prohibit a man from marrying the daughter of his brother it would have said so.</i> No one dominates the male.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">86</sup><i class=\"footnote\">No female legally dominates a male.</i> Let those who accept the faulty logic of those who offer the above interpretation<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">87</sup><i class=\"footnote\">That as it is prohibited to marry the sister of the father, so it is prohibited for a woman to marry her uncle.</i> show us why we should not accept the testimony of two women.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">88</sup><i class=\"footnote\">If we argue that as males may not marry their aunts so nieces may not marry their uncles, then we are in effect saying that what applies to males also applies to females. Applying this logic we should argue that as males are fit to be witnesses so are females. However, the Karaites like the Rabbinites do not accept the testimony of women.</i> If they<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">89</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The Karaites.</i> argue from the laws of evaluation<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">90</sup><i class=\"footnote\">That women are inferior to men and therefore cannot serve as witnesses. According to Lev. 27:3 a male’s valuation is 50 shekels and a female’s 30.</i> then four women should be equal to two male witnesses. We therefore need tradition. YE SHALL THEREFORE KEEP ALL MY STATUTES. Not to violate the laws regarding these prohibited sexual practices. AND ALL MINE ORDINANCES. The laws governing the punishment of those who engage in prohibited sexual practices. [VOMIT YOU OUT.] I will explain this in the Torah portion <i>Va-Yelech</i>.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">91</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See I.E. on Deut. 31:16 (Vol. 5, pp. 227,228).</i> AND THEREFORE I ABHORRED THEM. This was stated metaphorically.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">92</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to medieval Jewish philosophy God does not have emotions. Hence I.E.’s comment.</i> Compare, <i>and His soul were grieved</i> (Jud. 10:16).  The meaning of <i>a land flowing with milk and honey</i> (v. 24) is, there is no land like it. WHO HAVE SET YOU APART FROM THE PEOPLES. With these statutes.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">93</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The statutes describing those with whom sexual relations are prohibited.</i> Furthermore, <i>Ye shall…separate between the clean beast…</i>(v. 25).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">94</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Not only are you to be distinguished from people by your social codes, but you shall also be distinguished from them by observing dietary laws.</i>  [THE CLEAN.] The ten mentioned beasts.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">95</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The ten clean beasts mentioned in Deut. 14:4,5.</i> All the others are unclean.  <i>The unclean fowl</i> means the unclean fowl which are mentioned.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">96</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In Lev. 11:13-20 and Deut. 14:12-18.</i> All others are clean.  The meaning of <i>to hold unclean</i> is that you shall know in your mind and in your speech<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">97</sup><i class=\"footnote\">When you speak about these animals it shall be clear that they are unclean.</i> that it is unclean. Similarly, <i>ye shall have in detestation among the fowls</i> (Lev. 11:13).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">98</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Similarly, the meaning of <i>ye shall have in detestation among the fowls</i> is, you shall know in your mind and in your speech that these fowl are unclean.</i> A resident alien<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">99</sup><i class=\"footnote\">A non-Jew living in the Land of Israel.</i> shall therefore not eat that which is unclean in the clean land. He shall dwell in the land on this condition.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">100</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This is the literal meaning of the verse according to I.E. It is not so according to <i>halakhah</i>.</i>  If you keep all that I command you, you will then be holy. You are obligated to follow Me,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">101</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Follow My word. The literal translation is, walk after Me.</i> <i>for I the Lord am holy</i>. [A MAN ALSO OR A WOMAN.] The reason Scripture states <i>A man also or a woman that divineth by a ghost or a familiar spirit, shall surely be put to death</i> is that the Torah earlier had said concerning ghosts and familiar spirits, <i>seek them not out to be defiled by them</i> (Lev. 19:31). Scripture now says, be holy and put to death the one who defiles himself with a ghost or a familiar spirit. Previously it did not mention the punishment for publicly turning to a ghost. Scripture mentions <i>woman</i>, for this art is mostly practiced by women. Similarly, <i>Thou shalt not suffer a sorceress to live</i> (Ex. 22:17).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">102</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Scripture mention a sorceress because women practice sorcery more than men. See I.E. on Ex. 22:17 (Vol. 2, p. 487).</i> SPEAK UNTO THE PRIESTS. After charging the Israelites, and the sons of Aaron who are included among them, to be holy,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">1</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In chapters 18, 19, and 20.</i> the Lord told the sons of Aaron that they are commanded to keep themselves from other things, for they are the ministers of God. It is possible that <i>speak unto the priests</i> refers to the section which is mentioned above,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">2</sup><i class=\"footnote\">That is, in the above-noted chapters.</i> for the Torah is in the hands of the <i>kohanim</i>.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">3</sup><i class=\"footnote\">It is the duty of the <i>kohanim</i> to teach these laws to the children of Israel. See Deut. 31:9; 17:8-13.</i> AND SAY UNTO THEM. This refers to the commandments which they alone are obligated to keep.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">4</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The laws, which follow.</i> FOR THE DEAD. <i>Le-nefesh</i> (for the dead) refers to the dead.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">5</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The word <i>nefesh</i> usually refers to a living body.</i>  The word <i>yittamma</i> (defile) is a <i>hitpa’el</i>. The <i>tet</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">6</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Of <i>yittamma</i>.</i> receives a <i>dagesh</i> because the <i>tav</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">7</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Of <i>the hitpa’el</i>.</i> is, swallowed.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">8</sup><i class=\"footnote\">By the <i>tet</i>. In other words, the <i>dagesh</i> compensates for the missing <i>tav</i> of the <i>hitpae’el</i> form.</i>  The meaning of <i>be-amav</i> (among his people) is among all of Israel, who are his people.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">9</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Be-amav</i> (among his people) literally means in his people. Hence I.E.’s comment.</i> EXCEPT FOR HIS KIN. It had appeared to us that the meaning of <i>she’ero</i> (His kin) is similar to <i>she’er</i> (near of kin) in <i>None of you…to any that is near of kin to him</i> (Lev. 18:6). In other words, <i>she’ero</i> is a general term,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">10</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Meaning a close relative.</i> with the details <i>for his mother, and for his father</i> following.  The meaning of <i>ba’al be-amav</i> (a chief man among his people) (v. 4) is that a husband<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">11</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Who is a <i>kohen</i>.</i> shall not defile himself for his wife. However, since we saw that our teachers transmitted to us the law that a <i>kohen</i> is permitted to defile himself for his wife,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">12</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Yevamot</i> 22b.</i> the first interpretation falls away. They employed the word <i>she’er</i> as a support,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">13</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>She’ero</i> (his kin) literally means his flesh. According to the rabbis the reference is to a wife. The sages render <i>ki im le-she’ero</i> (except for his kin), except for his wife. According to I.E. the plain meaning of <i>she’ero</i> is not his wife. He believes that the rabbis used this verse as a support for a law which they knew by tradition.</i> as I explained in my comments on the phrase <i>unto a foreign people</i> (Ex. 21:8).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">14</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to the rabbis <i>unto a foreign people</i> means to any stranger. According to I.E. this is not the literal meaning of this phrase. The rabbis merely used this verse as a support. See I.E. on Ex. 21:8 (Vol. 2, pp. 458,459).</i> The rabbis said that the meaning of <i>ba’al</i> is, a chief who rules over the people, as in <i>the owner thereof</i> (be-alav) <i>not being with it</i> (Ex. 22:13).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">15</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to the rabbis the meaning of <i>lo yittamma ba’al be-amav</i> (He shall not defile himself, being a chief man among his people) is: “Seeing that he is fit to become the highest and most honored one among his people [i.e., a high priest], it (Scripture) warns him not to profane his distinction with the impurity of the dead” (Nachmanides, Chavel translation).</i> The reason Scripture mentions the mother of the <i>kohen</i> before the father is that in most cases the male lives longer than the female.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">16</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In most cases the <i>kohen</i> will mourn for his mother before he does so for his father. Hence she is mentioned first.</i> THAT IS NEAR UNTO HIM. In that she is his sister from his father and his mother.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">17</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>That is near</i> indicates that the sister spoken of is a full sister.</i> Now, aside from those mentioned,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">18</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In verses 2 and 3.</i> a chief (v. 4) shall not defile himself for any of his people, be they <i>kohanim</i> or Israelites. TO PROFANE HIMSELF. The <i>lamed</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">19</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Of <i>le-hechallo</i>.</i> has a <i>dagesh</i> in it to compensate for the missing other <i>lamed</i>.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">20</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Hechallo</i> is spelled with one <i>lamed</i>. However, it comes from a root that has two <i>lameds</i>. The <i>dagesh</i> in <i>hechallo</i> compensates for the missing root letter.</i> <i>Le-hechallo</i> (to profane himself) is an infinitive in the <i>nifal</i>. THEY SHALL NOT MAKE BALDNESS UPON THEIR HEAD. Over the dead. THE CORNERS OF THEIR BEARD. Over the dead, as is the practice in places in the land of the Chaldeans. The meaning of the <i>corners of thy beard</i> (Lev. 19:27) is thus clarified.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">21</sup><i class=\"footnote\">It too refers to an act of mourning. See I.E. on Lev. 19:27.</i>  <i>Saratet</i> (cuttings) means even one cut.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">22</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Saratet</i> (cuttings) is singular. Hence I.E’s. comment.</i> Israel has already been cautioned not to do these things.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">23</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Not to cut their flesh, to shave the corners of their beards, or to make themselves bald. See Lev. 19:27,28.</i> The reason Scripture warns the <i>kohanim</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">24</sup><i class=\"footnote\">After already having told the Israelites.</i> about this is that one who has a bald head, or whose beard has been shorn, or whose flesh is cut shall not serve before the Lord. AND NOT PROFANE THE NAME OF GOD. The reason being, for <i>the offerings made by fire…they do offer</i>.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">25</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>For the offerings made by fire…they do offer</i> refers to <i>and not profane the name of God</i>, not to <i>They shall be holy unto their God</i>.</i> WOMAN THAT IS A HARLOT. If we follow the plain meaning of the text then we do not find in all of Scripture the word <i>zonah</i> (harlot) to have any but its literal meaning.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">26</sup><i class=\"footnote\">That is, a <i>zonah</i> is a woman who sells her body. According to the rabbis a <i>zonah</i> is a woman who had intercourse with an individual whom she is not permitted to marry, i.e., a woman who has relations with a close relative or with a non-Jew. Such a woman is considered a <i>zonah</i> even if the intercourse was not with her consent. Hence I.E.’s comment.</i> The meaning of and <i>have given a boy for a harlot</i> (zonah) (Joel 4:3) is also as I have explained.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">27</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In other words, <i>zonah</i> in Joel 4:3 refers to a harlot. It means that they gave a young man in payment for sexual favors.</i> OR PROFANED. A woman who is not known as a harlot.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">28</sup><i class=\"footnote\">A woman who is not a harlot but has been defiled. I.E. does not define how the woman was profaned. However, from the context it appears that I.E. refers to a woman who is not a prostitute but had intercourse with someone who is not a <i>kohen</i>. It is also possible that I.E. refers to a woman who is promiscuous but not a prostitute. It should be noted that according to the rabbis the reference is to a woman born of a marriage between a <i>kohen</i> and a woman prohibited to him (<i>Kiddushin</i> 77a).</i> According to the plain meaning, it would appear from the words of Ezekiel<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">29</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Ezek. 44:22.</i> that the widow of a <i>kohen</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">30</sup><i class=\"footnote\">That is, only the widow of a <i>kohen</i>.</i> is permitted to marry other <i>kohanim</i>.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">31</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Ezek. 44:22 seems to imply that the only widow a <i>kohen</i> may marry is the widow of another <i>kohen</i>, for Ezekiel states, <i>Neither shall they take for their wives a widow…but they shall take…a widow that is the widow of a priest</i>.</i> The words of tradition<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">32</sup><i class=\"footnote\">To the effect that a <i>kohen</i> may marry any widow. See <i>Kiddushin</i> 78b.</i> are thus true.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">33</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Despite the plain meaning of Ezek. 44:22, for our chapter (v. 7) does not prohibit a <i>kohen</i> from marrying any widow. We thus must interpret Ezek. 44:22 as follows: Neither shall a <i>kohen gadol</i> take for their wives a widow…but some of the <i>kohanim</i>, that is, a common <i>kohen</i>, may take a widow (any widow, not only the widow of a <i>kohen</i>). See <i>Kiddushin</i> 78b.</i> THOU SHALT SANCTIFY HIM THEREFORE. In mind<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">34</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Think of the <i>kohen</i> in a respectful manner.</i> and in speech.  THE BREAD<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">35</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hebrew, <i>lechem</i>.</i> OF THY GOD. Food<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">36</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Lechem</i> usually refers to bread. Hence I.E.’s comment.</i> which is offered to God. I THE LORD, WHO SANCTIFY YOU.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">37</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hebrew, <i>lakhem</i>, which is plural.</i> All of you. IF SHE PROFANE HERSELF BY PLAYING THE HARLOT. Many believe that <i>techel</i> (profane) is related to <i>techillah</i> (beginning).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">38</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This interpretation renders <i>ki techel li-zenot</i> (if she profane herself by playing the harlot) as if she begins to play the harlot.</i> However, I believe that it is related to the word <i>chillul</i> (profane) but it is a <i>hifil</i>. Compare, <i>he shall not break</i> (yachel)<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">39</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Or profane.</i> <i>his word</i> (Num. 30:3). According to both interpretations the word comes from a double root.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">40</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Its root is <i>chet, lamed, lamed</i>.</i> However, it is irregular.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">41</sup><i class=\"footnote\">For its prefix is vocalized with a <i>tzere</i> rather than with a <i>kamatz</i> as similar roots are in the <i>hifil</i>. Compare, <i>achel</i> (I will begin), <i>tachel</i> (she will begin), etc.</i> It is possible that the word <i>hechel</i> (profaned) (Ezek. 20:9) and the word <i>techel</i> are both irregular in that the <i>tav</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">42</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The <i>tav</i> of <i>techel</i></i> is vocalized with a <i>tzereh</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">43</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Literally, a small <i>kamatz</i>.</i> so that it not is confused in meaning with <i>techillah</i> (beginning).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">44</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Beginning and profane both come from the same root, <i>chet, lamed, lamed</i>. If both were similarly vocalized, we would confuse them.</i> Similarly, <i>hechel</i> (profaned)<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">45</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Hechel</i> is vocalized with a <i>tzere</i> rather than with a <i>kamatz</i> so that it not be confused with <i>hachel</i> (begin) (Deut. 2:24).</i> in <i>that it should not be profaned</i> (Ezek. 20:9). AND THE DAUGHTER OF ANY PRIEST…SHE SHALL BE BURNT WITH FIRE. If she profaned herself by harlotry, for she profaned the honor of her father. SHE SHALL BE BURNT WITH FIRE. Whether she is either married or betrothed.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">46</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hebrew, <i>arusah</i>. The reference is to the first stage of marriage. During this phase the woman lives in the house of her parents.</i> THE GARMENTS. The reference is to the holy garments. SHALL NOT LET THE HAIR OF HIS HEAD GO LOOSE, NOR REND HIS CLOTHES. We learn from this verse what our sages transmitted regarding the laws of mourning.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">47</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to the rabbis a mourner has to rend his garments and is prohibited from cutting his hair. Our verse shows that the latter are mourning practices.</i> NEITHER SHALL HE GO IN TO ANY DEAD BODY. <i>Nafshot met</i> is to be read as if written <i>nafshot guf met</i> (dead body). The word <i>guf</i> (body)<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">48</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Guf</i> is masculine.</i> is missing, for <i>met</i> (dead) is an adjective.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">49</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Modifying <i>guf. Met</i> is masculine. It cannot modify <i>nafshot</i>, which is feminine. Hence I.E.’s comment.</i> Similarly, <i>But the rich answers impudent</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">50</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Translated literally.</i> (Prov. 18:23)<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">51</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The term “words” is missing from the verse. The clause should be read as if written: But the rich answers [with] impudent words.</i> and <i>and their food plenteous</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">52</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Literally, and his food fat.</i> (Hab. 1:16),<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">53</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>And his food fat</i> should be read as if written: and his food a fat lamb.</i> where the word lamb is missing.  The meaning of <i>he shall</i> [not] <i>go in</i> is, he shall not go into a tent or a house where the dead body is located.  The meaning of <i>for his father, or his mother</i> is, for his father and mother, whom he is obligated to respect while they live and after their death. The <i>kohen gadol</i> may certainly not defile himself over his brother or his son.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">54</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Our verse only mentions the <i>kohen gadol</i>’s father and mother. However, if he cannot defile himself over the latter he certainly cannot defile himself for his brother or son.</i> NEITHER SHALL HE GO OUT OF THE SANCTUARY. After the dead, so said the transmitters of tradition.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">55</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>San.</i> 18a. Also see Rashi.</i> What they said is correct. Some say that the reference is to the seven days of consecration. However, this cannot be so, for Scripture has already stated, <i>and</i> [the kohen] <i>that is consecrated</i> (v. 10).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">56</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In other words, our verse speaks of a <i>kohen</i> who is already consecrated.</i> It is also possible that the meaning of our verse is that the <i>kohen gadol</i> shall not go out of the sanctuary except for the purpose of observing a precept. IN HER VIRGINITY. There are nouns in Hebrew that never come in the singular. Compare, <i>ne’urim</i> (youth), <i>zekunim</i> (old age), <i>alumim</i> (youth), and <i>betulim</i> (virginity). There are other words which never come in the plural, i.e., <i>taf</i> (children), <i>shekhem</i> (shoulder), <i>zahav</i> (gold), and <i>barzel</i> (iron). A WIDOW, OR ONE DIVORCED. Any woman widowed or divorced from a <i>kohen</i> or an Israelite. OR A PROFANED WOMAN, OR A HARLOT. The connective <i>vav</i> before the word <i>zonah</i> (harlot) is missing.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">57</sup><i class=\"footnote\">From before the word <i>zonah</i> (harlot). Our verse reads, <i>va-chalalah zonah</i>. This literally means or a profaned woman harlot. I.E. believes that the latter should be read as if written, <i>va-chalalah ve-zonah</i> (or a profaned woman or a harlot).</i> Compare, <i>The sun moon</i> (shemesh yare’ach) <i>stand still in their habitation</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">58</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Translated literally.</i> (Hab. 3:11).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">59</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Here too a <i>vav</i> is missing. The verse should be read as if written: The sun and moon (<i>shemesh ve-yare’ach</i>) stand still in their habitation.</i>  The reason Scripture reads <i>but a virgin</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">60</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The law mandating that a <i>kohen gadol</i> may only marry a virgin was stated in the previous verse. Why repeat it again in our verse?</i> is that it wants to add <i>of his own people</i>, for a captive virgin<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">61</sup><i class=\"footnote\">A foreign woman taken captive as a result of war. See Deut. 21:10-14.</i> and a convert<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">62</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Who is a virgin.</i> are prohibited to him. AND HE SHALL NOT PROFANE HIS SEED. By taking a widow or a divorced woman in secret. <i>These shall he not take</i> (v. 14) means he shall not publicly take any of these women.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">63</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Since Scripture has already stated that he may not publicly take a divorced woman, a widow, a harlot, or a profaned woman. Hence our verse refers to secret intercourse with these women.</i> After Scripture mentions the sanctity of the <i>kohanim</i> it begins to list the blemishes.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">64</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Which disqualify a <i>kohen</i> from offering sacrifices.</i> THE BREAD OF HIS GOD. The reference is to the sacrifices offered on the altar. The <i>kohanim</i> spoken of in our verse refer to common priests. Scripture therefore states anyone who is of the seed of Aaron the <i>kohen</i>. MAIMED. <i>Charum</i> (maimed) is the reverse of <i>saru’a</i> (too long). Note, <i>charum</i> is related to the word <i>cherem</i> (destruction).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">65</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to I.E. <i>saru’a</i> refers to a person who has an extra-large limb while <i>charum</i> refers to a person who has a limb that is undersized.</i> TOO LONG. <i>Saru’a</i> (too long) is related to the word <i>me-histare’a</i> (to stretch himself) (Is. 29:20). OR CROOK-BACKED. The word <i>gibben</i> (crook-backed) is most probably related to the word <i>gavnunnim</i> (peaks) in <i>ye mountains of peaks</i> (Ps. 68:17).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">66</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to I.E. <i>gibben</i> is someone who is extremely tall.</i> The <i>nun</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">67</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Of <i>gibben</i>.</i> is a root letter.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">68</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hence we can relate <i>gibben</i> (crook-backed) to <i>gavnunnim</i> (peaks).</i> <i>Gibben</i> is an adjective. Similarly the word <i>dak</i> (a dwarf) is to be interpreted according to the plain meaning.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">69</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Of the verse.</i>  <i>Dak</i> means short of stature.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">70</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Dak</i> stands in contrast to <i>gibben</i>. If <i>gibben</i> means a peak, then <i>dak</i> is its opposite.</i> HATH HIS EYE OVERSPREAD. Some say that <i>tevallul</i> (overspread) is related to the word <i>tevel</i> (corruption) in <i>they have wrought corruption</i> (Lev. 20:12). <i>Tevallul</i> means a corruption.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">71</sup><i class=\"footnote\">A blemish.</i> Others say that <i>tevallul</i> is related to the word <i>belullah</i> (mingled) in <i>mingled with oil</i> (Lev. 2:5).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">72</sup><i class=\"footnote\">A streak of white going into the iris or pupil. See Rashi and Ibn Janach (<i>Sefer Ha-Rikmah</i>).</i> According to both interpretations the <i>tav</i> of <i>tevallul</i> is superfluous.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">73</sup><i class=\"footnote\">For the root of <i>tevallul</i> is <i>bet, lamed, lamed</i>.</i>  According to the opinion of many the scab (<i>garav</i>) is also in the eye. OR SCURVY. <i>Yalefet</i> (scurvy) means sticking.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">74</sup><i class=\"footnote\">It refers to boils which stick to the body.</i> It is related to the word <i>va-yilpot</i> (took fast hold) in <i>And Samson took fast hold</i> (Jud. 16:29). There are others who say that <i>yalefet</i> means crooked.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">75</sup><i class=\"footnote\">A <i>kohen</i> with a crooked hand, foot, fingers, etc.</i> It is related to the word <i>va-yillafet</i> (turned) in <i>that the man was startled, and turned</i> (Ruth 3:8). The <i>yod</i> of <i>yalefet</i> is superfluous.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">76</sup><i class=\"footnote\">For its root is <i>lamed, peh, tav</i>.</i> It is like the <i>yod</i> of <i>yitzhar</i> (oil) (Num. 18:12).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">77</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The root of which is <i>tzadi, heh, resh</i>.</i> CRUSHED. <i>Mero’ach</i> (crushed) is an adjective. It is related to the word <i>ru’ach</i> (wind).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">78</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See Nachmanides: “One who has wind [and a result of which] his testicles are swollen” (Chavel translation).</i> STONES. <i>Ashekh</i> (stones) refers to the testicle. After listing specific blemishes the Torah issues a general statement and says, <i>no man…that hath a blemish</i> (v. 21).  The meaning of <i>hath a blemish</i> is similar to <i>he hath cursed his father or his mother</i> (Lev. 20:9).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">79</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The repetition is for emphasis. See I.E. on Lev. 20:9.</i> THE BREAD OF HIS GOD…OF THE MOST HOLY. The showbread, the guilt offering, and the sin offering, which in comparison to the peace offerings are most holy, for the peace offerings are also holy. AND OF THE HOLY. The tithe and the first-born. ONLY HE SHALL NOT GO IN UNTO THE VEIL. Although he is a <i>kohen gadol</i>.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">80</sup><i class=\"footnote\">If the <i>kohen gadol</i> is struck with a blemish he is prohibited from going unto the veil. A common <i>kohen</i> may not go unto the veil. Hence I.E.’s comment.</i> He shall also not approach the altar. [AND UNTO ALL THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL.] If it were not for the tradition<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">81</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Which permits <i>kohanim</i> who are blemished to slaughter peace offerings for the children of Israel</i> we would interpret <i>and unto all the children of Israel</i> as meaning that those who are blemished should not slaughter peace offerings for the children of Israel. Now, since Scripture mentions that a blemished <i>kohen</i> may eat that which is holy, it warns<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">82</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In the section which follows.</i> that the one who eats sacred food must be clean. THAT THEY SEPARATE THEMSELVES. <i>Ve-yinnazeru</i> (that they separate themselves) is similar to <i>ve-hizzhartem</i> (thus shall ye separate) (Lev. 15:31).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">1</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Both words come from the root <i>nun, zayin, resh</i>.</i> <i>Ve-yinnazeru</i> is a <i>nifal</i>. It means they shall distance and separate themselves. It is related to the word <i>nazir</i> (nazirite).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">2</sup><i class=\"footnote\">A <i>nazir</i> separates himself from wine and uncleanliness.</i> AND THAT THEY PROFANE NOT. <i>And that they profane not</i> applies to what immediately follows it and to what follows later. Our verse is to be read as follows: And that they profane not My holy name, and that they profane not that which they hallow unto Me.  The meaning of <i>I am the Lord</i> is, I the Lord am holy. [FROM BEFORE ME: I AM THE LORD.] This means since he is cut off from God, he will cease to exist.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">3</sup><i class=\"footnote\">God is the cause and sustainer of existence. To be cut off from God thus means to be cut off from the source of life; i.e., his soul following his death ceases exist.</i> I have explained the latter in my comments on the secret of God’s name.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">4</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The name <i>YHVH</i> indicates that God alone exists forever and the existence of all things is contingent upon Him. See I.E. on Ex. 3:15 (Vol. 2, p. 67).</i> UNTIL HE BE CLEAN. Until the days necessary for his cleansing have passed. WHEREBY HE MAY BE MADE UNCLEAN. The word <i>lo</i> means whereby.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">5</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Lo</i> literally means to him, or to it. Hence I.E.’s comment.</i> Compare the word <i>li</i> (of me)<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">6</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Li</i> literally means to me.</i> in <i>say of me</i>: <i>He is my brother</i> (Gen. 20:13). All those mentioned<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">7</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In our verse.</i> shall become unclean until evening. AND WHEN THE SUN IS DOWN, HE SHALL BE CLEAN. It is known that <i>he shall be clean</i> refers to the unclean, for there is no mention of the word day in the verse.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">8</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hence <i>ve-taher</i> (and he shall be clean) cannot refer to the day.</i> Compare, <i>and the priest shall make atonement for her, and she shall be clean</i> (Lev. 12:8). However, the rabbis of blessed memory transmitted to us the law that even if the sun sets he shall not eat until it is completely dark.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">9</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to the rabbis <i>ve-taher</i> (and he shall be clean) refers to the day. They render <i>ve-taher</i> as, and it shall be clean; i.e., the day shall be cleared away. See <i>Berakhot</i> 2a,b.</i> They used this verse as a support.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">10</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The Rabbinic interpretation is not the real meaning of the verse.</i> I have explained the latter<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">11</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The Rabbinic use of a verse as a support for their traditions.</i> in my comments on the verse <i>unto a foreign people</i> (Ex. 21:8).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">12</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See Vol. 2, p. 458.</i> The rabbis therefore<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">13</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Because they used this verse as a support.</i> said that <i>ve-taher</i> (he should be clean) means that the day shall be clean. BECAUSE IT IS HIS BREAD. His food.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">14</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>His bread</i> means his food.</i> I have previously explained this.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">15</sup><i class=\"footnote\">That <i>lechem</i> (bread) means food. See I.E. on Ex 16:4 (Vol. 2, p. 316).</i>  Those whose brains are empty explain the verse in Ezekiel, which reads, <i>The priests shall not eat of any thing that dieth of itself, or is torn, whether it be fowl or beast</i> (Ezek. 44:31), as meaning that the priests shall not eat anything brought down or torn by animals or fowl.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">16</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Ex. 22:30 prohibits an Israelite from eating that which is torn (<i>terefah</i>). Deut. 44:21 prohibits an Israelite from eating meat which dies of itself (<i>nevelah</i>). Ezek 44:21 seems to limit the prohibition to eat <i>nevalah</i> and <i>terefah</i> only to <i>kohanim</i>. In order to harmonize Ezekiel and the Torah, there were those who claimed that Ezekiel spoke of an animal that has been properly slaughtered and then ripped apart and befouled by birds and beasts. In other words, the Torah prohibits any Israelite from eating the meat of any animal that has been ripped apart by an animal of prey, while Ezekiel adds that a <i>kohen</i> is also prohibited from eating kosher meat that has been befouled. It should be noted that according to this interpretation the word <i>nevelah</i> is not to be taken literally but means flesh which is as disgusting as meat that dies of itself (Filwarg). For other interpretations see Sarim and Meijler.</i> However, this is nonsense, for the Torah states all that dies of itself or is torn he<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">17</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The <i>kohen</i>.</i> shall not eat.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">18</sup><i class=\"footnote\">I.E.’s paraphrase of verse 8, which literally reads: that which dies of itself, or is torn, he shall not eat.</i> The meaning<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">19</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Of verse 8 and Ezek. 44:21.</i> is if he eats<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">20</sup><i class=\"footnote\">That which dies of itself or is torn.</i> he shall not minister.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">21</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The meaning of our verse and that of Ezekiel is, if a <i>kohen</i> eats that which was torn or died of itself he is ritually unclean and shall not serve in the tabernacle or eat sacred food.</i> THEY SHALL THEREFORE KEEP MY CHARGE. <i>Mishmarti</i> (my charge) alludes to the sanctuary. Scripture therefore reads, <i>lest they bear sin for it</i> (alav), <i>and die therein</i> (vo). THERE SHALL NO COMMON MAN. One who is not of the seed of Aaron. THEY MAY EAT OF HIS BREAD. Males and females. THAT WHICH IS SET APART FROM THE HOLY THINGS. The thigh and the breast (Lev. 10:15). SHE MAY EAT OF HER FATHER’S BREAD. As at first. BUT THERE SHALL NO COMMON MAN EAT OF IT. The reference is to a son, if she has one. She cannot eat of the holy food because of her son. AND SHALL GIVE UNTO THE PRIEST THE HOLY THING. The meaning of <i>ve’et ha-kodesh</i> (the holy thing) is, with<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">22</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In other words, <i>et</i> here has the meaning of with.</i> the holy thing.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">23</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to I.E. our clause is to be interpreted as follows: And shall give the fifth part thereof along with the holy thing. <i>And shall give unto the priest the holy thing</i> implies that only the holy thing is to be given to the <i>kohen</i>. The question thus arises, what is to be done with the fifth part? Hence this interpretation.</i> On the other hand, <i>and shall give unto the priest</i> might apply to what precedes it and to what follows it. Our verse is to be interpreted as follows: Then he shall put the fifth part thereof unto it and shall give it unto the priest, and he shall give unto the priest the holy thing. I believe that there is no need for this interpretation, for Scripture reads <i>unto it</i>.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">24</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Unto the holy thing. Thus, <i>and shall give unto the priest the holy thing</i> takes in the fifth part.</i> AND SO CAUSE THEM TO BEAR. <i>Ve-hisi’u</i> (and cause…to bear) is a <i>hifil</i>. Its meaning is, they shall caution them and teach them so that they do not err.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">25</sup><i class=\"footnote\">If the <i>kohanim</i> do not teach the Israelites they cause them as it were, to bear the iniquity of profaning the holy food.</i>  After mentioning the holy things of the children of Israel<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">26</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The offerings of the children of Israel. See verse 2.</i> Scripture goes on<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">27</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In the next section.</i> to caution the Israelites to not bring the holy things from blemished animals. [STRANGERS.] Scripture reads <i>or of the strangers</i> for it is stated that there is one law for the Israelite and the stranger who offer a vow or freewill offering.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">28</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See Num. 15:14-16.</i> The sages differentiated between a vow offering and a freewill offering.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">29</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See <i>Kinnim</i> 1:1.</i> All vow offerings are freewill offerings. However, not all freewill offerings are vow offerings.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">30</sup><i class=\"footnote\">One can set aside a freewill offering without taking a vow to bring a freewill offering.</i> It is fitting that all sacrifices that are offered in their entirety<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">31</sup><i class=\"footnote\">A burnt offering.</i> on the altar be unblemished.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">32</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The same applies to other offerings. I.E. speaks of a burnt offering because our verse does.</i> CLEARLY UTTERED. <i>Le-fale</i> means to clearly utter. BLIND. <i>Avveret</i> (blind) is an adjective relating to the eye.  Some say that <i>shavur</i> (broken) means a break in the hand and <i>charutz</i> (maimed) refers to an injury in the foot. <i>Charutz</i> is related to <i>charatzta</i> (hast decided it) in <i>So shall thy judgment be</i>; <i>thyself hast decided it</i> (I Kings 20:40). <i>Charutz</i> means cut.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">33</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The term “cut” can also be applied to decree or decision. This is its meaning in I Kings 20:40.</i> A WEN. <i>Yabbelet</i> (wen) is similar to <i>tevallul</i> (overspread) (Lev. 21:20). The general rule is: we rely on tradition,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">34</sup><i class=\"footnote\">With regard to the interpretation of the blemishes mentioned in our chapter.</i> not on our deficient minds. YE SHALL NOT OFFER THESE UNTO THE LORD. In fulfillment of a clearly uttered vow. Nor shall the <i>kohen</i> take the organs from these.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">35</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>And make an offering by fire of them</i>.</i> TOO LONG. <i>Saru’a</i> (too long) has the same meaning as when first mentioned (Lev. 21:18).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">36</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See I.E. on Lev. 21:18.</i> TOO SHORT. <i>Kalut</i> (too short) is the opposite of <i>saru’a</i> (too long). <i>Kalut</i> is related to the word <i>miklat</i> (refuge) in <i>the city of refuge</i> (Josh. 21:13).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">37</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Kalut</i> means compressed or held back. A city of refuge limits or holds the refugee back in that he may not leave.</i> BRUISED. <i>Ma’uch</i> (bruised) is related to <i>mo’akhu</i> (pressed) in <i>their bosoms pressed</i> (Ezek. 23:3). OR CRUSHED. <i>Katut</i> (crushed) is related to <i>va-ekkot</i> (beat) in <i>and beat it in pieces</i> (Deut. 9:21). Crushed and bruised refer to wounds in the testicles. OR TORN. <i>Natuk</i> (torn) is related to <i>yinnatek</i> (broken) in <i>as a string of tow is broken</i> (Jud. 16:9). NEITHER SHALL YE DO THUS IN YOUR LAND. To change God’s work.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">38</sup><i class=\"footnote\">By harming the sexual organs of an animal.</i> FROM THE HAND OF A FOREIGNER. One should not think as follows: I will not hesitate to offer this sacrifice, for it is the offering of a foreigner.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">39</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hence one need not be so strict,</i> THEIR CORRUPTION. The <i>mem</i> of <i>moshchatam</i> (their corruption) is not a root letter. However, its <i>tav</i> is a root letter. <i>Moshchatam</i> is related to the word <i>hashchatah</i> (destruction).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">40</sup><i class=\"footnote\">It comes from the root <i>shin, chet, tav</i>.</i> On the other hand, the <i>mem</i> of <i>moshchatam</i> (their anointing) (Ex.40:15) is a root letter and the <i>tav</i> is not.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">41</sup><i class=\"footnote\">For its root is <i>mem, shin, chet</i>.</i> BE ACCEPTED. <i>Yeratzu</i> (be accepted) is a <i>nifal</i>. After stating that a blemished sacrifice will not be accepted, Scripture goes on to say that any sacrifice brought from an animal less than eight days old will also not be accepted. WHEN A BULLOCK, OR A SHEEP, OR A GOAT. The newborn animals are called by what they ultimately become. Compare, <i>And stripped the naked</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">42</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Scripture refers to the one who is to be stripped as naked, even though he is not naked until stripped.</i> <i>of their clothing</i> (Job 22:6); “the dead<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">43</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Scripture refers to the one who is to be put to death as “dead.” We thus see that Scripture refers to people or things by what they ultimately become.</i> shall be put to death”<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">44</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Translated literally.</i> (Deut. 17:6); “for the one who falls shall fall from it”<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">45</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Translated literally</i> (Deut. 22:8). On the other hand, Scripture may have been referring to the name of the species.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">46</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>When a bullock, or a sheep, or a goat is brought forth</i> means when an animal that belongs to the species of bullock, sheep, or goat is born.</i> [BUT FROM THE EIGHTH DAY AND THENCEFORTH.] Like a child that is circumcised, that is, until a quarter of the month has passed.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">47</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See I.E. on Lev. 12:2 and the notes thereto.</i> THENCEFORTH. <i>Hale’ah</i> (thenceforth) means afterwards. The arrow of Jonathan is proof.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">48</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Jonathan referred to his arrow as being beyond (<i>hale’ah</i>) the young man. See I Sam 20:22.</i> AND WHETHER IT BE COW<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">49</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hebrew, <i>shor</i> (ox).</i> OR EWE.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">50</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hebrew, <i>she</i> (male sheep).</i> I have previously explained this.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">51</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In the previous verse. I.E.’s point is that <i>shor</i> and <i>seh</i> are the names of the species. In other words, they do not apply only to males.</i> The commandment pertains to both males and females.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">52</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Even though the verse is in the masculine.</i>  [AND WHEN YE SACRIFICE A SACRIFICE OF THANKSGIVING.] The reason that <i>And when ye sacrifice a sacrifice of thanksgiving…On the same day it shall he eaten</i> follows is that Scripture earlier noted it is prohibited to kill a cow or a ewe [and its young together] in one day.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">53</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The law codified in our verse and the law dealt with in the previous verse both deal with “one day.”</i> Scripture adds to what is written in the Torah portion <i>Tzav</i> (Lev. 6:2),<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">54</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Regarding a sacrifice of thanksgiving.</i> <i>that ye may be accepted</i>.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">55</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hence verses 29 and 30 are not redundant.</i>  [I AM THE LORD.] Scripture reads <i>I am the Lord</i> to teach that the thanksgiving offering is to be “whole.”<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">56</sup><i class=\"footnote\">It cannot be brought from a blemished animal. The meaning of our verse is, it is unfit to offer a blemished animal as a thanksgiving to Me, for <i>I am the Lord</i>.</i> AND YE SHALL KEEP MY COMMANDMENTS. In your hearts. AND DO THEM; I AM THE LORD. For I investigate what is in the heart, and I see everything that is done. [AND YE SHALL NOT PROFANE MY HOLY NAME.] This is directed to the sons of Aaron, for this section<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">57</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Verses 26-33.</i> is connected to what is earlier stated.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">58</sup><i class=\"footnote\">To verse 18 which is directed to Aaron, to his sons, and to all of Israel. In other words, verses 26-33 are directed to the sons of Aaron.</i> They<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">59</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The sons of Aaron.</i> are commanded not to sacrifice for themselves or for Israel a cow and its offspring on one day. It is also possible that <i>And when ye sacrifice a sacrifice of thanksgiving</i> (v. 29) is directed to the <i>kohanim</i>.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">60</sup><i class=\"footnote\">For the entire section (verses 26-33) is directed to the <i>kohanim</i>.</i> The fact that the following section opens with <i>Speak unto the children of Israel</i> (Lev. 23:2) is proof of this.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">61</sup><i class=\"footnote\">That our chapter (verses 26-33) is directed to the <i>kohanim</i>.</i> <i>But I will be hallowed among the children of Israel</i> is a second witness.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">62</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This is directed to the <i>kohanim</i>. Had it been directed to the Israelites, Scripture would have read: But I will be hallowed among you.</i> THAT BROUGHT YOU OUT. The verse ends with <i>I am the Lord</i>. This the first statement of the Decalogue<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">63</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Our verse, which connects God to the Exodus, is parallel to the first of the ten statements of the Decalogue, which does the same.</i> and the root of all the commandments.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">64</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See I.E. on Ex. 20:1 (Vol. 2, p. 393).</i> After mentioning the holy things of the children of Israel,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">65</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In our chapter.</i> the Torah notes<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">66</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In the following chapter.</i> the days that Israel shall offer burnt offerings. It starts with the Sabbath. [EVEN THESE ARE MY APPOINTED SEASONS.] Scripture reads, <i>even these are My appointed seasons</i> (mo’adai) because there are many Sabbaths in the year.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">1</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to I.E. verse 2 refers only to the Sabbath. That being the case, the verse should have read this is My appointed season. I.E. thus points out that <i>My appointed seasons</i> refers to all the Sabbaths (of the year. After stating that all the Sabbaths are God’s appointed seasons, Scripture goes on to speak of the weekly Sabbath in verse 3. For another interpretation see Rashi.</i> IN ALL YOUR DWELLINGS. In your country and outside of your country, at home and on the way. I have previously explained the meaning of <i>it is a sabbath unto the Lord</i>.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">2</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See I.E. on Ex. 16:23 (Vol. 2, p. 325). It is called “<i>a sabbath day unto the Lord</i>…because He rested from all His work on the seventh day.”</i>  Scripture then mentions the festivals (v. 4). The Torah says, <i>even these are My appointed seasons</i>, with regard to the Sabbath and <i>in their appointed season</i> with regard to the festivals. The meaning of <i>in their appointed season</i> is, in any day of the week in which they fall. Note, I will now lay down a general rule with regard to the festivals. During the time of the Temple the festivals were in the hands of the Beth Din. Do you not see that Scripture says, <i>For the king had taken counsel</i> (II Chron. 30:2), with regard to the Passover proclaimed by Hezekiah.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">3</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hezekiah put off the observance of Passover for a month. According to I.E., Hezekiah’s actions were based on a ruling of the Bet Din. See Vol. 1, pp. 9,10.</i> After Hezekiah established the new moon of Nisan he proclaimed a leap year.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">4</sup><i class=\"footnote\">And proclaimed that Passover be observed in the next month.</i> Our sages, of blessed memory, criticized him for this, for he should not have added a Nisan on Nisan.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">5</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>See Berakhot</i> 10b.</i> The transmitters of tradition said that the Beth Din took many things into consideration in estabhshing the year.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">6</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See <i>Sanhedrin</i> 11a,b. The Bet Din had to consider many things in deciding whether or not to make a year a leap year.</i> They said, regarding Rabbi Akiba, that he established two leap years back to back according to the needs of the hour.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">7</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>San.</i> 12a. However, the text there speaks of three years. Hence Krinsky suggests emending I.E. to read three years. <i>Vat. Ebr.</i> 38 omits the word two. It reads, “He established leap years back to back.”</i> There is no proof in Scripture as to how Israel established the months and the festivals. The Gaon’s statement to the effect that they relied on the intercalational calculation<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">8</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The rules governing the establishment of the fixed Jewish calendar.</i> is not true, for there are proofs in the Mishnah and also in the Talmud that Passover fell on a Monday, Wednesday, and Friday.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">9</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Which cannot occur under the rules of the fixed Jewish calendar.</i> There are also two stories in the Talmud [which show that they did not rely on a fixed calendar].<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">10</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The Mishnah, <i>Rosh Ha-Shanah</i> 2:9 records a controversy between Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Joshua as to when Yom Kippur fell in a certain year. If the rabbis of the Mishnah had used a fixed calendar there would be no place for this difference of opinion. The Mishnah (<i>Ibid.</i> 2:8) also reports an instance of two sets of witnesses contradicting themselves as to the position of the new moon. The latter shows that the month was established by actually seeing the new moon and not by calculation. See Weiser and Krinsky.</i> Leap years<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">11</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Of which there are seven in an 19 year cycle.</i> come close to compensating for the additional days which a solar year has over a lunar year.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">12</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The solar year is about ten days longer than the lunar year. The extra month added during the leap year comes very close to closing this gap.</i> The latter does not follow the way of the ancients.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">13</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Who established the new moon visually, not by calculation.</i> The calculation<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">14</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Of the fixed calendar. What follows is a bit complicated. Hence a few words are in order. The Jewish months begin with the conjunction of the sun and moon. The calculation starts with the very first conjunction. That conjunction theoretically occurred at the end of five hours and 204 parts of an hour of the second day of the week (the rabbis divided an hour into 1,080 parts). The latter is known as <i>molad tohu</i>, or <i>molad baharad</i>, which is the Hebrew abbreviation for five hours and 204 parts of an hour of the second day of the week. How do we arrive at this calculation? Ibn Ezra explains that we do so by counting back a year from the conjunction which occurred on the day that Adam was born. It should be noted that that year, except for the five days preceding the birth of Adam, did not exist in reality. It was a theoretical year.</i> starts with the end of 14 hours of the sixth day;<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">15</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Adam was born on Friday. That day was the first day of the month of Tishri. According to the rabbis the moon was then in conjunction with the sun at the end of 14 hours of the day.</i> that is, add four days, eight hours, and 876 parts<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">16</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The days between the start of one simple lunar year to the next lunar year. See Maimonides, <i>M.T., Laws of the Sanctification of the New Moon</i>, 6:4,5.</i> to five hours and 204 parts of an hour of the second day of the week.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">17</sup><i class=\"footnote\">There were five days preceding the birth of Adam. Those days belonged to the previous year. In that year the conjunction of the sun and the moon (had they existed) would have taken place at five hours plus 204 parts of on hour of the second day. The calculation is as follows. A lunar month consists of 29 days, 12 hours, 44 minutes, and 3 1/3 seconds. A year consists of 12 months. If we work backwards from the birth of Adam, who was born on a Friday, a day which we mark as the New Year, then the previous New Year which came 12 months earlier had to fall on a Monday. For 12 times 29 1/2 days and 44 minutes comes to 50 weeks plus four days and some five hours.</i> Then the birth of the new moon will occur at the end of 14 hours of the sixth day.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">18</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Adam was born on a Friday. The day of Adam’s birth started a new year.</i> A year is added,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">19</sup><i class=\"footnote\">To the year which started with the birth of Adam.</i> for we start counting from five hours and 204 parts of an hour of the second day of the week<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">20</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Of the “year” which preceded the birth of Adam.</i> because of the five days which preceded the creation of Adam, for a day into a year is considered a year.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">21</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The five days preceding the birth of Adam count as part of a separate year.</i> This presents no problem.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">22</sup><i class=\"footnote\">To the calculation of the calendar.</i> You cannot add an additional year,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">23</sup><i class=\"footnote\">To the year preceding the birth of Adam and declare the year in which Adam was born a leap year. I.E.’s point is that our calendar is accurate. It is based on a 19-year cycle. The 3rd, 6th, 8th, 11th, 14th, 17th, and 19th year of the cycle are leap years. In those years we add a second month of Adar. According to current calculations the first leap year occurred a year after Adam was born (the third year from creation). If we begin the calendar two years before Adam was born, our calendar would have to be accordingly readjusted. However, we cannot do so, for there was nothing in existence two years before Adam’s birth. Hence the calendar must begin a year before the birth of Adam, not before.</i> for it did not yet exist. Note, an additional month was added to the year after a year and a half.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">24</sup><i class=\"footnote\">A real year and a half following the birth of Adam, for that was the “third” year from creation. The three years are calculated as follows. The “year” of <i>tohu</i> (or <i>yetizrah</i>, creation), the year in which Adam was born (<i>molad adam</i>), and a half of the following year.</i> The intercalation is based on the average<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">25</sup><i class=\"footnote\">“The moment that the moon would have the same longitude as the sun, if both moved uniformly” (W.M. Feldman, <i>Rabbinical Mathematics and Astronomy</i>, p. 123). Also see Maimonides, <i>M.T., Laws of the Sanctification of the New Moon</i>, 6:1. The length of a junction varies. Its average time is 29 days, 12 hours, 44 minutes, and 3 and 1/3 seconds. The average movement (or conjunction) stands in contrast to the true conjunction of the sun and moon.</i> movement of the moon.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">26</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The average conjunction of the moon and sun.</i> The sages therefore said that sometimes the birth of the moon comes at longer intervals; at times it comes at shorter intervals.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">27</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Rosh Ha-Shanah</i> 25a.</i> The establishment of the month<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">28</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In the post-calendar period.</i> is not tied to the sighting of the moon in Jerusalem,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">29</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In the post-calendar period the month is established by calculation, not by the actual sighting of the new moon.</i> or in the far east,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">30</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Literally, edge of the east. During the Middle Ages, before the Western Hemisphere was discovered, the Jews, in common with others, believed half of the globe to be covered by water (the Great Ocean) and the other half to be dry and habitable. Thus R. Abraham bar Chiya of the 11th century begins his work on the <i>Jewish Calendar</i> by stating that “the earth is round like a sphere. The water of the Great Ocean covers half of it, which is uninhabitable, the other half is dry and habitable” (W.M. Feldman, <i>Rabbinical Mathematics and Astronomy</i>, p. 104).</i> or in the west [of the world].<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">31</sup><i class=\"footnote\">That is, to the actual sighting of the new moon at the edge of the East or the West of the world.</i> The place of the average conjunction of the moon<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">32</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Which determines the start of the new year.</i> is proof of this,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">33</sup><i class=\"footnote\">That the new moon is not contingent on the actual sighting of the new moon at the edge of the East or the West of the world.</i> for look, it is reckoned when occurring over Jerusalem.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">34</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The new moon begins when it is calculated that the moon would be in conjunction with the sun over Jerusalem if both moved uniformly.</i> Furthermore, we have seen the moon many times on the second night of the month of Nisan. It was similarly seen in the entire world. However, the month was established on the third night [of the week].<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">35</sup><i class=\"footnote\">If the new moon were based on sighting the moon, then the month would be established when the moon was actually seen.</i> The same thing happened in the three months preceding Nisan. This occurs when the birth of the new moon of Tishri occurs at nine hours and 204 parts of an hour of the third day [of the week].<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">36</sup><i class=\"footnote\">On an ordinary year, that is, not a leap year.</i> It was enacted<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">37</sup><i class=\"footnote\">By those who established the calendar.</i> because of the postponement.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">38</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hebrew, <i>dechiyot</i>. “There are five separate occasions which necessitate the postponement of New Year’s day by one or even two days,” Feldman, <i>op. cit</i>, p. 191. For these <i>dechiyot</i>, see Maimonides, <i>M.T., Laws of the Sanctification of the New Moon</i>, Chap. 7. Also see Feldman, pp. 191-194.</i> There are also times when the month of Tishri was established on the fifth day [of the week] and the moon was not seen on the night of the Sabbath. Now, the air was then clear. This occurs every year when the birth of the new moon<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">39</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In the month of Tishri.</i> is close to half of the day<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">40</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Another example of a postponement. This postponement is called <i>dechiyat yach</i> (<i>yod chet</i> = 18), i.e., the 18th hour. “If the <i>molad</i> of Tishri occurs at or past noon (i.e., the 18th hour of any day. Noon is the 18th hour of a day which consists of 12 hours of daylight and 12 hours of night. Such a day begins at 6:00 P.M. New Year (Rosh Ha-Shanah) is postponed to the following day. Such a <i>molad</i> is called an Old <i>Molad</i> (<i>molad zaken</i>) because on the day of the new month, the moon is already old” (Feldman, pp. 191,192).</i> and the moon is in half of its sphere’s apogee. The establishment<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">41</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Of the new month.</i> is also not dependent on the time of the conjunction<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">42</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The true conjunction of the sun and the moon.</i> of the sun and moon. It is not even dependent on their mean conjunction, for note, the conjunction<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">43</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The mean conjunction.</i> of the sun and moon at 15 hours and 599 parts<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">44</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The printed editions read 204 parts. However, the commentaries point out that this is a scribal error.</i> of the hour on the second day<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">45</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This is known as <i>dechiyat betutkapat</i> (<i>bet, tet-vav, tav-kof, peh-tet</i>), which stands for two days, 15 hours, 599 parts.</i> and similarly the conjunction at nine hours and 204 parts of the third day<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">46</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This postponement is called <i>dechiyat gatrad</i> (<i>gimel-tet, resh-dalet</i>), which stands for three days, nine hours, 204 parts.</i> is proof of this.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">47</sup><i class=\"footnote\">That the new moon is not always contingent on the mean conjunction.</i> If I did not want to go on at length I would explain the secret of the calculation of the calendar and the secret of the very difficult law, i.e., the rule regarding a moon born before midday.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">48</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See <i>Rosh Ha-Shanah</i> 20b.</i> The general principle is: our wise men, of blessed memory, transmitted to us the rule that we are to rely on the intercalated calendar in exile. We received the same from the mouth of the prophets. We cannot do anything better than it. The sages ruled that the festivals be observed for two days in the Diaspora because of uncertainty.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">49</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Whether the Bet Din in Jerusalem declared the new month on the 30th or 31st day from the start of the previous month. This was in the time before the fixed calendar.</i> Those who fast for two days in observance of Yom Kippur<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">50</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Because they want to start the month with the day that the moon is calculated to be in conjunction with the sun. They also keep the Rabbinic calendar.</i> fast in vain<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">51</sup><i class=\"footnote\">They fast an extra day in vain. I.E. will point out that one should follow Rabbinic law with regard to the calendar. Thus if the rabbis say that one does not have to fast for two days to ensure that one fasts on the true Yom Kippur, it is not necessary to do so. See I.E., <i>Sefer Ha-Ibbur</i>, pp. 11,12.</i> due to the “postponements.” For in a year when the birth of the new moon<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">52</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Of Tishri.</i> occurs at nine hours and 204 parts of the hour on the third day of the week, they should fast on what is the eighth day of the month according to our calculation if they rely on the conjunction.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">53</sup><i class=\"footnote\">For in this instance the first day of the month falls two days after the birth of the new moon. The point is that those who fast for two days do so because they want to be certain that they observed Yom Kippur on the real astronomical day. However, in a year when the birth of the new moon of the month of Tishri in an ordinary year occurs at nine hours and 204 parts of the third day, the new month should begin on Tuesday, not Thursday as in the intercalated calendar. However, since these people want to be certain that they celebrate Yom Kippur ten days from the start of the “real” New Year they should fast on what is the 8th day of the month according to the intercalated calendar.</i> Why<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">54</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to those who fast two days on Yom Kippur because of doubt.</i> manipulate the date of the start of one year<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">55</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Literally, why should we pervert the calculation of our year?</i> because of another year?<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">56</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The start of the new year is postponed when the birth of the new moon in the month of Tishri occurs at nine hours and 204 parts of an hour on Tuesday so that there not be a difference of six days between that year and the next. See Maimonides, <i>Hilchot Kiddush Ha-Chodesh</i> 7:4. Those who fast for two days believe that our festivals should be based on astronomical reality. If that is the case, then all the rules of establishing the calendar should be discarded.</i> This would happen to them<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">57</sup><i class=\"footnote\">They would have to fast on what is the eighth day of the month according to our calculation in a year when the birth of the new moon occurs at nine hours and 204 parts of the third day.</i> if the month is established by seeing the new moon.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">58</sup><i class=\"footnote\">If they established the month by the actual sighting of the new moon and not only by calculating the birth of the new moon.</i>  AT DUSK. I have previously explained this.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">59</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See I.E. on Ex. 12:6 (Vol. 2, pp. 221-225).</i> AN OFFERING MADE BY FIRE. These are described in the Torah portion <i>Pinechas</i>.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">60</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Num. 28:19. Our verse mentions that an offering made by fire is to be made on Passover. Hence I.E. points out that Torah lists the various types of offerings to be made on Passover in Numbers. The offerings are described in the Torah portion <i>Pinechas</i>.</i>  Scripture reads, <i>When ye are come into the land</i> (v. 9),<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">61</sup><i class=\"footnote\">After stating the laws of the Sabbath and Passover.</i> so that Israel would observe all the Sabbaths in the wilderness and the Passover<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">62</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Israel offered only one Passover sacrifice in the wilderness. They did this when they camped around Mount Sinai. See I.E. on Ex. 29:42 (Vol. 2, pp. 620,621). This celebration took place close to the time of the erection of the tabernacle, for the <i>mishkan</i> was erected on the first day of Nisan. Israel celebrated the Passover soon after.</i> at Mount Sinai.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">63</sup><i class=\"footnote\">And in the merit of observing the Sabbath and Passover enter the Land of Israel, for after leaving the wilderness of Sinai, Israel was supposed to enter the Promised Land (Weiser).</i> This section was given close to the [time of the] erection of the tabernacle.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">64</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The revelation of the laws in the Book of Leviticus commenced with the completion of the tabernacle. See Ex. 40:34-38; Lev. 1:1.</i>  [SPEAK UNTO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL.] This means speak unto the children of Israel and tell them to gather. Afterwards,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">65</sup><i class=\"footnote\">After they gather.</i> <i>say unto them…</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">66</sup><i class=\"footnote\">What follows.</i> ON THE MORROW AFTER THE SABBATH. The sages said that on <i>the morrow after the sabbath</i> means on the morrow after the festival.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">67</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The day after the first day of Passover, i.e., on the 16th of Nisan.</i> Those who contradict the sages<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">68</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The Sadducees.</i> say that the word Sabbath is be taken literally.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">69</sup><i class=\"footnote\">That Sabbath refers to the seventh day of the week. The Karaites claim that the <i>omer</i> was brought on the first Sunday following the start of Passover.</i> Those who believe in the Rabbinic tradition offer proof from the Sabbatical year,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">70</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Lev. 25:5.</i> the Jubilee, the great fast,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">71</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Yom Kippur. See verse 32.</i> and the day of <i>shofar</i> sounding,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">72</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Verse 24.</i> for the word <i>shabbaton</i> (a solemn rest) is employed with regard to them.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">73</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Scripture refers to these days by the term <i>shabbaton</i>. Thus the word <i>shabbat</i> does not refer only to the Sabbath.</i> Scripture similarly employs <i>shabbaton</i> with regard to Sukkot<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">74</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Verse 39.</i> and Shemini Atzeret.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">75</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Ibid</i>.</i> They also say that the meaning of <i>sheva shabbatot</i> (v. 15) is seven weeks.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">76</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Not seven Sabbaths. We thus see that <i>shabbat</i> does not always mean the Sabbath.</i> The same is true of <i>ba’eh shabbat im yotze’eh shabbat</i> (those that were to come in on the sabbath, with those that were to go out on the sabbath) (II Kings 11:9).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">77</sup><i class=\"footnote\">They render this verse as follows: those that were to come in on the Sabbath, with those that were to go out after the week was over.</i> The same word<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">78</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Shabbat</i>.</i> is employed with two meanings in one verse.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">79</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The first time the word <i>shabbat</i> is used it refers to the Sabbath; the second time, to a week. We thus see that <i>shabbat</i> does not necessarily refer to the Sabbath.</i> Note, we find a similarity in <i>sheloshim ayarim</i> (thirty ass colts) (Jud. 10:4).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">80</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Jud. 10:4 reads: <i>And he had thirty sons that rode on thirty ass colts</i> (ayarim), <i>and they had thirty cities</i> (<i>ayarim</i>). The word <i>ayarim</i> appears twice in this verse. The first time it means ass colts; the second time, cities.</i> They<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">81</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Those who believe in the Rabbinic tradition.</i> offer proof from the word <i>complete</i> (v. 15).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">82</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Verse 15 reads <i>sheva shabbatot temimot</i>. The latter can only mean seven complete weeks, for it makes no sense to render it seven complete Sabbaths.</i> A wise man in Rome<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">83</sup><i class=\"footnote\">I.E. does not identify the wise man. He remains unknown</i> offered proof<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">84</sup><i class=\"footnote\">That <i>the morrow after the sabbath</i> means on the morrow after the first day of festival, i.e., on the 16th of Nisan.</i> from on <i>the morrow after the passover, unleavened cakes and parched corn</i> (Josh. 5:11).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">85</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Josh. 5 describes Israel’s first Passover in the Land of Israel. Josh. 5:11 relates: <i>And they did eat of the produce of the land on the morrow after the passover, unleavened cakes and parched corn, in the selfsame day</i>. This scholar believed that the term <i>“passover”</i> in Josh. 5:11 refers to the 15th of Nisan. Hence <i>the morrow after the passover</i> refers to the 16th. This scholar also assumed that the <i>unleavened cakes and parched corn</i> came from the new produce. Now, since eating of new produce is forbidden till the <i>omer</i> is offered, and Scripture tells us, <i>And they did eat of the produce of the land</i>, we must assume that the eating of the new grain was preceded by the offering of the <i>omer</i>. We thus see that the <i>omer</i> is brought on the 16th of Nisan. Furthermore, Josh. 5:11 shows that <i>on the morrow after the sabbath</i> means on the morrow following the first day of the festival.</i> He did not know that it cost him his life,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">86</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This is metaphorical. That is, he trapped himself. See Prov. 7:23, <i>As a bird hasteneth to the snare–And knoweth not that it is at the cost of his life</i>. The “proof” offered by this scholar does not prove that which he intended. In fact, the Karaites or Sadducees can, as we shall see below, use his interpretation for their own purposes.</i> for the Passover falls on the 14th<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">87</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Of Nisan.</i> and the morrow following it is on the 15th.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">88</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Day of Nisan. I.E.’s point is that in Scripture the term Passover is limited to the 14th of Nisan when the Passover sacrifice was offered. The seven days following are referred to as the Festival of Unleavened Bread (<i>chag ha-matzot</i>). Thus if we interpret Joshua 5:11 as alluding to the bringing of the <i>omer</i>, then we have to assume that the <i>omer</i> was brought on the 15th of Nisan, which we today call the first day of Passover. This is not in keeping with Rabbinic tradition. On the contrary, it supports the Karaites, for they believe that the <i>morrow after the sabbath</i> in Leviticus 23:16 refers to the first Sunday following the start of Passover. In other words, the Karaites say that in the year that Israel celebrated the first Passover in Canaan, the 15th of Nisan fell on a Sunday and Israel therefore offered the <i>omer</i> on that day.</i> Scripture similarly reads, <i>And they journeyed from Rameses in the first month</i> (Num. 33:3).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">89</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The complete clause reads: <i>And they journeyed from Rameses in the first month, on the fifteenth day of the first of the first month; on the morrow after the passover</i>. We thus clearly see that <i>on the morrow after the passover</i> refers to the 15th of Nisan.</i> The eating of parched corn is prohibited until the waving of the <i>omer</i>.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">90</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hence Josh. 5:11 cannot refer to the new grain.</i> The Gaon<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">91</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Rabbi Saadiah Gaon interprets <i>And they did eat of the produce of the land on the morrow after the passover, unleavened cakes and parched corn</i> as follows: And they did eat of the produce of the land on the morrow after the Passover of the Lord, i.e., the morrow following the 15th day.</i> says that there are two Passovers, a Passover of the Lord and a Passover of Israel. The Passover of God is on the night of the 15th.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">92</sup><i class=\"footnote\">While the Passover of Israel is on the 14th. The Passover of the Lord falls on the 15th, for that is when God killed the first-born of Egypt. The Passover of Israel falls on the 14th because that is the day that Israel sacrifices the paschal lamb.</i> Now, the <i>day after the Passover</i> in Joshua refers to the 16th day.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">93</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Of Nisan.</i> It follows from this that the interpretation of <i>on the morrow after the passover</i> (Num. 33:3), is on the morrow following the sacrifice of the Passover.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">94</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The paschal lamb.</i> What he said has no value. The festival<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">95</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The 14th of Nisan.</i> is called Passover only because God skipped over the houses.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">96</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Of the Israelites. Thus the term Passover cannot be applied to first day of the Festival of Unleavened Bread (<i>chag ha-matzot</i>). Hence the term Passover in Josh. 5:11 cannot refer to the 15th of Nisan.</i> Its morrow is the morning of the 15th.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">97</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Not the morning of the 16th.</i> Scripture similarly writes, <i>all that day, and all the night, and all the next day</i> (yom ha-mochorat)<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">98</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Literally, the day of the morning. The point is that <i>mochorat</i> (morrow) refers to the following morning.</i> (Num. 11:32). The Gaon further states that the unleavened cakes and the parched corn were from the old grain.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">99</sup><i class=\"footnote\">From the grain of the previous year. In this case Josh. 5:11 is to be interpreted literally and it presents no problem, for it merely states that Israel ate unleavened cakes and the parched corn from the old grain on the 15th of Nisan (<i>on the morrow after the passover</i>).</i> This is not far-fetched, for Scripture says that the waving of the <i>omer</i> should begin <i>from the time the sickle is first put to the standing corn</i> (Deut. 16:9). If the <i>omer</i> was waved on the 15th<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">100</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Of Nisan</i> when did they harvest and make unleavened bread?<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">101</sup><i class=\"footnote\">If the <i>omer</i> was waved on the 15th of Nisan when Israel entered the Land of Israel as the Karaites maintain, when did they harvest the grain to make the unleavened bread? Harvesting is prohibited on a festival.</i> Furthermore, there was no harvest,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">102</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Before the festival.</i> for the <i>omer</i> is brought from the first of the barley harvest.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">103</sup><i class=\"footnote\">They could thus not harvest before the <i>omer</i> was waved.</i> There is also what appears to be proof of the Gaon’s opinion,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">104</sup><i class=\"footnote\">That the unleavened cakes and the parched corn were from the old grain.</i> for Scripture states, <i>of the produce</i> (meavur) <i>of the land</i> (Josh. 5:11). It is possible that the term <i>avur</i> refers to the produce of the year that has passed.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">105</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The verb <i>avar</i> means passed. Hence this interpretation.</i> The meaning of <i>the produce of the land</i> is the produce of the land of Sihon and Og.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">106</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Which are located in Transjordan. The Israelites brought grain from Transjordan when they entered Canaan.</i> The fact that Scripture afterwards states, <i>of the fruit of the land of Canaan</i> (Josh. 5:12), is proof.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">107</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Josh. 5:12 states, <i>but they did eat of the fruit of the land of Canaan that year</i>. This implies that Josh. 5:11 refers to grain that was not from the land of Canaan.</i> Furthermore, <i>kaluy</i> (parched corn) (Josh. 5:11) is not the same as <i>kali</i> (parched com) (Lev. 23:14).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">108</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Kali</i> (Lev.23:14) refers to parched corn from the new produce. <i>Kaluy</i> (Josh. 5:11) refers to any parched corn.</i> Now, Scripture says, <i>And ye shall eat neither bread nor parched corn</i> (kali), <i>nor fresh ears</i> (v. 14). The verse which reads <i>kaluy ba-esh</i> (parched with fire) (Lev. 2:14)<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">109</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Lev. 2:14 speaks of a meal offering of first-fruits (<i>bikkurim</i>).</i> cannot serve as an argument to the contrary,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">110</sup><i class=\"footnote\">That <i>kaluy</i> refers to the new grain.</i> for it describes the act<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">111</sup><i class=\"footnote\">It is an adjective.</i> since corn in the ear parched in fire is called <i>kaluy</i>.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">112</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Lev. 2:14 speaks of grain parched in fire. The proper Hebrew word for parched is <i>kaluy</i>. Hence that word is used. However, its use does not prove that the reference is only to new grain.</i> We can also ask:<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">113</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The Karaites.</i> From where do we know that the <i>kohen</i> waved the <i>omer</i> on the other side of the Jordan,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">114</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>On the morrow after the passover</i> as the Karaites maintain.</i> for the verse states, <i>which I give unto you</i> (v. 10)?<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">115</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In other words, the obligation to wave the <i>omer</i> applies only after Israel has taken possession of the land. Thus Josh. 5:11 cannot allude to the waving of the <i>omer</i>.</i> However, the land was not yet given to them.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">116</sup><i class=\"footnote\">They were thus not yet obligated to bring the <i>omer</i>.</i> Scripture mentions matzot and corn only because the manna ceased. This is the meaning of the entire verse.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">117</sup><i class=\"footnote\">When Israel entered the Promised Land. I.E.’s point is that Josh. 5:11 does not state, <i>And they did eat of the produce of the land on the morrow after the passover, unleavened cakes and parched corn</i>, to inform us that they waved the <i>omer</i> and then ate matzot and grain from the new produce. It rather tells us, <i>And they did eat of the produce of the land on the morrow after the passover, unleavened cakes and parched corn</i>, because the manna ceased.</i> The Gaon<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">118</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Rabbi Saadiah Gaon.</i> further says: If the word Sabbath<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">119</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In <i>on the morrow after the sabbath</i>.</i> is to be taken literally<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">120</sup><i class=\"footnote\">As the Karaites do.</i> then from which Sabbath shall we start to count? Joshua<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">121</sup><i class=\"footnote\">A Karaite scholar.</i> answers that there are 18 days aside from the Sabbath whereon sacrifices are offered. These days are called <i>mo’adim</i> (festivals). Now, since there is a sacrifice<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">122</sup><i class=\"footnote\">A special sacrifice.</i> on the day that the <i>omer</i> is offered<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">123</sup><i class=\"footnote\">And Scripture does not specify that day as a separate festival.</i> it is a sign and a witness that the waving takes place on one of the days of the spring festival.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">124</sup><i class=\"footnote\">One of the days of Passover. In other words, the <i>omer</i> is waved on the first day of the Passover holiday that follows a Sabbath.</i> Note, he<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">125</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Joshua.</i> forgot the sacrifices that are offered on the new moon, which are not mentioned.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">126</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The new moons are not listed among the festivals. We thus see that a day on which an additional offering is brought is not necessarily a festival. The same should apply to the day that the <i>omer</i> is waved. In other words, the fact that the Torah does not specify the day of the <i>omer</i> waving as a festival does not mean that it falls on the festival of Passover. Hence if we reject the Rabbinic tradition and take the word Sabbath literally, we do not know from which Sabbath to start the count of seven weeks.</i> Furthermore, Scripture states, <i>After this manner ye shall offer daily</i>,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">127</sup><i class=\"footnote\">On the Festival of Unleavened Bread.</i> <i>for seven days</i> (Num. 28:24). Scripture should have stated, aside from the offering of the <i>omer</i>.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">128</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to Joshua, Scripture should have stated: After this manner ye shall offer daily, for seven days aside from the offering which accompanies the waving of the <i>omer</i>.</i> This<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">129</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The fact that Scripture does not read, “After this manner ye shall offer daily, for seven days aside from the offering which accompanies the waving of the <i>omer</i>.”</i> too<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">130</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Like the fact that Scripture employs the word Sabbath for the first day of the Festival of Unleavened Bread.</i> is no argument against us, for we rely on tradition when it comes to the commandments. Now, Scripture does not state “aside from the he-lambs brought for a peace offering,” when it lists in the Torah portion <i>Pinechas</i> the offerings to be brought on the festival of Shavu’ot.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">131</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In other words, Scripture, in listing the Shavu’ot offerings in Num. 28:27, omits the two <i>he-lambs…for a sacrifice of peace-offerings</i>, which according to verse 19 were to be offered on Shavu’ot.</i> It states above,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">132</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In the verse preceding verse 19.</i> <i>and one young bullock, and two rams</i> (v. 18). However, <i>Pinechas</i> reads, <i>two young bullocks, one ram, seven he-lambs of the first year</i> (Num. 28:27).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">133</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Our verse states that <i>one young bullock, and two rams</i> are to be brought as burnt offerings on Shavu’ot. However, Num. 28:27 states that <i>two young bullocks</i>, are to be brought as burnt offerings on Shavu’ot. See further for I.E.’s explanation of the discrepancy.</i> The believer can also answer<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">134</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The question as to why Scripture in our verse refers to the 16th of Nisan as <i>on the morrow after the sabbath</i>.</i> that Moses prophetically knew the day that the <i>omer</i> would be waved.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">135</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Moses knew that when Israel entered the land of Canaan the first waving of the <i>omer</i> would take place on the Sabbath. Our verse alludes to that historic event.</i> He knew that the first day of the month<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">136</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Of Nisan.</i> would be established on the Sabbath.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">137</sup><i class=\"footnote\">If the first day of Nisan falls on a Sabbath, then the 15th of Nisan also falls on a Sabbath. In such a year the 16th of Nisan falls on <i>the morrow after the Sabbath</i>.</i> The arrangement of the bread which took place on the Sabbath is proof of this.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">138</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According ti I.E. Moses prophesied that the show bread would be arranged for the first time on a Sabbath.</i> Scripture notes<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">139</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In our verse.</i> how they calculated the first year.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">140</sup><i class=\"footnote\">How the Festival of Unleavened Bread fell in the first year that they entered Canaan.</i> They then<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">141</sup><i class=\"footnote\">On the first Festival of Unleavened Bread following their entrance into Canaan.</i> brought the peace offerings and the burnt offerings which are mentioned [in our Torah portion] and then<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">142</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In the following years.</i> the ones mentioned in the Torah portion <i>Pinechas</i>.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">143</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This explains the discrepancy in the sacrifices to be brought on Shavu’ot between our Torah portion and Num. 28:27.</i> Scripture then goes on to say,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">144</sup><i class=\"footnote\">With regard to the observance of the <i>omer</i> in all the other years.</i> <i>in your feast of weeks</i> (Num. 28:26) and <i>seven weeks</i> (Deut. 16:9); it does not state Sabbaths.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">145</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Deut. 16:9 speaks of weeks, not of Sabbaths, for the count does not start from the morrow after the Sabbath.</i> There is no proof that the beginning of the week<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">146</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Of the seven weeks that commence with the waving of the <i>omer</i> and conclude with shavu’ot.</i> starts with the first day.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">147</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Sunday. In other words, there is no proof that the beginning of the seven weeks that commence with the waving of the <i>omer</i> and conclude with shavu’ot starts on a Sunday as the Karaites maintain.</i> In fact, <i>then she</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">148</sup><i class=\"footnote\">A woman who gives birth to a baby girl.</i> <i>shall be unclean two weeks</i> (Lev. 12:5) shows that this is not the case.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">149</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Lev. 12:5 shows that the term week does not apply only to a week which starts on Sunday and concludes on Saturday, for the women who deliver start counting their two weeks from the time of delivery. The same is true of the week which begins when the <i>omer</i> is counted. It does not start on a Sunday.</i> Look, I will hint at a secret.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">150</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Regarding the festival of Shavu’ot. The secret is what follows: All the festivals are contingent on a specific day of the month. Scripture does not give a specific date of the month for the festival of shavu’ot (so Weiser). The question arises, what sort of secret is this? This is obvious. It is possible that I.E. is hinting that the establishment of the observance of Shavu’ot 50 days from the second day of Passover is not of Pentateuchal origin. The Torah states that the counting of the seven weeks starts from the day <i>of putting the sickle to the corn</i>. It does not date when the counting is to begin. See Judah Ha-Levi, <i>The Book of Kuzari</i> 3:41, “…The Synhedrion and all the sages found that this period [of 50 days] was fixed with the intention to create an interval of fifty days between ‘the first fruits of harvest of the barley and the harvest of wheat,’ and to observe ‘seven weeks,’ which are seven complete Sabbaths.’ The first day of the week [<i>the morrow after the Sabbath</i> ] is only mentioned for argument’s sake in the following manner: should the day of putting ‘the sickle to the corn’ be on a Sunday, you count till Sunday…The date of putting of the sickle from which we count is left for us to fix” (<i>The Book of Kuzari</i>, translated by H. Hirschfeld, N.Y., 1946, p. 153).</i> All the festivals are contingent on a specific day of the month. Scripture does not give a date for the festival of Shavu’ot<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">151</sup><i class=\"footnote\">It does not state on which day of the month Shavu’ot falls.</i> because of the counting, which is a commandment. The rabbis, of blessed memory, transmitted the tradition that the Torah was given on the festival of Shavu’ot and that it is concerning this day that Scripture states, <i>for we must hold a feast unto the Lord</i> (Ex. 10:9).  Some say that whenever the Torah uses the term <i>li-retzonekhem</i> it means to be accepted from you,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">152</sup><i class=\"footnote\">That is, so that God will accept it from you.</i> for Scripture reads, <i>And he shall wave the sheaf before the Lord, to be accepted for you</i> (li-retzonekhem) (v. 11). The meaning of the aforementioned is that you shall wave it willingly.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">153</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In other words, <i>li-retzonkhem</i> means willingly.</i> This means you shall offer a he-lamb<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">154</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Along with the sheaf. This seems to contradict what came before, for up to now <i>li-retzonkhem</i> was interpreted as meaning to be accepted for you. Filwarg suggests emending “the meaning of the aforementioned is <span class=\"underline\">not</span> that you shall wave it willingly.” Meijler suggests the following: However, the meaning of the aforementioned is that you shall wave it willingly; in other words, our sentence introduces a new interpretation.</i> of the first year so that you will be accepted.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">155</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to Meijler it means you shall offer a he-lamb willingly so that you will be accepted.</i>  Those who deny the Rabbinic tradition<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">156</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The Karaites.</i> say that <i>ben shanah</i> (of the first year) (Ex. 12:5) does not have the same meaning as <i>ben shenato</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">157</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Literally, of his first year.</i> (of the first year), for <i>ben shanato</i> refers to a lamb under a year and <i>ben shanah</i> refers to a lamb of a complete year. Note, they did not read the section dealing with the dedication of the altar. The latter reads, <i>one he-lamb of the first year</i> (ben shenato), for a burnt offering (Num. 7:15). However, in the final section<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">158</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Which summarizes the number of sacrifices offered when the altar was dedicated.</i> it reads, <i>the he-lambs of the first year</i> (bene shanah) <i>twelve</i> (Num. 7:87).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">159</sup><i class=\"footnote\">We thus see that Scripture refers to the same lamb by either phrase. There is thus no difference between them; they mean the same.</i> BREAD. From the new grain.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">160</sup><i class=\"footnote\">That when Scripture states, <i>And ye shall eat neither bread</i>…it refers to bread from the new grain.</i> The fact that the Passover offering is eaten with matzot and bitter herbs is proof of this.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">161</sup><i class=\"footnote\">If our verse refers to bread baked from grain from the previous year, it would not command that unleavened bread be eaten along with the Passover sacrifice.</i>  If it were not for tradition<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">162</sup><i class=\"footnote\">That requires us to count the days between the waving of the <i>omer</i> and Shavu’ot.</i> it would have appeared that the counting of the days is similar to the counting of the years<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">163</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hebrew, <i>ki-shenot</i>. Some editions read <i>bi-shenot</i>. According to this reading, “the counting of days only applies in the days of the Jubilee.” In other words, the <i>omer</i> is not counted when the Jubilee is not observed.</i> of the Jubilee.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">164</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Forty-nine years (seven weeks of years) are counted and the 50th year declared as the year of Jubilee. Similarly, seven weeks would be counted from the offering of the <i>omer</i> and the 50th day declared as the festival of Shavu’ot.</i> Those who deny the Rabbinic tradition say that the meaning of <i>complete</i> is that the first Sabbath from the morrow on which the count begins is not to be considered in the count.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">165</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In other words, the Sabbath preceding the day on which the <i>omer</i> is waved is not to be considered in the count.</i> SHALL YE NUMBER FIFTY DAYS. For this is the way the Torah counts.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">166</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The 50th day is in the count; i.e., Shavu’ot does not fall on the 49th day, but on the 50th day. In other words, when the Torah gives a count of days it does not mean up to the last day of the count, it means including the last day mentioned.</i> Similarly, in all cases of the eighth day.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">167</sup><i class=\"footnote\">When the Torah tell us to count 50 days and bring an offering, it does not mean to count 50 full days and bring the offering on the 51st day. Similarly, with circumcision, which the Torah requires to be performed on the eighth day from birth. One does not wait till the eighth day is concluded and then perform the rite of circumcision. The ritual is to be performed on the eighth day (Motot). According to Filwarg, I.E.’s point is that the Torah tells us to count seven weeks and to offer the sacrifice on the 50<sup>th</sup> day. Similarly, when Scripture requires seven days to pass (as in the case of one experiencing an issue, or a Nazirite who defiled himself) and then to offer a sacrifice, it means count seven days and offer the sacrifice on the eighth day.</i>  [YE SHALL BRING OUT.] The word <i>tavi’u</i> (ye shall bring out) is irregular in that its <i>alef</i> has a <i>dagesh</i> in it. We do not know the reason for this. OF YOUR DWELLINGS. We need tradition to teach us from which place it was brought<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">168</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Whether the two loaves must brought only from grain of the Land of Israel or if it can be brought from grain grown outside of the Land of Israel (Krinsky).</i> and when it is to be brought.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">169</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The date that the two loaves are to be waved.</i> TWO WAVE-LOAVES. For the <i>kohen</i> along with the peace offering lambs.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">170</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The two wave-loaves and the peace offering lambs are to be eaten by the <i>kohen</i>.</i>  It is possible that Scripture changed the sacrifices in the first year<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">171</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In the first year of Israel’s entering the Land of Israel. There is a discrepancy between our Torah portion and Num. 28:27. Our chapter states that one bullock and two rams are to be offered on Shavu’ot. Num. 28:27 states that two bullocks and one ram are to be offered. According to I.E. our Torah portion refers to the order of sacrifices to be offered by Israel after first entering the Land of Israel, and Numbers, to the years that followed.</i> because it was the beginning of the beginning.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">172</sup><i class=\"footnote\">It was the first Shavu’ot in Israel’s first year in the Land of Israel.</i> Some say that the <i>kohen</i> shall offer<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">173</sup><i class=\"footnote\">On Shavu’ot.</i> either a bullock and two rams<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">174</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In accordance with Lev. 23:18.</i> or two bullocks and one ram.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">175</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In accordance with Num. 28:27.</i> It depends on the will of the <i>kohen</i>.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">176</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In other words, Lev. 23:18 and Num. 28:27 do not contradict. They are options.</i> We do not find such a commandment again.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">177</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Where the Torah offers an option as to how a commandment should be observed.</i> I will give its true explanation in the Torah portion <i>Pinechas</i>.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">178</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to I.E. one bullock and two rams were offered along with the two loaves on Shavu’ot, while two bullocks and one ram were offered on Shavu’ot as burnt offerings. Thus there is no discrepancy between Leviticus and Numbers. See I.E. on Num. 28:26 and the notes thereto (Vol. 4, p. 235), “The two wave-loaves were the main offerings. The seven lambs, one young bullock, two rams (Lev. 23:18)…were brought along with it. The burnt offerings (two bullocks and one ram) in our chapter (Num. 28:26) refer to the obligatory sacrifice of the festival day.”</i>  Now, since the slaughtering of the peace offerings took place on the festival of Shavu’ot and it is a day of holy assembly, it is thus permissible to slaughter<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">179</sup><i class=\"footnote\">An animal for meat.</i> on all the festivals. The latter is contrary to the opinion of the Sadducees.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">180</sup><i class=\"footnote\">I.E.’s term for the Karaites. The Karaites claim that it is prohibited to slaughter an animal on a festival.</i>  [AND WHEN YE REAP.] The reason Scripture mentions <i>And when ye reap the harvest of your land…</i> a second time<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">181</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The same is stated in Lev. 19:9.</i> is that Shavu’ot is the festival of the first-fruits of the wheat harvest (Ex. 34:22). Scripture cautions: Do not forget what I commanded you<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">182</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In Lev. 19:9.</i> to do at this time. [SPOKE.] The reason the statement <i>And the Lord spoke</i> precedes the law dealing with the day of the sounding of the <i>shofar</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">183</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Which it does not do with regard to the festival of Shavu’ot.</i> is that the latter is a festival unto itself.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">184</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The laws dealing with the festival of Rosh Ha-Shanah opens with <i>And the Lord spoke unto Moses saying</i>. The preceding festival of Shavu’ot does not have this introduction. Hence I.E.’s comments.</i> However, the festival of Shavu’ot is connected to the day the <i>omer</i> is waved.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">185</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hence it does not open with <i>And the Lord spoke unto Moses saying</i>.</i> <i>And the Lord spoke</i> is similarly written in connection with the great fast<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">186</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Yom Kippur.</i> and the festival of Sukkot. IN THE SEVENTH MONTH. We begin the count of months from Nisan,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">187</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See Ex. 12:2.</i> for we then left Egypt. Furthermore, the festival of the new ears of barley<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">188</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The <i>omer</i>.</i> comes first,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">189</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Scripture lists it first. Or it is first in the agricultural year.</i> next come <i>the first-fruits of wheat harvest</i> (Ex. 34:22),<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">190</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Shavu’ot.</i> and then the time when you gather in the produce of your work (Deut. 16:13).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">191</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Sukkot.</i> These festivals are contingent upon the days that are mentioned.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">192</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In our Torah portion.</i>  Scripture commands that trumpets are to be sounded on all new moons.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">193</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Num. 10:10.</i> It follows from the aforementioned that <i>zikhron tru’ah</i> (a memorial proclaimed with the blast of horns) and <i>yom tru’ah</i> (a day of blowing the horn) refer to the sounding of a <i>shofar</i>.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">194</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Not to trumpets, for otherwise Scripture would have referred to the new moon as a <i>yom tru’ah</i>, or Scripture would have explicitly stated that trumpets be sounded on Rosh Ha-Shanah.</i> Similarly, on Yom Kippur.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">195</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The Torah commands that a <i>shofar tru’ah</i> be sounded on Yom Kippur of the Jubilee year. See Lev. 25:9.</i> I will hint at some secrets to you. Pay attention. Perhaps you will understand them. The transmitters of tradition said that Rosh Ha-Shanah is a day of judgment and that the sounding of the <i>shofar</i> proclaims the kingdom of God.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">196</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See <i>Rosh Ha-Shanah</i> 16a.</i> Now, since the new moon<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">197</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The first day of the month.</i> is the most important [day of the month], the first month of Nisan<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">198</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The first month. The point is just as the first day of the month is special, so is the first month.</i> is the most glorious month because the tabernacle was erected then. Ezekiel in speaking of the future says, <i>In the first month, in the first day of the month</i> (Ezek. 45:18). Similarly, <i>And so thou shalt do on the seventh day of the month</i> (Ezek. 40:20) because of the quarter.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">199</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The seventh day of the month marks a quarter of the month. That day has astrological significance.</i> Note,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">200</sup><i class=\"footnote\">I.E. points out that the days on which the festivals fall have astronomical significance.</i> the 15th day of the month<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">201</sup><i class=\"footnote\">When Passover falls.</i> corresponds to the time when one half of the month faces the other half.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">202</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The 15th day of the month marks half a month.</i> The seventh day<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">203</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Of Passover.</i> is also a quarter.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">204</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Of the month.</i> On the second Passover<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">205</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Those who for certain stated reasons could not observe it in the first month slaughtered the paschal lamb on the 14th day of the second month and ate it on the eve of the 15th. See Num. 8:6-12.</i> the great<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">206</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The true Passover.</i> and the small<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">207</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Those who could not observe the first Passover offer the Passover sacrifices on this day. I.E’s point is that the second Passover, like the first, is observed in the middle of the month which he believed had astronomical significance.</i> interchange.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">208</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The substitute or second Passover is then observed (Weiser).</i> The day of Rosh Ha-Shanah is therefore greater<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">209</sup><i class=\"footnote\">It falls at the time of the new moon, it falls on the first day of the first quarter of the month, and it is the day on which the world was created. That day is thus more significant than the other days mentioned (Weiser).</i> than all of them. Now, even though it is the Day of Judgment it is prohibited to fast on it. The Book of Ezra shows that this is the case.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">210</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Ezra told the people to eat and enjoy themselves on Rosh Ha-Shanah. See Neh. 8:2-10. I.E. considered Ezra and Nehemiah as one book.</i> On Yom Kippur the small light<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">211</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The moon.</i> is in the conjunction.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">212</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In a propitious heavenly conjunction. Some interpret I.E. as referring to the end of the first third of the month. If we divide the month into three parts then the moon is most powerful on the 10th day of the month, for on the 20th it is waning and at the 30th it is invisible. Others say that the moon and sun are then in Saturn’s “house,” which is good for the moon and unfavorable for the sun.</i> Note, Sukkot is like Passover.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">213</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Both fall in the middle of the month.</i> However, its eighth day, not its seventh, is a festival. From this, the secret<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">214</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Of why the festivals fall on certain days.</i> and the secret of the Sabbath<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">215</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Why the Sabbath falls on the seventh day. According to I.E. the Sabbath falls on the seventh day because the seventh day has astrological significance. See I.E. on Lev. 13:2 and Gen. 8:5 (Vol. 1, p. 114).</i> will become clear to you. [HOWBEIT.] Scripture reads, <i>Howbeit on the tenth day</i>, because a day of solemn assembly (v. 24) is a joyful day.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">216</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This verse refers to Rosh Ha-Shanah. We thus see that a <i>day of holy convocation</i> is a joyful day.</i> The Book of Ezra similarly reads, <i>Go your way, eat the fat, and drink the sweet</i> (Neh. 8:10).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">217</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This verse occurred on Rosh Ha-Shanah. However (<i>Howbeit</i>), Yom Kippur does not have these characteristics. I.E. considered Ezra and Nehemia one book.</i> AND YE SHALL AFFLICT. I have previously explained the meaning of afflict.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">218</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See I.E. on Lev. 16:29.</i> TO MAKE ATONEMENT FOR YOU. Its meaning is, it is a day of atonement for you alone.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">219</sup><i class=\"footnote\">It is a day of atonement for Israel alone.</i> FOR WHATSOEVER SOUL IT SHALL BE THAT SHALL NOT BE AFFLICTED. <i>Te’unneh</i> (be afflicted) is a <i>pu’al</i>. This<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">220</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The use of the <i>pu’al te’unneh</i> (be afflicted).</i> is a sign that if we know of a person who does not observe this precept as we observe it, then we shall force that individual to fast.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">221</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Be afflicted</i> implies that one is forced to fast.</i> The reason Scripture says that <i>no</i> manner of work is to be done on Yom Kippur is so that people will not be engaged in anything but seeking atonement for sins. THAT SOUL WILL I DESTROY. There is a difference between “destroy” and “cut off” (v. 29). I cannot explain the difference.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">222</sup><i class=\"footnote\">I am not permitted to explain. According to I.E. “cut off” means death either by execution or by the hand of God (see I.E. on Lev. 18:29). In Ps. 1:6 he explains that “destruction” refers to the obliteration of the soul following death. “I cannot explain” might mean that I.E. cannot explain how the soul is destroyed.</i>  [NO MANNER OF WORK.] Scripture repeats, <i>Ye shall do no manner of work</i>,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">223</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The prohibition to do work on Yom Kippur was previously stated in verse 28.</i> in order to add, <i>it is a statue for ever throughout your generations</i>. SHALL YE KEEP YOUR SABBATH. Scripture reads <i>your sabbath</i>, for the Sabbath day is not called the Sabbath of Israel but the Sabbath of God.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">224</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See I.E.’s comment on verse 3 and the notes thereto.</i> SEVEN DAYS YE SHALL BRING AN OFFERING MADE BY FIRE. Even though it is not the same as the <i>offering made by fire</i> that is brought on Passover.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">225</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The Torah tells us that on Passover and Sukkot the Jews are to bring an <i>offering made by fire</i>. However, there is a difference in the sacrifices offered on Passover and Sukkot. Thus <i>an offering made by fire</i> does not refer to a specific sacrifice.</i> IT IS A DAY OF SOLEMN ASSEMBLY. Some say that <i>atzeret</i> (solemn assembly) means an assembly as in <i>azteret bogedim</i> (an assembly of treacherous men) (Jer. 9:1). <i>Azteret</i> refers to the gathering of all of Israel on the three pilgrimage festivals. However, they did not speak correctly, for look, Scripture states with regard to Passover, <i>and on the seventh day shall be a solemn assembly</i> (atzeret) (Deut. 16:8). However, it also states <i>and thou shalt turn in the morning</i>,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">226</sup><i class=\"footnote\">On the second day of Passsover. See I.E. on Deut. 16:7 (Vol. 5, p. 112).</i> <i>and go unto thy tents</i> (Deut. 16:7).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">227</sup><i class=\"footnote\">There was thus no gathering of all Israel on the seventh day of Passover. Yet the Torah refers to this day as an <i>atzeret</i>.</i> It appears that <i>atzeret</i> is similar to <i>netzar</i> (detained)<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">228</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Or held back. From the root <i>ayin, tzadi, resh</i>.</i> in <i>detained before the Lord</i> (I Sam. 21:8). <i>Atzeret</i> means that the Israelite shall not be involved in any worldly affairs.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">229</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The Israelite shall hold himself back from doing work.</i> The meaning of <i>atzeret</i> is, <i>ye shall do no manner of servile work</i>.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">230</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Ye shall do no manner of servile work</i> explains the term <i>atzeret</i>.</i> Scripture writes similarly with regard to the <i>atzeret</i> of the festival of Passover.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">231</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Deut. 16:8 reads: “And on the seventh day [of Passover] shall be an <i>azeret</i>…thou shall do no work therein.”</i> THESE ARE THE APPOINTED SEASONS OF THE LORD. Whereon you are obligated to bring an offering made by fire. Scripture explains<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">232</sup><i class=\"footnote\">That is, Scripture now explains.</i> that on all of these festivals a burnt offering, a meal offering, a sacrifice,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">233</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The festival offerings.</i> and libations are to be brought, for until now Scripture only mentioned an offering made by fire, and it is possible that an offering made by fire refers only to a burnt offering or only to a meal offering.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">234</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hence our verse explains that the term burnt offering refers to an offering made by fire.</i> AND BESIDE YOUR GIFTS. On the three pilgrimage festivals.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">235</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See Deut. 16:17.</i> Similarly, And the vows of the congregation and of the individual and their freewill offerings.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">236</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Which people were wont to bring when they came to God’s house on the festivals.</i> [HOWBEIT.] Scripture reads <i>howbeit</i> because it mentioned the affliction of the soul in the preceding section. The Torah prohibited fasting on the festival of Sukkot, for Scripture reads with regard to this festival, <i>And thou shalt rejoice</i> (Deut. 16:14)…<i>and thou shalt be altogether joyful</i> (Deut. 16:15). WHEN YE HAVE GATHERED IN THE FRUITS OF THE LAND. From the fields and vineyards. YE SHALL KEEP THE FEAST. <i>Tachoggu</i> (ye shall keep the feast) comes from a double root.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">237</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Its root is <i>chet, gimel, gimel</i>.</i> The reference is to the sacrifices.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">238</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The peace offerings.</i> ON THE FIRST DAY SHALL BE A SOLEMN REST.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">239</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Literally, On the first day a solemn rest.</i> <i>Shabbaton</i> (a solemn rest) is a noun. The words “shall be unto you” are missing.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">240</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In other words, <i>On the first day a solemn rest</i> should be read as if written: On the first day shall be a solemn rest unto you.</i> If <i>shabbaton</i> were an adjective, the word <i>yom</i> (day) would have a <i>heh</i> rather than a <i>bet</i> prefixed to it.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">241</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Our verse reads, <i>be yom ha-rishon shabbaton</i> (on the first day…a solemn rest). If <i>shabbaton</i> were an adjective, then our verse would read <i>ha-yom ha-rishon shabbaton</i> (the first day a solemn rest).</i> AND YE SHALL TAKE. We shall believe in the words of the transmitters,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">242</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The transmitters of tradition, the Talmudic sages.</i> for they do not contradict Scripture.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">243</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The rabbis of the Talmud teach that the four types of plants mentioned in our verse are to be actually taken by hand.</i> The latter is so even though we find, <i>they shall take to them every man a lamb</i> (Ex. 12:3).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">244</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Here the word “take” does not mean one has to ritually take the animal in one’s hand. Or here the word take means buy. See <i>Mekhilta</i> on Ex. 12:3.</i> They<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">245</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The transmitters of tradition.</i> also transmitted to us the tradition that <i>the fruit of goodly trees</i> (v. 40) refers to the etrog (citron). In truth, there is no fruit of the tree more beautiful than the etrog. The rabbis interpreted the phrase <i>etz hadar</i> (goodly trees) to mean [a fruit] which dwells on its tree.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">246</sup><i class=\"footnote\">It doesn’t fall off the tree. The Talmud (<i>Sukkah</i> 33a) connects the word <i>hadar</i> (goodly) to the word <i>dar</i> (dwells). It interprets our verse as meaning a fruit which dwells ((or remains) on its tree from year to year.</i> They used the verse as a support for their tradition. I have explained the latter<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">247</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The use of Biblical verses as supports.</i> in my comments on <i>to sell her unto a foreign people</i> (Ex. 21:8).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">248</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See I.E. on Ex. 21:8 (Vol. 2, pp. 458,459).</i> The Sadducees<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">249</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The Karaites.</i> say that the <i>sukkah</i> shall be built from these plants.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">250</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The plants mentioned in our verse.</i> They brought proof from the Book of Ezra.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">251</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Neh. 8:15 tells us that the Israelites made <i>sukkot</i> out of olive branches, branches of wild olive, myrtle branches, palm branches, and branches of thick trees.</i> However, they are blind of heart. Do they not see that the Book of Ezra<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">252</sup><i class=\"footnote\">That is, Neh. 8:15.</i> does not at all mention willows of the book and fruit of the tree?<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">253</sup><i class=\"footnote\">That is, fruit of a goodly tree.</i> It only mentions the leaves of five kinds of branches.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">254</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Olive branches, branches of wild olive, myrtle branches, palm branches, and branches of thick trees.</i> The mention there of myrtle branches and branches of thick trees is no argument against our ancients.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">255</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The fact that myrtle branches and branches of thick trees were used in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah to build a <i>sukkah</i> does not disprove the Rabbinic tradition that these plants are to be ritually taken in the hand on sukkot.</i> Similarly the kind called myrtle does not grow on a tall tree.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">256</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The Karaites claim the “boughs of thick trees” refers to a plant that grows on tall trees. According to the rabbis the “boughs of thick trees” refers to the myrtle. The latter does not grow on a tall tree.</i> There are thus two kinds,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">257</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Branches of thick trees</i> (ale etz avot) (Neh. 8:15) and <i>boughs of thick trees</i> (anaf etz avot) are not the exact same plant. The first-mentioned plant grows on a tall tree and the latter on a low tree. There is thus no proof from Neh. 8:15 that myrtles are to be employed in building the <i>sukkah</i>.</i> one growing on a tall tree and one on a low tree. The person who wanders from the land of Kedar<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">258</sup><i class=\"footnote\">A dry land. Kedar was one of the sons of Ishmael (Gen. 25:13). Kedar in I.E. usually refers to Moslems. The descendants of Ishmael dwelt between Egypt and Assyria. The latter area is semi-dry.</i> to the land of Edom<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">259</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The Land of the Christians, i.e., Europe.</i> will know the secret of this commandment<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">260</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The commandment of taking the four kinds mentioned in verse 40.</i> if he has eyes.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">261</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The land of Israel, which is located in the Middle East, is a semi-dry land and required special prayers for rain. The “four kinds” serve to induce rainfall. See <i>Ta’anit</i> 2:2. So Weiser. For other interpretations see Motot, Krinsky, and Filwarg.</i> THAT…IN BOOTHS. The Israelites made booths after they crossed the Sea of Reeds. They certainly did so in the wilderness of Sinai, where they dwelt close to a year. This is the manner of all the camps. This festival too<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">262</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Like Passover.</i> is thus in memory of the Exodus<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">263</sup><i class=\"footnote\">As noted in verse 43.</i> from Egypt.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">264</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Even though it is not observed in the month of Nisan.</i> Should someone ask why this commandment is to be observed in the month of Tishri,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">265</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The month Israel left Egypt.</i> then one can answer: God’s cloud was over the camp during the day<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">266</sup><i class=\"footnote\">When they left Egypt.</i> and the sun did not strike them.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">267</sup><i class=\"footnote\">They thus had no need of booths.</i> However, they started to make <i>sukkot</i> from the days of Tishri onwards because of the cold.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">268</sup><i class=\"footnote\">I.E.’s point is that Israel had no need of booths for shelter until the cold weather set in. The latter occurred in Tishri. Hence booths are constructed in Tishri.</i> UNTO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL. Not to all of the children of Israel, for Moses could not talk to all of them.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">269</sup><i class=\"footnote\">He spoke to the heads of the people.</i> Scripture similarly reads, <i>Speak unto the children of Israel</i>. (verses 2, 10, 24, 34). The verse <i>unto all the congregation of the children of Israel</i> (Lev. 19:2) is no argument to the contrary,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">270</sup><i class=\"footnote\">It does not teach that Moses spoke to all of Israel.</i> for all of Israel is not called a congregation.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">271</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The term congregation (<i>edah</i>) refers to the heads of the people who gathered (<i>no’adu</i>) to hear the words of Moses.</i> [PURE OLIVE OIL.] The reason Scripture now mentions the section<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">1</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Verses 1-4.</i> dealing with the pure olive oil is that the Torah earlier recorded the fire offering of each festival<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">2</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In the previous chapter.</i> and now has to mention the show bread.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">3</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The show bread was similar to the offerings. Hence Scripture mentions the show bread after listing the festival offerings.</i> The menorah stood opposite the table.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">4</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Of the showbread. See Ex. 40:24.</i>  [UPON THE PURE CANDLESTICK.] Scripture in our section adds <i>upon the pure candlestick</i>.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">5</sup><i class=\"footnote\">After stating that Aaron shall light the lamp (v. 2), Scripture adds that Aaron shall light it <i>upon the pure candlestick</i>.</i> The latter refers to the known candlestick,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">6</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Known from earlier references in Scripture. See Ex. 25:31-40.</i> which was constructed by Betzalel<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">7</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Ex. 37:1; 17-24.</i> and was completely made of gold.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">8</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Ibid</i>.</i> It does not refer to any other candlestick. [As to the menorah], which was made of iron,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">9</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to the Talmud the menorah used by the Hasmoneans in the Chanukkah period was made of iron. See <i>Avodah Zarah</i> 43a.</i> it was done so in time of need<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">10</sup><i class=\"footnote\">It was an emergency, or the gold menorah was defiled and they did not have the means to make a menorah out of gold.</i> by the word of the prophets.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">11</sup><i class=\"footnote\">An oral tradition handed down from the later prophets (Weiser), for there were no prophets in the Maccabean period.</i> AND THOU SHALT TAKE FINE FLOUR. By command.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">12</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Moses shall command that fine flour be taken.</i> Similarly, <i>and bake…thereof</i>.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">13</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The meaning of <i>and bake…thereof is and bake…thereof</i> by command.</i> <i>Ve-afita</i> (and shalt bake) is ultimately accented. It is irregular.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">14</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Words in the perfect whose roots end in a <i>heh</i> and have a conversive <i>vav</i> prefixed to them maintain their penultimate accent. However, <i>ve-afita</i> (and shalt bake) is ultimately accented. Hence it is irregular.</i>  IN TWO ROWS. Corresponding to the number of the tribes.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">15</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The 12 loaves which were arranged in two rows corresponded to the 12 tribes of Israel.</i> This is similar to the secret of the ephod and the breastplate.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">16</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The names of the 12 tribes of Israel were inscribed on the ephod and the breastplate.</i> The<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">17</sup><i class=\"footnote\">So Filwarg. The text reads “or.” “Or” in this context is difficult. Filwarg emends to “the.” Weiser suggests emending to “perhaps.”</i> two tenth parts (v. 5) corresponded to the arrangement of the two rows.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">18</sup><i class=\"footnote\">I.E. believes that there is a correspondence between the contents of each one of the loaves and the arrangement of all of the loaves. Thus each of the loaves consisted of “two” tenth parts. Each one of the two tenth parts corresponds to the “two” rows into which all the loaves were divided.</i> UPON THE PURE TABLE. In contrast to the other tables that were there. This table alone was covered with gold and its crown was of gold.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">19</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See Ex. 25:23-25.</i>  It was the frankincense that was with the bread that served as an offering made by fire unto the Lord. The bread was for the <i>kohen</i>. It is possible that Scripture mentioned this section<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">20</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Verses 5-9.</i> because there is an obligation on Israel to provide the festival burnt offerings, the oil, and the bread, which was always on the altar. FOR AARON AND HIS SONS. His entire household. AND THE SON OF AN ISRAELITISH WOMAN…WENT OUT. From his tent. Compare, <i>came out, and stood at the door of their tents</i> (Num. 16:27). WHOSE FATHER WAS AN EGYPTIAN. Who converted to Judaism.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">21</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Our verse literally reads, “whose father was an Egyptian in the camp of Israel.” According to I.E. the Egyptian was living among Israel because he was a convert</i> AND A MAN OF ISRAEL. <i>Ve-ish ha-yisra’eli</i> (and a man of Israel) is similar to <i>le-ish he-ashir</i> (unto the rich man) (II Sam. 12:4) and to <i>et yom ha-shevi’iy</i> (the seventh day) (Gen. 2:3).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">22</sup><i class=\"footnote\">When an adjective has a <i>heh</i> prefixed to it, the noun which it modifies also has a <i>heh</i> prefixed to it. I.E. points out that there are instances in Scripture where the above is not followed, viz., our verse, II Sam. 12:4, and Gen 2:3. See I.E. on Gen 1:31 (Vol. 1, p. 47).</i> We do not know why this section<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">23</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Verses 10-12.</i> was connected to that which comes before it. Perhaps the blasphemer spoke improperly with regard to the bread, the oil, and the sacrifices. BLASPHEMED. Some say that the meaning of <i>va-yikkov</i> (blasphemed) is enunciated. Compare, <i>Which the mouth of the Lord shall mark out</i> (yikkavennu) (Is. 62:2) and <i>that are pointed out</i> (nikkevu) <i>by name</i> (Num. 1:17). Others say that <i>va-yikkov</i> is similar to <i>ekkov</i> (I curse) in <i>How shall I curse</i> (Num. 23:8). However, I believe that the first interpretation is correct.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">24</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Our verse reads <i>va-yikkov et ha-shem va-yekkalel</i> (and blasphemed the Name and cursed). If <i>va-yikkov</i> means “and cursed,” then our verse is repetitious. Hence it appears that our verse should be interpreted as, and enunciated the Name of God and cursed it.</i> IN WARD.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">25</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Literally, in the ward (<i>ba-mishmar</i>).</i> In a known place in the camp.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">26</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hence the use of the direct object (<i>ba</i>).</i> AND LET ALL THAT HEARD. For he was stoned because of their testimony. ALL THE CONGREGATION. The reference is to the magnates of the land who are the great ones of Israel.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">27</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See I.E. on Lev. 23:44.</i> Some say that <i>Whosoever curseth his God</i> (v. 15) means whosoever curseth his God in secret.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">28</sup><i class=\"footnote\">For our verse does not specify the punishment of the one who curses God.</i> The correct interpretation is as follows. The term <i>Elohim</i> (god) is an adjective. The angels are called elohim.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">29</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See I.E. on Gen. 1:1 (Vol. 1, p. 26).</i> So are the judges.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">30</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Ibid</i>.</i> Who can know what is in the mind of the one who curses? However, if he enunciates the glorious name of God, which stands by itself and is not an adjective and is not intertwined with any noun, [he shall be stoned]. Its meaning is,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">31</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The meaning of <i>Whosoever curseth his God</i>.</i> when one curses and enunciates the Name he shall be put to death if he enunciates the Name as the son of the Egyptian did.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">32</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In other words, verses 15 and 16 are connected to each other.</i> The Name<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">33</sup><i class=\"footnote\">God’s name.</i> is not mentioned<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">34</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In verse 17.</i> out of respect for God. Scripture reads, <i>as well the stranger, as the home-born…shall be put to death</i>. It is possible that the ones who quarreled (v. 10) struck each other. This section<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">35</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Verses 17-22.</i> was therefore written.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">36</sup><i class=\"footnote\">At this point. In other words, the laws dealing with personal injuries follow the laws of the men who quarreled because the latter came to blows.</i> It<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">37</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The section about the laws dealing with personal injuries. See Ex. 21:12-27.</i> had previously been mentioned. However, our chapter adds, <i>as well for the stranger, as for the home-born</i> (v. 22).[17. AND HE THAT SMITETH.] Scripture begins<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">38</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The laws dealing with personal injury.</i> with <i>and he that smiteth any man mortally</i>.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">39</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Shall be put to death.</i> He is not participating in war and deliberately smites any man, be that man a stranger or a native AND HE THAT SMITETH A BEAST MORTALLY SHALL MAKE IT GOOD. Note, the phrase <i>life for life</i>,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">40</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Which concludes verse 18.</i> serves two verses.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">41</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Verses 17 and 18. I.E. reads verse 17 as follows: <i>And he that smiteth any man mortally shall surely be put to death</i>, life for life.</i> SO SHALL IT BE DONE TO HIM. Samson said, <i>so have I done unto them</i> (Jud. 15:11).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">42</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The full clause reads, <i>As they did unto me, so have I done unto them</i>. The latter is not to be taken literally, for Samson did not repay his enemies exactly tit for tat. We thus see that <i>as he hath done, so shall it be done to him</i> is not necessarily to be taken literally. It rather means punishment is to be inflicted.</i> The Gaon<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">43</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Rabbi Saadiah Gaon.</i> brought proof from logic that <i>breach for breach</i> (v. 20) cannot be taken literally. The first wound was made unintentionally. How can we justify making a similar wound?<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">44</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The Torah does not distinguish (except for murder) between one who harms his neighbor intentionally and one who harms him unintentionally. This being the case, if someone wounded his neighbor unintentionally, how can we justify making a similar wound in him? It should be noted that Rabbi Saadiah Gaon held that the Torah does not contain laws that contradict reason.</i> If the wound is in a vital area, the person will die. The same applies to the eye. How are we to do the same to one who injured his neighbor by causing him to suffer the loss of a third of the sight of an eye?<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">45</sup><i class=\"footnote\">How can we be sure that we are only removing a third of the eye’s vision of the one guilty of doing the same to his neighbor?</i> The words of tradition are thus true.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">46</sup><i class=\"footnote\">That <i>as he hath done, so shall it be done to him</i> is not to be taken literally. It rather means that he shall make commensurate compensation.</i> Scripture is to be understood as follows. Ransom money is to be paid in all of these cases. It is fitting to remove his eye if he does not ransom it.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">47</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to I.E.’s short commentary on Ex. 21:24 the eye of the one who blinds his neighbor is removed if he refuses to pay ransom.</i> Should one argue against us and say, what happens if the injurer is poor? Then we answer, Scripture speaks about the majority of cases.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">48</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Most people are not poor.</i> It is possible for the poor to become rich.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">49</sup><i class=\"footnote\">That is, furthermore it is possible for the poor to become rich. In other words, the poor will pay when they eventually have the means to do so.</i> This also answers those who argue, what shall we do in instances when the injurer of the eye is blind?<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">50</sup><i class=\"footnote\">And the law of an eye for an eye cannot be applied literally. I.E. in his commentary on Ex. 21:24 (Vol. 2, p. 476) quotes Saadiah Gaon as arguing that <i>an eye for an eye</i> cannot be taken literally, for what shall we do in instances when the injurer is blind? I.E. here counters that argument by saying that Scripture speaks of what is usual, and in cases where a blind person blinds someone the penalty of an eye for an eye is not applicable.</i> SO SHALL IT BE RENDERED UNTO HIM.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">51</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hebrew, <i>bo</i> (literally in him). Hence I.E.’s comment.</i> There are instances where the <i>bet</i> has the meaning of on.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">52</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In other words, <i>bo</i> means unto him. I.E. renders our clause, “so shall it be rendered upon him,” i.e., a penalty shall be placed upon him.</i> Compare, <i>the beast that I rode upon</i> (bah) (Neh. 2:12). There are many such instances. On the other hand, its meaning might be, so shall it be rendered unto him if he does not pay ransom.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">53</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In this case <i>bo</i> means unto him.</i>  [AND HE THAT KILLETH A BEAST.] Scripture repeats <i>And he that killeth a beast…</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">54</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>And he that killeth a man…</i></i> because it wants to mention the stranger, for when Scripture speaks of maiming (v. 19) it speaks of an Israelite, for the Torah clearly says,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">55</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In verse 19.</i> <i>his neighbor</i>. However, there is one law for both the stranger and the native regarding he that kills a person and he that kills a beast.I have previously informed you that Scripture is being brief when two <i>cafs</i> come together.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">56</sup><i class=\"footnote\">That is, when two words with a <i>kaf</i> prefix follow each other. Our verse reads <i>ka-ger ka-ezrach</i> (as well for the stranger, as for the home-born). According to I.E. <i>ka-ger ka-ezrach</i> is short for <i>ha-ger ke-ezrach, ve-ha’ezrach ka-ger</i> (the stranger is like the home-born and the home-born is like the stranger). See I.E. on Gen. 44:18 (Vol. 1, p. 396).</i> Scripture also chooses to employ brevity when it does not add “and he dies” to <i>u-makkeh adam</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">57</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Literally, and he that strikes a man.</i> (and he that killeth a man), for it is known that the culprit is not executed unless the one who is struck dies. Another interpretation for the repetition<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">58</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Why verse 21 repeats verses 17 and 18.</i> is that Scripture earlier mentions “mortally” (v. 17).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">59</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hebrew, <i>nefesh</i>.</i> The latter refers to a blow struck in a vital area. Scripture then lays down<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">60</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In our verse.</i> the following general law: A person who kills shall be put to death whether the blow was struck in a vital area or in a non-vital area. The word <i>nefesh</i> (mortal) is thus not mentioned.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">61</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In our verse.</i>  [YOUR GOD.] The God of the native and the God of the stranger. AND THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL DID. They did from this day and onward to one who injures his neighbor, in accordance with this law. IN MOUNT SINAI. There is no chronological order in the Torah.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">1</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This concept is first found in the Talmud and Midrash. See E. Z. Malamud, <i>Meforshe Ha-Mikreh</i>, Jerusalem, 1978, pp. 18-21.</i> This section<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">2</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Our Torah portion.</i> precedes, <i>And the Lord called</i> (Lev. 1:1) and all the sections that follow it, for the words recorded in our section were told to Moses on Mount Sinai.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">3</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Whereas all that procedes our chapter was told to Moses in the tent of meeting.</i> Moses now<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">4</sup><i class=\"footnote\">After receiving the laws dealing with the Sabbatical year and what follows.</i> made the covenant recorded in the Torah portion <i>Now these are the ordinances</i> (Ex. 21:1).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">5</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See Ex. 24:4-8. According to I.E. the covenant recorded in the Torah portion <i>Be-Chukkta</i> (Lev. 24:3-46) is the same covenant that is recorded in Ex. 24:4-8. See Nachmanides, who explains I.E. in detail.</i> Moses inserted this portion<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">6</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The laws dealing with the Sabbatical year and that which follows.</i> at this point to place in proximity the conditions under which the Israelites could dwell in the land.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">7</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Lev. 18:28 and 20:22 tell us that Israel will dwell in the Land of Israel on condition that they refrain from perverse sexual practices. Lev. 26:34-43 tells us that Israel will dwell in the land only if they observe the Sabbatical year. Our section which deals with the Sabbatical year was inserted here to place these two conditions in the same portion.</i> He said that the land would spit out the Israelites if they violated the laws of prohibited sexual relations.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">8</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See Lev. 18:28; 20:22.</i> He said a similar thing in the Torah portion <i>If ye walk in My statutes</i> (Lev. 26:3) with regard to the Sabbaths of the land. Moses first mentions the Sabbaths.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">9</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The section opens with the Sabbatical year. The law of the Jubilee, which follows seven Sabbatical years then follows.</i> THEN SHALL THE LAND KEEP A SABBATH UNTO THE LORD. There is a commandment upon the Israelite not to allow a stranger to sow in the Sabbatical year.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">10</sup><i class=\"footnote\">For Scripture tells us that the land shall keep a Sabbath unto the Lord.</i> This is similar to the commandment that we not allow a stranger to do work on the Sabbath.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">11</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See Ex. 20:8 and I.E.’s comments thereto (Vol. 2, p. 427).</i> Scripture commands this, for the stranger is in our power.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">12</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hence we can prevent him from working on the Sabbath and sowing during the Sabbatical year.</i> <i>A sabbath unto the Lord</i> is similar in meaning to the Sabbath day.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">13</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The Sabbath day is also referred to as a <i>sabbath unto the Lord</i> (Ex. 20:10).</i> The secret of the days of the world is alluded to in this place.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">14</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See I.E. on Gen. 1:5, “There is a secret meaning to the Midrashic statement to the effect that the world will exist for six thousand years” (Vol. 1, p. 33). Also see I.E. on Gen. 8:22 (Vol. 1, p. 119). Also see <i>Sanhedrin</i> 97a,b.</i> THE PRODUCE THEREOF. Of the land mentioned in the first verse. A SABBATH OF SOLEMN REST. I previously explained the meaning of <i>shabbat shabbaton</i> (a Sabbath of solemn rest).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">15</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See I.E. on Lev. 16:31.</i> THAT WHICH GROWETH OF ITSELF. It is known that the word <i>safi’ach</i> (that which groweth of itself) is connected to the word <i>sefacheni</i> (put me)<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">16</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Or attach me.</i> in <i>Put me, I pray thee</i> (I Sam. 3:36).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">17</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Safi’ach</i> (that which groweth of itself) refers to produce which fell to the ground at the time of the harvest and attached itself to the ground (Weiser).</i> It is also known that the word <i>nezirekha</i> (undressed vine) is related to the word <i>nazir</i> (nazirite).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">18</sup><i class=\"footnote\">A <i>nazirite</i> distances himself from a vineyard, for he is not permitted to eat of its fruit. An undressed vine is referred to by the term <i>nazir</i> because the owner of the vineyard distanced himself from the vine and did not dress it (Weiser).</i> A YEAR OF SOLEMN REST. Its meaning is, because it is a year of solemn rest for the land; that is, the land is not in your possession in this year. AND THE SABBATH-PRODUCE…SHALL BE FOR YOU. <i>Sabbath-produce</i> refers to all that the land brought out by itself.  The meaning of <i>lakhem</i> (for you) is, for everyone.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">19</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Lakhem</i> (for you) is plural. Hence I.E.’s comment.</i>  The meaning of <i>lekha</i> (for thee) is that the owner of the field is permitted to eat of that which grows of itself.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">20</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Lekha</i> (for thee) is a singular. Hence I.E.’s comment.</i> AND FOR THY CATTLE. Which are under your control. AND FOR THE BEASTS. Which are not under your control. THEN SHALT THOU MAKE PROCLAMATION WITH THE BLAST OF THE HORN. There is a difference of opinion as to whether the world was created in Nisan or in Tishri.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">21</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See <i>Rosh Ha-Shanah</i> 10a, 11a.</i> There is no need to dwell on this, for the transmitters of the law ordained that we are to say in the Rosh Ha-Shanah prayer which they established for us, “This day marks the beginning of Your works, it is a memorial of the first day.”<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">22</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In other words, the accepted opinion among the sages is that the world was created on Rosh Ha-Shanah.</i> We also read in Scripture that the <i>shofar</i> is to be sounded in the Jubilee year in the month of Tishri at the beginning of the year.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">23</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Verse 9.</i> Furthermore,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">24</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This sentence and the following sentence are omitted in some editions of I.E. The <i>Mikra’ot Gedolot</i> places it in parentheses.</i> the Torah, in the portion commanding the people to gather to hear the Torah read states that the Torah is to be read on the festival of Sukkot.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">25</sup><i class=\"footnote\">At the start of the Sabbatical year. This is the way I.E. interprets Deut 31:10. See Vol. 4, p. 225. See Deut. 31:10-13.</i> Scripture writes, <i>that they may hear, and that they may learn</i> (Deut. 31:12).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">26</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to I.E. <i>that they may hear, and that they may learn</i> means that they may hear, and that they may learn the entire year. See I.E. on Deut. 31:12 (Vol. 5, p. 225).</i> It is not possible for this<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">27</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The reading and the study of the Torah.</i> to take place after half a year has passed.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">28</sup><i class=\"footnote\">If Nisan is the beginning of the year then the public reading of the Torah which initiates a mass study of the Torah takes place six months after the start of the New Year. According to I.E. this makes no sense, for the study of the Torah in the Sabbatical year is similar to the study of the Torah on the Sabbath (I.E. on Deut. 31:12). Now the study of the Torah on the Sabbath starts with the onset of the Sabbath. It does not start at midday. Similarly, the study of the Torah in the Sabbatical year. Furthermore, why waste half of a year that could be devoted to Torah study.</i> Furthermore,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">29</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This and the following sentence are omitted in the <i>Margali’ot Tuva</i> edition of I.E. The <i>Mikra’ot Gedolot</i> places it in brackets.</i> Scripture states, <i>and the feast of ingathering, at the end of the year</i> (Ex. 23:16). Similarly, <i>and the feast of the ingathering at the turn of the year</i> (Ex. 34:22).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">30</sup><i class=\"footnote\">We thus see that the Festival of Sukkot comes at the turn of the year, not six months earlier. According to I.E. and other commentaries, the year in these two verses is agricultural, so “turn of the year” and “end of the year” have a similar meaning. See Vol. 3, pp. 503,723.</i> The faithful proof is the Sabbatical year, regarding which it is written, <i>ye shall not sow</i> (v. 11). They start sowing in the month of Marcheshvan in the Land of Israel. If the beginning of the year started in Nisan, then they would not harvest that which they sowed in the sixth year<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">31</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In the fall preceding the Sabbatical year, for harvesting is prohibited in the Sabbatical year.</i> and they would not sow,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">32</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In the seventh year.</i> for it is the Sabbatical year. Since they will not harvest<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">33</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In the seventh year.</i> what they planted in the sixth year, they will not sow twice.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">34</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In the sixth and in the seventh year. There is no point to sowing in the sixth year if what is planted cannot be harvested. Hence they will not sow in the sixth year. They will thus not sow in the sixth and seventh years.</i> However, Scripture states that they should not sow in the seventh year alone.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">35</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In other words, Scripture speaks only of not sowing in the seventh year.</i> Judah Ha-Parsi<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">36</sup><i class=\"footnote\">An early Karaite. See I.E. on Ex. 12:2 and the notes thereto (Vol. 2, p. 203).</i> said that Israel employed a solar calendar.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">37</sup><i class=\"footnote\">I.E. earlier dealt with the start of the year He now goes on to explain how the year is calculated.</i> Now if this were so [then we do not know the exact time that a year begins] for, note, Moses did not explain the length of a complete year and so far the astronomers are unable to bring the length of a solar year to light. For example, the wise men of India add a fifth of an hour to the quarter of the day.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">38</sup><i class=\"footnote\">A solar year consists of about 365 and 1/4 days. The wise men of India add a fifth of an hour to the aforementioned. They claim that a solar year consists of 365 and 1/4 days plus a fifth of an hour.</i> Ptolemy and his friends say that 1/300 of the day is missing.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">39</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to Ptolemy a solar year consists of 365 and 1/4 days minus 1/300 of the day.</i> This is close to that of the intercalated calendar. Those who came after him said one part of 106.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">40</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Parts are to be subtracted from the quarter of the day.</i> Others said 110.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">41</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Parts are to be subtracted from the quarter of the day.</i> Still others said 130.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">42</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Parts of the day are to be subtracted from the quarter of the day.</i> There are those who say 180.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">43</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Parts of the day are to be subtracted from the quarter of the day.</i> For there are those who calculate the year when the sun concludes a cycle around the constellations from a visible point.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">44</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In other words, when the sun concludes a cycle around the constellations from any given point. This is the opinion of those who believe that the year consists of 365 days plus 1/4 of a day and a fifth of an hour (Krinsky).</i> Others calculate it from a point on the sphere which inclines to the right and the left.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">45</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Others calculate it from a point on the inclined sphere. That is the sphere of the constellations. This is the opinion of those who believe that a year consists of 365 days plus a little less than 1/4 of the day (Krinsky).</i> We need tradition.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">46</sup><i class=\"footnote\">To determine what Scripture means by a year.</i> Furthermore, the meaning of the word <i>chodesh</i> (month) contradicts the Persian.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">47</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The word <i>chodesh</i> literally means new moon. I.E. will soon show that a solar calendar has no true months, for the new moons play no role in establishing a solar year.</i> The Sadducees<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">48</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The Karaites.</i> say that the Jewish religion is based on a lunar year. Note, there is no year at all to the moon.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">49</sup><i class=\"footnote\">If we follow a lunar calendar then strictly speaking there is no year, for a year is determined by the cycle of the sun.</i> However, as the sun has no months, the calculators<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">50</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Of the calendar.</i> sought<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">51</sup><i class=\"footnote\">For practical reasons.</i> a number of months close to that of a solar year.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">52</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Those who employed a solar calendar wanted to divide the year into months.</i> They found them to be 12.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">53</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Twelve cycles of the moon come close to one cycle of the sun.</i> The calculators<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">54</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Of the calendar.</i> sought a number of days for the month<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">55</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Of a solar year.</i> that would be close to the number of days into which a lunar month is divided. Our months are therefore lunar months and our years return<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">56</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Begin once again.</i> at the end of a solar year.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">57</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The Jewish calendar is both solar and lunar.</i> Our sages therefore transmitted to us a law given to Moses from Sinai that the Bet Din always made seven leap years in every cycle<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">58</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Of 19 solar years. The following is the order of leap years: 3, 6, 8, 11, 14, 17, and 19. The numbers indicate the location of the leap year in the cycle. At the end of 19 years the solar and “lunar” years equalize.</i> even though they used to establish every month by sighting the moon.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">59</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In other words, even though they employed a lunar calendar with regard to the months, they harmonized the lunar with the solar calendar.</i> The secret of the cycle<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">60</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The 19-year cycle.</i> is known from the science of the stars.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">61</sup><i class=\"footnote\">It was first discovered in the fifth century by the Greek astronomer Meton.</i>  The meaning of <i>shall ye make proclamation</i> is that they should sound the <i>shofar</i> in all the roads.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">62</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hebrew, <i>mesilot</i>. Some emend to <i>gevulot</i> (borders) (Meijler). Others to <i>chuztot</i> (streets). Some texts read <i>mazalot</i> (constellations). This is obviously wrong.</i> AND YE SHALL HALLOW THE FIFTIETH YEAR. All the inhabitants with regard to working the land.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">63</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Hallowing</i> in our context means abstaining from working the land.</i> LIBERTY. The meaning of the word <i>deror</i> is known. It means liberty. <i>As the flying swallow</i> (deror) (Prov. 26:2) refers to a small bird that produces music when it is free.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">64</sup><i class=\"footnote\">I.E. renders Prov. 26:2 as the flying free bird.</i> However, if it is taken captive it refuses to eat and starves to death. JUBILEE. The word <i>yovel</i> (Jubilee) means sent.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">65</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The Jubilee is the year when people are set free.</i> The sages, of blessed memory, said that the meaning of <i>yovel</i> is a lamb. <i>Shoferot ha-yovelim</i> (rams’ horns) (Josh. 6:4) is proof of the latter. The year<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">66</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Of Jubilee.</i> is called by the name of the <i>shofar</i>.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">67</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The year is called “the ram’s horn,” i.e., the year in which the ram’s horn is sounded.</i> [BE UNTO YOU.] To the Israelites alone. AND YE SHALL RETURN EVERY MAN UNTO HIS POSSESSION. As Scripture goes on to explain,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">68</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In verses 14-16.</i> in the year of Jubilee the land that is sold shall return to its owners.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">69</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>And ye shall return every man unto his possession</i> means that each person shall regain the land that he sold.</i> AND YE SHALL RETURN EVERY MAN UNTO HIS FAMILY. The servant<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">70</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The reference is to a Hebrew servant.</i> sold to an Israelite.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">71</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Every man</i> means every servant.</i> A JUBILEE SHALL THAT FIFTIETH YEAR BE. Since it is the year of Jubilee you shall not sow. IT SHALL BE HOLY UNTO YOU. For it is distinguished from the other years. YE SHALL EAT THE INCREASE THEREOF OUT OF THE FIELD. You shall eat what the land produces of itself. It is the same as is written regarding the Sabbatical year.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">72</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Verse 6 and 7.</i> IN THIS YEAR OF JUBILEE. Its meaning is in the beginning of the year. OR BUY. <i>Kanoh</i> (buy) is an infinitive.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">73</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Employed as an auxiliary verb. I.E. comments thus because an infinitive by itself is out of place here.</i> A word is missing.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">74</sup><i class=\"footnote\">For, as noted, <i>kanoh</i> is employed as an auxiliary verb.</i> <i>Kanoh</i> is in place of <i>kenitem kano</i> (you will surely buy).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">75</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Kanoh</i> is short for <i>kenitem kano</i>.</i> Compare, <i>zakhor</i> (remember) in <i>Remember the sabbath day</i> (Ex. 20:8).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">76</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Zakhor</i> is an infinitive. It is short for <i>zakhor tizkor</i>.</i> There are many such instances.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">77</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Where Scripture employs an infinitive and leaves out the major verb.</i> The word <i>timkeru</i> (thou sell) is in the plural because it shall be sold in front of witnesses.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">78</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The witnesses are part and parcel of the act of selling. Hence the use of the plural.</i> The same is true of <i>al tonu</i> (ye shall not wrong).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">79</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Cheat. <i>Tonu</i> is in the plural. It is so because it applies to the buyer or seller and to the witnesses. One is not permitted to be a witness to a transaction in which the buyer or seller is cheated.</i>  [ACCORDING TO THE NUMBER OF YEARS.] Only according to the number of years. THOU SHALT INCREASE THE PRICE THEREOF. The reverse of <i>thou shalt diminish</i>. [AND YE SHALL NOT<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">80</sup><i class=\"footnote\">I.E. reads <i>ve-al</i>. The Torah reads <i>ve-lo</i>. If not a scribal error, then I.E. quoted from memory and erred.</i> WRONG ONE ANOTHER.] This is to be understood as a warning to the seller,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">81</sup><i class=\"footnote\">For it follows <i>doth he sell</i>.</i> for the first injunction<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">82</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The first time Scripture mentions <i>ye shall not wrong one another</i> (v. 14).</i> is directed to the buyer.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">83</sup><i class=\"footnote\">For <i>ye shall not wrong one another</i> in verse 14 follows <i>or buy of thy neighbor</i>.</i> FOR I AM THE LORD YOUR GOD. As I am your God, I will exact punishment from the two of them,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">84</sup><i class=\"footnote\">From the buyer or from the seller.</i> from the one who wrongs his neighbor. If you observe My statutes the earth will bring forth its produce. Scripture mentions this<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">85</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>For I am the Lord</i>.</i> because it earlier spoke of the number of crops<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">86</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Scripture states in our verse, <i>but thou shalt fear thy God; For I am the Lord</i> because it earlier said <i>according unto</i> the <i>number of years of the crops he shall sell</i>. (v. 15). In other words, the thrust of our verse is fear God and do not cheat in calculating the years.</i> (v. 16). [OUR INCREASE.] The Sadducees<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">87</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The Karaites.</i> say that <i>our increase</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">88</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hebrew, <i>tevu’atenu</i>.</i> proves that the year begins in Nisan.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">89</sup><i class=\"footnote\">For what is planted in the fall is harvested in the spring. However, if the year begins in Tishri the land is not sown and there is nothing to harvest in the spring. However, our verse indicates that this is not so, for it states, <i>nor gather in our increase</i>.</i> This is no proof, for it is possible that the meaning of <i>our increase</i> is what the earth produces of itself.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">90</sup><i class=\"footnote\">That which grows of itself.</i> If they<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">91</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The Karaites.</i> say that what the earth produces of itself is not called <i>tevu’ah</i> (increase)<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">92</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The term used in our verse.</i> but <i>safi’ach</i>,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">93</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See verses 5 and 11.</i> then <i>ye shall eat the increase thereof</i> (tevu’atah) <i>out of the field</i> (v. 12) contradicts them.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">94</sup><i class=\"footnote\">For the previous verse speaks of what grows of itself (<i>safi’ach</i>).</i> Furthermore, let them inform us how the Israelites were to act in the Jubilee year, for they would not sow in the sixth, seventh,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">95</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In the sixth and seventh years of the seventh cycle of Sabbatical years. They wouldn’t sow in the sixth year because they couldn’t harvest in the seventh year. Sowing was prohibited in the seventh year.</i> and eighth year.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">96</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The eighth year from year one of the seventh cycle of Sabbatical years, that is, the year of Jubilee.</i> They would only sow in the ninth year and harvest in the tenth. Why didn’t Scripture mention this, for Scripture only mentions <i>for the three years</i> (v. 21).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">97</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Verse 21 says that the sixth year will produce food for three years. However, according to the Karaites, Scripture should have said that the land would produce food for four years, i.e., for the sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth years. It should be noted that I.E. interprets the three years in verse 21 as referring to the seventh, eighth and ninth years.</i> It appears to me that the meaning of <i>and it shall bring forth produce</i> (v. 21) is, I will place a blessing on the sixth year<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">98</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Of every Sabbatical year.</i> that it will be sufficient for the sixth and an additional year.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">99</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The seventh year.</i> However, in the Jubilee year there will be food for three years and no more.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">100</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Verse 21 reads, <i>then I will command My blessing upon you in the sixth year, and it shall bring forth produce for the three years</i>. I.E. interprets the aforementioned as: then I will command My blessing upon you in the sixth year. Now in all Sabbatical years the land will produce food for the sixth and seventh years. However, the sixth year shall bring forth produce for precisely three years when it precedes the year of Jubilee. I.E. comments thus because our verse seems to imply that God will bless the sixth year only when it precedes the Jubilee.</i>  [AND IT SHALL BRING FORTH.] The word <i>ve-asat</i> (and it shall bring forth) is irregular.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">101</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Ve-asat</i> is short for <i>ve-asetat</i>, which is a variation of <i>ve-asetah</i>. See Krinsky and Filwarg.</i> Compare, <i>ministered</i> (mesharat) <i>unto the king</i> (I Rings 1:15).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">102</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The usual form is <i>mesharetet</i>.</i> Scripture reads thus because it drops one of the <i>tavs</i> to simplify enunciation when two <i>tavs</i> are joined. THE OLD STORE. The word <i>yashan</i> (the old store) adverts to the word <i>min</i> (of).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">103</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Not to the word <i>tevu’ah</i> (produce), which precedes it, for <i>tevu’ah</i> is feminine and <i>yashan</i> (old store) is masculine. I.E. says that <i>min ha-tevu’ah yashan</i> (of the produce, the old store) is to be interpreted as if written <i>min yashan ha-tevu’ah</i> (of the very old store of the grain).</i> The meaning of <i>min</i> (of) is, of the very thing. Similarly, <i>with</i> (min) <i>the ark-cover</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">104</sup><i class=\"footnote\">I.E renders <i>With</i> (min) <i>the ark-cover shall ye make the cherubim</i> as, of the very ark-cover shall ye make the cherubim</i> <i>shall ye make the cherubim</i> (Ex. 25:19). IN PERPETUITY. The word <i>tzemitut</i> (perpetuity) is similar<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">105</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In meaning. According to I.E. the literal meaning of our verse is, the land shall not be sold in such a way that it is permanently cut off (divorced) from its owners.</i> to <i>keritut</i> (divorcement) (Is. 50:1). The <i>tav</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">106</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Of <i>tzemitut</i>. Its root is <i>tzadi, mem, tav</i>.</i> is a root letter. <i>Tzemitut</i> is related to the word <i>yatzmitem</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">107</sup><i class=\"footnote\">From the root <i>tzadi, mem, tav</i>.</i> (will cut them off) in <i>The Lord will cut them off</i> (Ps. 94:23).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">108</sup><i class=\"footnote\">I.E. interprets our verse as follows: the land shall not be sold in such a manner that it is permanently cut off from its owners.</i> FOR THE LAND IS MINE. This is an important reason.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">109</sup><i class=\"footnote\">For why the land is not to be sold in perpetuity.</i> Moses similarly said in his prayer, <i>Lord, Thou hast been our dwelling-place</i> (ma’on) (Ps. 90:1). [The meaning of the latter is, God, You are like a permanent dwelling-place. However, <i>One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh</i> (Eccles. 1:4). THE LAND OF YOUR POSSESSION. Which you inherited in the land of Canaan. Also in the land of the Amorite.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">110</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Located on the eastern side of the Jordan.</i> BE WAXEN POOR. <i>Yamukh</i> (be waxen poor) comes from a root which consists of two stem letters that are sounded and one silent letter placed between them.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">111</sup><i class=\"footnote\">An <i>ayin vav</i>, a verb whose middle root letter is a <i>vav</i>. Its root is <i>mem, vav, kaf</i>.</i> Its meaning is poor and destitute.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">112</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The meaning of <i>yamukh</i> is to become poor or to become destitute</i> THAT IS NEXT UNTO HIM. From his family. THEN LET HIM COUNT. The word <i>ve-chishav</i> (then let him count) is a <i>pi’el</i>.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">113</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Literally, from the heavy form, which receives a <i>dagesh</i>.</i> IT SHALL GO OUT.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">114</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hebrew, <i>ve-yatza</i>. The latter can be rendered he shall go out, or it shall go out. Hence I.E.’s comment.</i> That which is sold shall go out. Note, a noun<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">115</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Mimkaro</i>.</i> is used in place of an adjective.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">116</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Nimkar</i> (that which is sold). Our verse reads <i>ve-hayah mimkaro…</i> which literally means, then his sale (<i>mimkar</i>) shall remain in the hand of him that has bought it. This makes no sense. Hence I.E.’s comment that it should be interpreted as, then that which he hath sold shall remain in the hand of him that hath bought it.</i> There are many such instances.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">117</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Where Scripture employs a noun in place of an adjective.</i> Since Scripture states <i>a dwelling-house in a walled city</i> (v. 29),<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">118</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Since Scripture states that <i>a dwelling-house in a walled city</i> (v. 29) cannot be redeemed after a year has passed, then the verses that speak of property always being redeemed and if not redeemed, returning to its owners in the year of Jubilee, must speak of land.</i> we know that <i>and sell some of his possession</i> (v. 25) refers to a field or a vineyard. IN A WALLED CITY. A city surrounded by a wall.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">119</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Our verse reads <i>bet moshav ir chomah</i> (a dwelling-house in a walled city). <i>Bet moshav ir chomah</i> literally means a dwelling-house in a city wall. Hence I.E.’s comment.</i> A FULL YEAR. The word <i>yamim</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">120</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Literally, days.</i> means a year. <i>Yamim</i> means until the days return to their point of departure after completing their cycle of cold and hot, summer and winter, for the return of the sun to its place<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">121</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The movement of the sun to its place of departure.</i> is the cause of this cycle.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">122</sup><i class=\"footnote\">A year means a full cycle of the sun. The question arises, Why does the Torah refer to a year as days? The answer is, the cycle of the sun is responsible for the full complement of days. Hence a full cycle of the sun can be referred to as days.</i> Now, we need tradition as to what determines a full year,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">123</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Spoken of in our verse.</i> whether it is a solar year, or a lunar year, or an intercalated year.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">124</sup><i class=\"footnote\">If the year in which the house is sold contains 13 lunar months, can the house be redeemed in the 13th month or do we consider it to be a year after 12 months have passed? See <i>Arakhin</i> 9:3, “Rabbi says: He is allowed a year and its intercalary month (i.e., the extra days by which the solar year exceeds the lunar year).”</i> SHALL BE RECKONED WITH THE FIELDS OF THE COUNTRY. <i>Al</i> (with) in our verse is similar to <i>al</i> (and) in <i>And they came, both men and</i> (al) <i>women</i> (Ex. 35:22).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">125</sup><i class=\"footnote\">I.E. renders this as: And they came, men with women.</i> The meaning of <i>al</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">126</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In our verse and in Ex. 35:22.</i> is with.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">127</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Al</i> usually means on. Hence I.E.’s comment.</i> THEY MAY BE REDEEMED.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">128</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Literally, redemption shall be to it (<i>lo</i>).</i> The reference is to each and every house.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">129</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hence the use of the singular it (<i>lo</i>).</i> Compare, <i>Its branches</i> (banot) <i>run</i> (tza’adah<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">130</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Banot</i> is plural. <i>Tza’adah</i> is singular. According to I.E. the meaning of Gen. 49:22 is, each one of its branches (<i>banot</i>) run (<i>tza’adah</i>) over the wall. See I.E. on Gen. 49:22 (Vol. 1, p. 442).</i>) <i>over the wall</i> (Gen. 49:22), and <i>for her children</i>, (baneha) <i>Because they are not</i> (enennu) (Jer. 31:15).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">131</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Baneha</i> is in the plural. <i>Enennu</i> is singular. I.E. renders Jer. 31:15, For her children (<i>baneha</i>) because each one of them is not (<i>enennu</i>).</i> A PERPETUAL RIGHT OF REDEMPTION. <i>Olam</i> (a perpetual right) means forever.  Scripture reads, <i>va-asher yigal</i> (and if a man purchase)<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">132</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Rather than <i>va-asher yikneh. Yigal</i> literally means to redeem.</i> (v. 33), because our verse reads <i>ge’ulat olam</i>.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">133</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Yigal</i> and <i>ge’ulat</i> come from the same root. In other words, Scripture employs the word to mean to purchase for poetic reasons.</i> The meaning of <i>yigal</i> is shall purchase. There are those who say <i>va-asher yigal</i> means even if the redeemer is a Levite.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">134</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In other words, <i>va-asher yigal min ha-leviyim</i> (and if a man purchase of the Levites) means, and if a man of the Levites purchases. In other words, if a Levite buys a house from another Levite, even in a walled city, that house goes out in the Jubilee. One might think that the law governing a purchase of a house in a Levitical city by one Levite from another is the same as that governing the sale of a house in a walled city by one Israelite from another Israelite, i.e., that the house can only be redeemed during the first year of its purchase.</i> The <i>vav</i> of <i>ve-yatza</i> (then…shall go out) (v. 33) has the same meaning as the unaspirated <i>fa</i> in Arabic.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">135</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The <i>vav</i> is not to be rendered as “and” but as “then” or “the like.” For the meaning of the Arabic <i>fa</i> see Vol. 1, p. xvi; p. 30.</i> A house and a city (v. 33) have one law.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">136</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In other words, <i>bayit ve-ir</i> (the house…in the city), which literally means a house and a city, is to be rendered a house or a city. Both the house or the city sold by a Levite reverts to the Levite seller in the Jubilee year. See <i>Eruvin</i> 59a, which speaks of a city owned by an individual.</i> AND HIS MEANS FAIL. The word <i>u-matah</i> (and…fail) is related to the word <i>yimmot</i> (he shall…be moved) in <i>he shall never be moved</i> (Ps. 112:6). The <i>mem</i> is a root letter.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">137</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Its root is <i>mem, vav, tet</i>.</i> Similarly, the word <i>matah</i> (slippeth) in <i>If I say: My foot slippeth</i> (Ps. 94:18). THY BROTHER. An Israelite. WITH THEE. For you are obligated to the one who is found with you, the one that you see. THEN THOU SHALT UPHOLD HIM. The reverse of <i>and his means fail</i> (matah).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">139</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Matah</i> literally means fall. Since Scripture earlier employed the term fall, it now employs the term uphold.</i> You shall uphold him so that he does not fall. AS A STRANGER AND A SETTLER. If he is from your country or is a stranger and a settler.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">138</sup><i class=\"footnote\">I.E.’s paraphrase of our verse. You are obligated to help the inhabitant of your country whether he is an Israelite or a stranger and a settler.</i> SHALL HE LIVE. <i>Va-chai</i> (shall he live) means he shall live. INTEREST…OR INCREASE. These terms<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">140</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The meaning of <i>neshekh</i> and <i>tarbit</i>.</i> are explained in the words of tradition. The <i>tav</i> of <i>tarbit</i> (increase) is superfluous.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">141</sup><i class=\"footnote\">It is a form letter, not a root letter. It does not have any grammatical meaning.</i> It is like the <i>tav</i> of <i>tarmit</i> (deceitful) (Zeph. 3:13).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">142</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Which is a form letter and does not have any grammatical meaning.</i> <i>Tarbit</i> is related<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">143</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In meaning.</i> to the word <i>rav</i> (many).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">144</sup><i class=\"footnote\">From the root <i>resh, bet, bet</i>.</i> However, it is a verb that comes from a root whose last letter is silent and hidden.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">145</sup><i class=\"footnote\">A <i>heh</i>. Its root is <i>resh, bet, heh</i>.</i> It is similar<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">146</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In form.</i> to the word <i>takhlit</i> (utmost)<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">147</sup><i class=\"footnote\">From the root <i>kaf, lamed, heh</i>.</i> in <i>utmost hatred</i> (Ps. 139:22). Scripture next<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">148</sup><i class=\"footnote\">After stating that one is not to take interest and increase (v. 36), Scripture goes on to explain these terms (v. 37).</i> explains the terms <i>neshekh</i> (increase) and <i>tarbit</i> (increase). The <i>mem</i> of <i>marbit</i> (increase) (v. 37) is also superfluous. It is like the <i>mem</i> of <i>maskit</i> (figured)<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">149</sup><i class=\"footnote\">From the root <i>sin, kaf, heh</i>.</i> in <i>any figured stone</i> (Lev. 26:1). [I AM THE LORD YOUR GOD, WHO BROUGHT YOU FORTH OUT OF THE LAND OF EGYPT.] Where you were strangers. Note, I gave you an inheritance. Our verse is connected in meaning to <i>as a stranger and a settler shall he live with thee</i> (v. 35).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">150</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Our verse, as it were says help the individual who falls, be he an Israelite or a stranger because <i>I am the Lord your God, who brought you forth out of the land of Egypt</i> where you were strangers, and I gave you an inheritance.</i> It is also connected to the already mentioned section,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">151</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The section which precedes verses 36 and 37, which deal with the redemption of the land.</i> for it<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">152</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The section, which precedes our section.</i> deals with the redemption of the land. Scripture mentions the section containing <i>and his means fail with thee</i> (v. 35) because it will go on to state that an Israelite who is in such great need that he sells himself<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">153</sup><i class=\"footnote\">To be a slave.</i> shall go out in the year of Jubilee.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">154</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See verses 47-55.</i> All the sections of the Torah portion are thus connected. AND SELL HIMSELF UNTO THEE. He sells himself to you or he stole from you and he was sold by the Bet Din. HE AND HIS CHILDREN WITH HIM. The transmitters of tradition based themselves on this verse when they explained the meaning of <i>and he shall serve him for ever</i> (Ex. 21:6).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">155</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to the rabbis, <i>and he shall serve him for ever</i> means until the Jubilee year. See I.E. on Ex. 21:6 (Vol. 2, p. 458): “<i>And he shall serve him for ever</i> means, and he will serve him until the year of Jubilee, for there is no season of Israel that is longer than it.”</i> [FOR THEY ARE MY SERVANTS.] Because I bought them from the house of bondage. THOU SHALT NOT RULE OVER HIM. <i>Tirdeh</i> means you shall rule. WITH RIGOR. <i>Be-farech</i> (with rigor) is to be explained as the Aramaic translator does.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">156</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Onkelos renders <i>be-farech, be-kashyu</i> (with hard work, i.e., backbreaking work).</i> OF THE NATIONS THAT ARE ROUND ABOUT YOU. Such as Amon, Moab, Edom, and Aram. MOREOVER OF THE CHILDREN OF THE STRANGERS THAT DO SOJOURN AMONG YOU. Who dwell in the land of Canaan, which is your country, and they are from the nations that are mentioned.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">157</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In I.E.’s comments on verse 44. I.E. comments thus because the Torah does not permit the Israelites to allow Canaanites to dwell in the Land of Israel.</i> Or the reference is to Egypt and every nation aside from the seven nations,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">158</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The seven Canaanite nations.</i> for Scripture commanded regarding the aforementioned, <i>thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth</i> (Deut. 20:16). Note, it is prohibited to even feed them.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">159</sup><i class=\"footnote\">I.E.’s interpretation of <i>thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth</i>.</i> It is possible that when the sages, of blessed memory, spoke of a Canaanite slave<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">160</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Scripture prohibits Canaanites from living in the Land of Israel. However, it appears from the Talmud that Israelites kept Canaanite slaves. This contradicts Biblical law. Hence I.E.’s comments.</i> they spoke of someone who lived in Canaan, not of a person of Canaanite ancestry. On the other hand, it is possible that the sages were able to ascertain the truth of the matter,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">161</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to the rabbis the prohibition against keeping a Canaanite slave applies only to the offspring of a Canaanite father. It does not apply to the offspring of a female Canaanite and a non-Canaanite male. Such people were permitted to live in the Land of Israel and they provided the Canaanite slaves. See <i>Kiddushin</i> 67b. Also see Rashi.</i> for our mind is insignificant when measured against their minds.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">162</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In other words, when it comes to Jewish law we accept Rabbinic tradition.</i> AND YE MAY MAKE THEM AN INHERTANCE. <i>Ve-hitnachaltem</i> (and ye may make them an inheritance) is a <i>hitpa’el</i>. Similarly, <i>ve-hitavvitem</i> (and ye shall mark out a line) in and <i>ye shall mark out your line</i> (Num. 34:10). OF THEM MAY YE TAKE YOUR BONDMEN FOR EVER. One is permitted to do so. However, since we find that the sages say that it is a commandment to do so, we accept what they say.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">163</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Actually the sages Rabbi Akiba and Rabbi Yishma’el differ on this point. See <i>Gitin</i> 38b; <i>Sotah</i> 3b.</i> [BUT OVER YOUR BRETHREN THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL.] Its meaning is, you will make a difference between your brother and the stranger. OR TO THE OFFSHOOT. <i>Eker</i> (offshoot) means a root. The reference is to a person who accepted the Jewish religion. He himself is from the family of a stranger. The word <i>eker</i> has no neighbor.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">164</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The word is not found again in Scripture.</i> However, it is similar in meaning to <i>ve-shereshkha</i> (and root thee out) (Ps. 52:7). It means the opposite of its stem.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">165</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Shoresh</i> means a root. However, <i>ve-shereshkha</i> means, and uproots you. Similarly, <i>eker</i> comes from the Hebrew stem meaning a root. However, its meaning is someone who has been uprooted, i.e., a stranger.</i> Similarly, <i>te’akker</i> (thou shalt hough) in <i>thou shalt hough their horses</i> (Josh 11:6).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">166</sup><i class=\"footnote\">I.E. renders this clause, you shall uproot their horses.</i> OR IF HE BE WAXEN RICH. He found a lost object or he inherited the money of a deceased member of his family. Scripture first mentions the brother and the family<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">167</sup><i class=\"footnote\">With regard to the redemption of the slave.</i> because that is what is most usually the case.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">168</sup><i class=\"footnote\">It is more usual for a family member to redeem a slave than for the slave to redeem himself.</i> HIM THAT BOUGHT HIM. <i>Konehu</i> (him that bought him) has the same meaning whether spelled with a <i>heh</i> or not.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">169</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Konehu</i> has the same meaning as <i>kono</i>. The latter is the form most used.</i> HE SOLD HIMSELF. <i>Himakhero</i> (he sold himself) is an infinitive<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">170</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Plus the pronominal suffix.</i> in the <i>nifal</i>. The years that he was with his master shall be like the days of a hired man.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">171</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In calculating the redemption money, the years served by the slave shall be deducted from the amount of money paid for the slave. The value placed upon the years that the slave served shall be assessed in accordance with what a hired man is paid.</i>  [IF THERE BE YET MANY YEARS.] The <i>vav</i> in <i>If there be yet many years…and if</i> (ve-im) <i>there remain but few years</i> (v. 52) is like an unaspirated <i>fa</i> in Arabic.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">172</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In other words, the <i>vav</i> in <i>ve-im</i> (v. 52) does not mean and. It means or, for verse 52 is not a continuation of verse 51. However, there are editions of I.E. which read: “If (<i>ve-im</i>) there be yet many years…and if (<i>ve-im</i>) there remain but few years.” The latter is also the reading in <i>Vat. Ebr.</i> 38. If the latter is correct then I.E.’s version of the Torah reads <i>ve-im</i> while our Torah in verse 51 reads <i>im</i>. It is possible that I.E. quoted from memory and erred. For the unaispirated <i>fa</i>, see I.E. on verse 34 and the notes thereto.</i> It means<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">173</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The meaning of verses 51 and 52.</i> whether the remaining years be many or few. ACCORDING UNTO THEM, HE SHALL GIVE BACK THE PRICE OF HIS REDEMPTION. It<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">174</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The remaining years.</i> shall be so considered with regard to the money that he was bought for.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">175</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The remaining years until the Jubilee.</i> AS A SERVANT HIRED YEAR BY YEAR. This<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">176</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>As a servant hired year by year</i>.</i> is repeated<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">177</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Scripture had already told us in verse 40 that the Hebrew slave is to be treated as a hired servant.</i> in order to add that which follows.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">178</sup><i class=\"footnote\">That is, <i>he shall not rule with rigor over him in thy sight</i>.</i> HE SHALL NOT RULE WITH RIGOR OVER HIM IN THY SIGHT. We shall not permit the stranger to rule over him with rigor.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">179</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>He shall not rule with rigor over him</i> means you will not permit him to rule with rigor over him. See I.E. on verse 43 and the notes thereto for the definition of rigor. Verse 43 prohibits an Israelite from ruling over an Israelite slave with rigor. Scripture now prohibits the Israelites from allowing strangers to rule over Israelites with rigor.</i> AND IF HE BE NOT REDEEMED BY ANY OF THESE MEANS.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">180</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hebrew, <i>be-elleh</i> (literally, in these or by these).</i> The years remaining until the Jubilee.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">181</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This interpretation renders our clause, and if he be not redeemed in any of these, i.e., in any of these years.</i> Others say by those mentioned earlier.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">182</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This interpretation renders our clause, and if he be not redeemed by any of these, i.e., by any of the relatives mentioned in verses 48-49. According to the first interpretation <i>be-elleh</i> is to be rendered in these. According to the second interpretation <i>ba-elleh</i> is to be rendered by these.</i> FOR UNTO ME THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL ARE SERVANTS. This means you shall inform the stranger who buys an Israelite as a servant that the children of Israel are My servants. YE SHALL MAKE YOU NO IDOLS. Scripture speaks of an Israelite who was sold to a non-Jew.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">1</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Lev. 25:47-55.</i> It therefore warns the Israelite against the worship of idols. He (the Israelite slave) must not serve his master in anything relating to an idol. The Israelite shall also not serve his master on the Sabbath.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">2</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hence the Sabbath was mentioned in verse 2.</i> The foreigner can purchase an Israelite only under these conditions. AND REVERENCE MY SANCTUARY. By coming to the sanctuary during the three pilgrimage festivals. It is possible that Scripture states <i>Ye shall make you no idols</i> because Scripture had earlier stated, <i>they are My servants</i> (Lev. 25:55). Now, since they are My servants they shall serve Me alone and not other gods. NEITHER…A GRAVEN IMAGE. The meaning of <i>pesel</i> (a graven image) is known. OR A PILLAR. For a graven image.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">3</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to I.E. Scripture only prohibited a pillar made for the purpose of idol worship. See I.E. on Deut. 16:22 (Vol. 5, p. 117).</i> FIGURED. <i>Maskit</i> (figured) is a noun. It is similar to <i>marbit</i> (increase) (Lev. 25:36).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">4</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Both words are nouns that come from a root that end in a <i>heh</i> and have similar forms. The root of <i>maskit</i> is <i>sin, kaf, heh</i>. The root of <i>marbit</i> is <i>resh, bet, heh</i>.</i> <i>Maskit</i> refers to a stone with figures on it. It is related to the word <i>maskiyyot</i> (imaginations) in <i>the imaginations of their heart</i> (Ps. 73)<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">5</sup><i class=\"footnote\">That which their hearts see.</i> and <i>sekhiyyot</i> (imagery) in <i>delightful imagery</i> (Is. 2:16). NEITHER SHALL YE PLACE…IN YOUR LAND. This<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">6</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Setting up a stone with figures on it.</i> is the way pagans worship Mercury. FOR I AM THE LORD YOUR GOD. You shall bow to Me. It<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">7</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The meaning of <i>even maskit</i>.</i> is so explained in the Jerusalem Targum.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">8</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The reference is to what is now referred to as Targum Jonathan. The latter renders <i>even maskit</i> by <i>setatyu chakik be-tziyurin</i> (a stone engraved with images).</i> YE SHALL KEEP MY SABBATHS. The Sabbatical years. AND REVERENCE MY SANCTUARY. The year of Jubilee, for Scripture clearly states, <i>it</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">9</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The year of Jubilee.</i> <i>shall be holy unto you</i> (Lev. 25:12).I believe that Scripture employs <i>My sabbaths</i> in the sense of <i>And from one sabbath to another, Shall all flesh come to bow before Me</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">10</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Translated literally.</i> (Is. 66:23),<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">11</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In other words, <i>My sabbaths</i> refers to the seventh day of the week, not to the Sabbatical year.</i> for Scripture mentions <i>to bow down unto it</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">12</sup><i class=\"footnote\">So <i>Vat. Ebr.</i> 38 and Filwarg. <i>Mikra’ot Gedolot</i> reads, and not (<i>ve-lo</i>) because Scripture mentioned <i>to bow down unto it</i>. The reading in <i>Mikra’ot Gedolot</i> is very hard to explain and appears to be in error. See Filwarg.</i> (v. 1).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">13</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>To bow down unto it</i> indicates that <i>My sabbaths</i> refers to the seventh day of the week, not to the Sabbatical year. For Is. 66:2 tells us that the Sabbath is the time that people are to come and bow before the Lord.</i> The meaning of <i>Ye shall keep My sabbaths</i> is you shall come every Sabbath to bow before Me, and not to a stone with figures on it. You shall come to My sanctuary alone. Note, Scripture mentions the chosen day,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">14</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The Sabbath.</i> for this day, as I have previously noted,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">15</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See I.E. on Ex. 20:8 (Vol. 2, pp. 425,426).</i> was chosen for the worship of God. Scripture also mentions the chosen place.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">16</sup><i class=\"footnote\">God’s sanctuary.</i>  The meaning of <i>for I am the Lord</i> is, for I rested from all work on the Sabbath and My glory dwells in the sanctuary. Scripture therefore says <i>and reverence</i>.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">17</sup><i class=\"footnote\">My sanctuary.</i> IF YE WALK IN MY STATUTES, AND KEEP…AND DO. This is a commandment to study, to teach, and to observe. [THEN I WILL GIVE.] The <i>vav</i> in <i>ve-natati</i> (then I will give) is like the <i>vav</i> in <i>ve-ha’aretz</i> (now the earth) in <i>Now the earth was unformed and void</i> (Gen. 1:2).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">18</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In other words, the <i>vav</i> in <i>ve-natati</i> (then I will give), like the <i>vav</i> in <i>ve-ha’aretz</i> (now the earth), does not introduce an independent verse. According to I.E. the meaning of <i>ve-natati</i> is not “and I will give,” but “then I will give.” For the <i>vav</i> in <i>ve-ha’aretz</i>, see I.E. on Gen. 1:2 (Vol. 1, p. 30).</i> When a word which has a <i>vav</i> prefixed to it<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">19</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Such as <i>ve-natati</i> (then 1 will give).</i> is ultimately accented,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">20</sup><i class=\"footnote\">As is the case with <i>ve-natati</i> (then I will give).</i> the word is an imperfect. When it is penultimately accented it is in the perfect. The above is, aside from a few instances, always the case. HER PRODUCE. The word <i>yevulah</i> (her produce) is related to the word <i>vul</i> (food) in <i>Surely the mountains bring him forth food</i> (Job 40:20). We do not know whether the <i>yod</i> in <i>yevul</i> is a root letter or is like the <i>yod</i> in <i>yekum</i> (living substance) (Gen.7:23),<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">21</sup><i class=\"footnote\">From the root <i>kof, vav, mem</i>.</i> which is not a root letter. THRESHING SHALL REACH UNTO THE VINTAGE. Note, <i>when thou gatherest in thy labors out of the field</i> (Ex. 23:16) is now explained as meaning from the field and the vineyard.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">22</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Field in Ex. 23:16 refers to these two types of produce, for our verse speaks of threshing and vintage.</i> YE HAVE ENOUGH. <i>Sova</i> (enough) is an infinitive.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">23</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Even though it has the form of a verb. <i>La-sova</i> is a variation of <i>li-sebo’a</i>.</i> SAFELY. <i>La-vetach</i> (safely) has the same meaning whether spelled with a <i>lamed</i> or not.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">24</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Our verse reads <i>vi-yeshavtem la-vetach</i> (and dwell in…safely). I.E. says that the verse would have the same meaning if it read <i>vi-yeshavtem betach</i>.</i> The same is true of the word <i>levadad</i> (alone) (Num. 23:9).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">25</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Levadad</i> and <i>levad</i> have the same meaning.</i> Note, Scripture mentions <i>sova</i> (enough) first,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">26</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The blessing of abundance of food is mentioned before other divine gifts.</i> for that is most important.  Scripture states, <i>and dwell in your land safely</i>, because people wander from their place in days of famine. Its meaning is similar to <i>it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a wanderer shalt thou be</i> (Gen. 4:12). AND I WILL GIVE PEACE IN THE LAND. Among yourselves. AND NONE SHALL MAKE YOU AFRAID. No evil beast and no enemy.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">27</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Shall make you afraid.</i> On the contrary, you will chase your enemies and they shall fall before you.  The greater wonder shall be that a small number of you shall pursue a large number of your enemies. I have previously informed you in my book <i>Moznayim</i> that ten, one hundred, a thousand, and ten thousand are round numbers.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">28</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Literally, are the sum of the count. The ones end in ten, the tens end in a hundred, the hundreds end in a thousand, and the thousands end in ten thousand. I.E.’s point is that if a person wants to exaggerate “ones,” he says ten; if he wants to exaggerate tens, he says a hundred; to exaggerate hundreds he says a thousand; if he wants to exaggerate thousands, he says ten thousand.</i> It is customary for one who magnifies a number to say “one to ten.”<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">29</sup><i class=\"footnote\">If one wants to say that one person shall pursue many, one says he shall pursue ten. If one wants to say that a hundred shall pursue many, one says one hundred shall pursue a thousand, and so forth.</i> Compare, <i>but thou art worth ten thousand of us</i> (II Sam 18:3).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">30</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Ten thousand is not to be taken literally.</i> Scripture here mentions that a hundred shall be chased by five.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">31</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The usual way of making the point that Scripture is making is to say that ten shall pursue a hundred.</i> Note, Scripture doubled the number used by the one who magnifies.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">32</sup><i class=\"footnote\">If ten chase a hundred, then five chase fifty. However, Scripture tells us that five shall purse a hundred. Hence it doubles the amount that the Israelites would pursue.</i> Each one of a hundred Israelites shall chase a hundred of their enemies.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">33</sup><i class=\"footnote\">For Scripture states, <i>and a hundred of you shall chase ten thousand</i>.</i> There are those who say that Scripture adds to the number because the number is increased when the individuals come together.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">34</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Five Israelites shall chase a hundred of their enemies but a hundred Israelites shall chase ten thousand of their enemies because a hundred Israelites fighting together can achieve a greater victory per person than five Israelites fighting together.</i> Similarly, <i>How should one chase a thousand</i> (Deut. 32:30).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">35</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The verse continues, <i>And two put ten thousand to flight</i>. Here too the Israelites accomplish more when they fight together.</i> There is no need for this.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">36</sup><i class=\"footnote\">For Scripture employs exaggerated numbers which are not to be taken literally.</i> AND YOUR ENEMIES SHALL FALL. This is stated a second time.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">37</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Scripture had already stated in the previous verse that Israel’s enemies would fall before them.</i> The repetition indicates that they will fall time after time. They will not rise again. AND I WILL HAVE RESPECT UNTO YOU. To greatly increase your wealth, to make you fruitful, and to multiply you with sons and daughters. It appears to me that <i>and make you fruitful</i> is the reverse of <i>the barren womb</i> (Prov. 30:15).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">38</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In this case our verse is to be understood as, I will ensure that you are not barren and I will multiply you.</i> AND WILL ESTABLISH MY COVENANT WITH YOU. In that you will be <i>as the stars of heaven for multitude</i> (Deut.1:11) and <i>as the dust of the earth</i> (Gen. 13:16). AND YE SHALL EAT OLD STORE LONG KEPT. Amazingly, even though you shall be numerous there shall be so much produce that whoever will want to, shall eat from the old store and also from the old store long kept, which is older than the old store. The word <i>noshan</i> (long kept) is a <i>nifal</i>. There will be those who shall remove the old store from their house to make room for the new produce, for they will have no place to store it.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">39</sup><i class=\"footnote\">I.E.’s interpretation of <i>and ye shall bring forth the old from before the new</i>.</i> There is a commentator who says that the meaning of <i>and ye shall bring forth</i> is you shall take it out to the field.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">40</sup><i class=\"footnote\">To use as seed for the new crop.</i> AND I WILL SET MY TABERNACLE. You will not fear that you might ever lack anything, for My glory shall dwell among you. I am not like a human being who abhors to dwell in one place.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">41</sup><i class=\"footnote\">I.E. might be hinting here as to why he chose a transient life.</i> Furthermore, when you go into the land of your enemies<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">42</sup><i class=\"footnote\">When you go into exile.</i> and the temple is no longer among you,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">43</sup><i class=\"footnote\">For it will be destroyed.</i> My glory shall go with you. Note, I shall be your God. You shall be My people, for I took you out of the land of Egypt for that purpose. AND I HAVE BROKEN THE BARS OF YOUR YOKE. Scripture employs the metaphor of a plowing bullock<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">44</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Israel is compared to a plowing bullock who has a yoke attached to its neck.</i> that works the land of its owner, for Israel was forced to work as slaves in improving the land. The latter is clearly stated.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">45</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Ex. 1:14.</i> UPRIGHT. <i>Kommemiyyut</i> means upright.  The empty heads say that there are more curses than blessings. However, they do not speak the truth. What Scripture does is to speak of the blessings in general terms. However, it lists the curses in detail in order to frighten and scare the listeners. What I say will be clear to the one who reads the text carefully. ALL THESE COMMANDMENTS. These that are written.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">46</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The commandments written in the Torah.</i> BUT BREAK. The word <i>le-hafrekhem</i> (but break) is grammatically irregular,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">47</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The usual form is <i>la-hafirkhem</i> or <i>la-haferkhem</i></i> for the forms of verbs change.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">48</sup><i class=\"footnote\">That is, Scripture occasionally employs irregular forms.</i> AND I WILL APPOINT…OVER YOU. As one who is appointed over another does whatever he wants, to him. TERROR…EVEN CONSUMPTION AND FEVER. Common diseases. The meaning of <i>et</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">49</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Here. See I.E. on Gen. 1:1 (Vol. 1, p. 27).</i> (even) is “with”.  The meaning of <i>behalah</i> (terror) is that you will be terrified and will not know what to do. There are those who say that <i>behalah</i> (terror) means suddenly.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">50</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The diseases will strike suddenly and you will not be able to guard against them.</i> Many say that <i>shachefet</i> (consumption) and <i>kadachat</i> (fever) are diseases of the seed like blasting<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">51</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hebrew, <i>shiddafon</i>.</i> and mildew,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">52</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hebrew, <i>yerakon</i>.</i> for Scripture clearly states that the latter are such diseases (Amos 4:9).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">53</sup><i class=\"footnote\">We know that blasting and mildew are diseases of the seed because Scripture speaks thus of them in Amos 4:9.</i> They say this<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">54</sup><i class=\"footnote\">That <i>shachefet</i> (consumption) and <i>kadachat</i> (fever) are diseases of the seed.</i> because our verse states, <i>and ye shall sow your seed in vain</i>. However, there is no need for this,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">55</sup><i class=\"footnote\">To interpret <i>shachefet</i> (consumption) and <i>kadachat</i> (fever) as diseases of the seed on the basis of the verse’s stating <i>and ye shall sow your seed in vain</i>.</i> for the meaning of our verse is that they shall be struck with illnesses<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">56</sup><i class=\"footnote\">That is, with <i>shachefet</i> (consumption) and <i>kadachat</i> (fever).</i> and if marauders shall come to the villages they shall then eat their seed, for there will not be anyone to go out and scatter the raiders.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">57</sup><i class=\"footnote\">I.E.’s interpretation of <i>and ye shall sow your seed in vain, for your enemies shall eat it</i>.</i>  The meaning of <i>that shall make the eyes to fail</i> is that these diseases will darken the eyes and languish the soul. The <i>alef</i> is missing in the word <i>medivot</i> (languish) in and <i>the soul to languish</i>. It is similarly missing in the word <i>mezin</i> (giveth ear) in <i>And a liar giveth ear</i> (Prov.17:4). Some say that <i>the eyes to fail</i> speaks of the eyes of the body<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">58</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In other words, <i>the eyes to fail</i> is to be taken literally, not as a metaphor.</i> because it goes on to say <i>and the soul to languish</i>.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">59</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The soul will languish because the eyes fail.</i> However, there is no need for this interpretation.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">60</sup><i class=\"footnote\">For just as <i>and the soul to languish</i> refers to spiritual pain so does <i>the eyes to fail</i>.</i> AND I WILL SET MY FACE AGAINST YOU. My wrath and My anger.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">61</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>My face</i> means My anger.</i> Compare, <i>and her countenance</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">62</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Or her face.</i> <i>was no more</i> (I Sam. 1:18).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">63</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to I.E. this is to be interpreted as she no longer was angry.</i> The meaning of our verse is that those that remain and are not stricken by disease will be smitten before their enemies, should they go out to fight them. At other times they will flee when no one pursues them as in the case of the Aramean camp.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">64</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See II Kings 7:6,7. The Arameans panicked and fled because they thought that they were about to be attacked by a superior force. In reality, no one was about to engage them.</i> AND IF YE WILL NOT YET FOR THESE THINGS. The plagues. SEVEN. The number seven is used for “many” because it is a complete number.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">65</sup><i class=\"footnote\">It has special significance. See I.E. on Num. 23:1.</i> Similarly, <i>For a righteous man falleth seven times</i> (Prov. 24:16); <i>While the barren hath born seven</i> (I Sam. 2:5). <i>Al chatatekhem</i> (for your sins) does not add the number seven to each sin.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">66</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Then I will chastise you seven times more for your sins</i> does not mean that they will be punished seven times for each sin.</i> Its meaning is, I will punish you again for each sin. <i>Ve-yasafti</i> (then …more) is similar to <i>yasaf</i> (more) in <i>and it went on no more</i> (Deut. 5:19).  The meaning of <i>al chatatekhem</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">67</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Al chatatekhem</i> literally means on your sins. Hence I.E.’s comments.</i> is, because of your sins. Some say that the number seven is to be taken literally.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">68</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This is the opinion of Rashi, Targum Jonathan, and the <i>Sifra</i>.</i> However, the first interpretation<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">69</sup><i class=\"footnote\">That the number seven is not to be taken literally.</i> is correct, for if we count <i>And I will break…</i>(v. 19) as one; <i>your heaven as iron</i> (v. 19) as two; <i>and your earth as brass</i> (v. 19);<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">70</sup><i class=\"footnote\">As three.</i> <i>And your strength shall be spent in vain</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">71</sup><i class=\"footnote\">As four.</i> (v. 20); <i>for your land…her produce</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">72</sup><i class=\"footnote\">As five.</i> (v. 20); <i>the trees of the land…their fruit</i> (v. 20), then we have six. Note, the plague of <i>beast of the field</i> (v. 22) makes seven.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">73</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Scripture mentions the plague of <i>beast of the field</i> after it states, I will bring seven times more plagues upon you. If Scripture was listing the seven plagues that God would bring upon Israel, then the plague of the beasts would have been mentioned before the statement, I will bring seven times more plagues upon you.</i> THE PRIDE OF YOUR POWER. The satiated,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">74</sup><i class=\"footnote\">From an abundance of food.</i> as in <i>But Jeshurun waxed fat, and kicked</i> (Deut. 32:15). When the proud are broken they fall and are brought low. AND YOUR STRENGTH SHALL BE SPENT IN VAIN. The strength which you expended in working the soil. CONTRARY. Many say that the meaning of <i>keri</i> (contrary) is power and might. You will act like a person who hardens his heart and is not afraid that he will be defeated.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">75</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to this interpretation our verse is to be understood as follows: And if you behave (walk) as if that which happens occurs by chance. In other words, if you act as if that which happens is not the result of Divine Providence.</i> The word <i>keri</i> has no neighbor.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">76</sup><i class=\"footnote\">It is not found again in Scripture.</i> Other say that the word <i>keri</i> is related to <i>korot</i> (befallen) in <i>all that had befallen</i> (Gen. 42:29). Its meaning is found in what Scripture says in the account of the Philistines wherein we read, <i>it is not His hand that smote us; it was a chance</i> (mikreh) <i>that happened to us</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">77</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to this interpretation our verse reads, And if you walk in chance with Me, i.e., believing that all that which happens is by chance.</i> (I Sam. 6:9). According to both interpretations the word <i>keri</i> is missing a <i>bet</i>.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">78</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In other words, <i>keri</i> should be read as if written <i>be-keri</i>. According to I.E. our verse literally reads, And if you walk hardened with Me, or And if you walk in chance with Me. Hence I.E.’s comment.</i> It is like the word <i>sheshet</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">79</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Which is to be read as if written <i>be-sheshet</i>.</i> (six) in <i>for in six days</i> (Ex. 20:11).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">80</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Literally, for six days. Hence I.E.’s comments.</i> Or, <i>ve-im telekhu immi keri</i> (and if you walk contrary unto Me) is to be read as if written <i>ve-im telekhu immi halikhat keri</i> (if you walk, a contrary walk, unto Me).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">81</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to this interpretation <i>halikhat keri</i> is to be understood as the walk of a person with a hardened heart, or the walk of a person who does not believe in divine providence. In this case the word <i>halikhat</i> is missing from our text.</i> I have already shown you many such instances.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">82</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Where Scripture omits a word.</i> Note, our verse reads <i>according to your sins</i>. God will not add to the sins.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">83</sup><i class=\"footnote\">I.E. notes this so that we do not render <i>al chatatekhem</i> (v. 18; v. 24) as in addition to or more than your sins.</i> <i>Al chatatekhem</i> (for your sins) (v. 18) is connected to <i>le-yasserah etkhem</i> (chastise you). The meaning of <i>al chatatekhem</i> (for your sins)<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">84</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Not in addition to or more than your sins.</i> is because of your sins. AND I WILL SEND…AMONG YOU. <i>Ve-hishlakhti</i> (and I will send) is related to the word <i>mashli’ach</i> (send) in <i>behold, I will send</i> (Ex.8: 17).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">85</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In other words, “send” here has the meaning of sending misfortune.</i> WHICH SHALL ROB YOU OF YOUR CHILDREN. By killing your little ones. AND MAKE YOU FEW IN NUMBER. By the death of adults. AND YOUR WAYS SHALL BECOME DESOLATE. For there will be no way that will be secure from the fear of wild animals.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">86</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Literally, animals that are not in the possession of people.</i> I have previously explained this.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">87</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See I.E. on Lev. 25:7.</i> YE WILL NOT BE CORRECTED. <i>Tivvaseru</i> (be corrected) is a <i>nifal</i> imperfect.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">88</sup><i class=\"footnote\">From the root <i>yod, samekh, resh</i>.</i> FOR YOUR SINS. <i>Al chatatekhem</i> (for your sins) is connected to <i>ve-hikketi</i> (and I will smite).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">89</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The sense of our verse being, I (God) will strike you because of your sins.</i> THE VENGEANCE OF THE COVENANT. Our verse mentions the covenant.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">90</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The only covenant that God made with Israel up to this point was the covenant at Sinai. Hence I.E.’s comment.</i> On the basis of this I earlier said<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">91</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See I.E. on Lev. 25:1.</i> that our Torah portion contains the covenant referred to in the Torah reading <i>Now these are the ordinances</i> (Ex. 21:1). The covenant was made on the day Israel promised [<i>All that the Lord hath spoken</i> ] <i>will we do, and obey</i> (Ex. 24:7). The covenant was then made and Moses told them this portion.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">92</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The blessing and the curses contained in this Torah portion.</i> AND YE SHALL BE GATHERED TOGETHER WITHIN YOUR CITIES. Because of the sword.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">93</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Mentioned earlier in the verse, <i>a sword…that shall execute the vengeance of the covenant</i>.</i> There I will send the pestilence and the famine. The pestilence and the famine will cause you to desire to be delivered into the hand of the enemy. This is the meaning of <i>and ye shall be delivered into the hand of the enemy. Ve-nittattem</i> (and ye shall be delivered) is a <i>nifal</i>. WHEN I BREAK. <i>Shivri</i> (I break) is an infinitive. It is vocalized with a <i>chirik</i>.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">94</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Rather than with a small <i>kamatz</i>.</i> Compare, <i>shikhvah</i> (she lay down) in <i>when she lay down, nor when she arose</i> (Gen. 19:33).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">95</sup><i class=\"footnote\">It too is an infinitive and is vocalized with a <i>chirik</i> rather than with a small <i>kamatz</i>.</i> The Torah employs the term <i>break</i> because it speaks of the <i>staff of bread</i>.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">96</sup><i class=\"footnote\">A staff breaks.</i> The latter is a metaphor. We find that Isaiah employs the phrase <i>stay</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">97</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hebrew, <i>mishan</i> (a staff).</i> <i>of bread</i> (Is.3:1), for bread <i>stays man’s heart</i> (Ps. 104:15). TEN WOMEN. Scripture says <i>ten women</i>, for ten is the last of the numbers.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">98</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hebrew, <i>sakh ha-cheshbon</i>. It is the last of the single numbers. See I.E. on verse 6.</i> It was the custom of Israel for each family to bake<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">99</sup><i class=\"footnote\">On one day.</i> one oven full of bread for them to eat for the entire week.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">100</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to I.E. the meaning of our verse is that there will be so little food that a lot of women will bake their week’s supply of bread in one oven.</i> The arrangement of the Sabbath bread<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">101</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The show bread, the <i>lecham ha-panim</i>.</i> is proof of this.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">102</sup><i class=\"footnote\">A week’s supply of show bread was baked every Friday (Sarim).</i> AND THEY SHALL DELIVER YOUR BREAD AGAIN BY WEIGHT. For it will consist of a small amount.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">103</sup><i class=\"footnote\">There will be so little food that each morsel will be precious.</i> AND YE SHALL EAT, AND NOT BE SATISFIED. There are hungry people who are satisfied by eating a little amount of food. However, you will not be satisfied from eating much food.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">104</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See Rashi, “This is a curse within the intestines upon (which will affect) the bread.”</i> AND…FOR ALL THIS. By being smitten by this plague. <i>And if in…these things</i> (v. 23) similarly means, and if because of the previously mentioned plagues. FOR YOUR SINS. This is connected to <i>and I also will chastise you</i>.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">105</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The import of our verse is, I will curse you for your sins. See I.E. on verse 21.</i> AND YE SHALL EAT THE FLESH OF YOUR SONS… There is no famine worse than this one.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">106</sup><i class=\"footnote\">I will bring the worst sort of famine upon you.</i>  You will not have a place to cry out and pray to be saved from the famine, for I will destroy your high places, the place of the sacrifices. YOUR SUN-PILLARS. <i>Chammnekhem</i> is related to the word <i>chammah</i> (sun).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">107</sup><i class=\"footnote\">It comes from the root <i>chet, mem, mem</i>.</i> <i>Chammnekhem</i> refers to structures built for the purpose of bowing down to the sun. The <i>nun</i> of <i>chammnekhem</i> is superfluous.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">108</sup><i class=\"footnote\">It is not a root letter and does not serve any grammatical purposes.</i> It is like the <i>nun</i> of <i>rachamaniyyot</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">109</sup><i class=\"footnote\">From the root <i>resh, chet, mem</i>.</i> (compassion) in <i>women full of compassion</i> (Lam. 4:10). YOUR CARCASSES. <i>Pigrekhem</i> means your carcasses. Compare, <i>As a carcass</i> (peger) <i>trodden under foot</i> (Is. 14:19). YOUR IDOLS. <i>Gillulekhem</i> (your idols) is a disparaging term for idols. <i>Gillulekhem</i> is related to the word <i>galal</i> (dung) in <i>sweepeth away dung</i> (I Kings 14:10).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">110</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Gillulekhem</i> literally means your dung.</i> The meaning of our verse is that when Israel joins themselves to temples dedicated to idol worship they will be killed there and their enemies will destroy the images of their idols. I (God) will not help them. AND MY SOUL SHALL ABHOR YOU. The divine presence shall be removed.  and <i>your cities</i> will then be destroyed and your sanctuaries desolated. <i>Your sanctuaries</i> (v. 31) refers to the temples, which were at first My (God’s) sanctuaries.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">111</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hence they are referred to as your sanctuaries rather than My sanctuaries.</i> AND I WILL NOT SMELL THE SAVOR OF YOUR SWEET ODORS. Scripture states this for the heaven and earth are full of God’s glory.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">112</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Thus Israel may want to offer sacrifices to God after the destruction of their holy place.</i> Scripture writes with regard to Noah, <i>And the Lord smelled the sweet savor</i> (Gen. 8:3).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">113</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The meaning of which is, God accepted Noah’s sacrifice.</i> Its meaning is,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">114</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The meaning of our verse.</i> I will not accept a burnt offering from you after this.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">115</sup><i class=\"footnote\">After I destroy your holy places.</i>  After stating <i>your cities</i> and <i>your sanctuaries</i>, Scripture mentions the land. The reference is to all of the Land of Israel. SHALL BE ASTONISHED AT IT. There will be so much destruction that the enemies who dwell there will also be astonished. Our verse is in contrast to <i>The joy of the whole earth</i> (Lam. 2:15). WILL I SCATTER. <i>Ezareh</i> (will I scatter) is a <i>pi’el</i>. Not only will you be scattered but <i>I will also draw out the sword after you</i>.  The meaning of <i>draw out</i> is draw out from its sheath. AND YOUR LAND. This is connected to the verse which follows it. Its meaning is, when your land shall be desolate it will then be paid for its Sabbaths.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">116</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See next verse.</i>  The word <i>tirtzeh</i> means pay. Compare, <i>Till he shall accomplish</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">117</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Or pay, i.e., pay with his labor.</i> (yirtzeh), <i>as a hireling, his day</i> (Job 14:6); <i>That her guilt is paid off</i> (nirtzah) (Is. 40:2). HER SABBATHS. Sabbatical years and Jubilees. It is similarly written, <i>until the land had been paid her sabbaths</i> (II Chron. 36:21). I have explained it there.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">118</sup><i class=\"footnote\">We do not have I.E.’s commentary on Chronicles. Radak quotes from it in his commentary on II Chron. 30:18.</i> DESOLATE. <i>Hashammah</i> (desolate) is a noun. The forms of the nouns change.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">119</sup><i class=\"footnote\">There are other forms for the word desolate: <i>shemamah</i> (Ex.23:19); <i>shamah</i> (Jer. 51:37).</i>  The meaning of <i>as long as it lieth desolate, and ye are in your enemies’ land</i> is that the land will be desolate, for you will not inhabit it. Then the land will not be worked and it will find rest and complete its Sabbaths. [35. AS LONG AS IT LIETH DESOLATE.] The meaning of <i>as long as it lieth desolate</i> is, the number of years that it shall not be worked. This is explained in Ezekiel.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">120</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The prophet Ezekiel was commanded to lie on his left side for 390 days and on his right side for 40 days. Each of these days represented a year that the Israelites sinned in not observing the Sabbatical years. See Ezek. 4:4-6. Also see Rashi on our verse and on Ezekiel.</i> AND AS FOR THEM THAT ARE LEFT OF YOU. Scripture says this because it previously stated, <i>and I will draw out the sword after you</i> (v. 33).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">121</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>And as for them that are left of you</i> (v. 36) refers to those who survive the sword’s destruction.</i> A FAINTNESS. <i>Morekh</i> (faintness) comes from a double root.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">122</sup><i class=\"footnote\">It comes from the root <i>resh, kaf, kaf</i>.</i> Similarly, the word <i>mo’al</i> (lifting up) in <i>with the lifting up of their hands</i> (Neh. 8:6).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">123</sup><i class=\"footnote\">From the root <i>ayin, lamed, lamed</i>.</i> The word <i>morekh</i> is related to the word <i>rakh</i> (faint) in <i>and faint-hearted</i> (Deut. 20:8). They will be so scared that the sound of a driven leaf shall chase them. <i>Niddaf</i> (driven) is an adjective in the <i>nifal</i>. The root <i>nun</i> is swallowed.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">124</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The root of <i>niddaf</i> is <i>nun, dalet, peh</i>. The <i>nun</i> in <i>niddaf</i> is the root of the <i>nifal</i> form.</i> ONE UPON ANOTHER. Whom he loves. TO STAND. <i>Tekumah</i> (stand) is a <i>hifil</i>.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">125</sup><i class=\"footnote\">That is, a noun in the <i>hifil</i> form.</i> It comes from a root whose middle root letter is a <i>vav</i>.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">126</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Its root is <i>kof, vav, mem</i>.</i> The aforementioned is so because of the <i>tav</i>.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">127</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The <i>tav</i> in <i>tekumah</i> indicates that <i>tekumah</i> is a noun in the <i>hifil</i> form.</i> It is the same case with the word <i>terumah</i> (offering).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">128</sup><i class=\"footnote\">It is noun in the <i>hifil</i> form.</i> SHALL EAT YOU UP. It is the norm for most of those exiled to other places to die because of the effect that the change in the air and the water has upon them. AND THEY THAT ARE LEFT. And from those that are left. [SHALL PINE AWAY.] <i>Yimmakku</i> (shall pine away) follows the form of <i>yissabbu</i> (turned) in <i>they turned not</i> (Ezek. 1:9). Both words come from a double root.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">129</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Yimmakku</i> comes from the root <i>mem, kof, kof. Yissabbu</i> comes from the root <i>samekh, bet, bet</i>.</i> <i>Yimmakku</i> is related to the word <i>hamak</i> (consume away) in <i>Their flesh shall consume away</i> (Zech. 14:12) and <i>mak</i> (rottenness) in <i>there shall be rottenness</i> (Is. 3:24). AND ALSO IN THE INIQUITIES OF THEIR FATHERS SHALL THEY PINE AWAY WITH THEM. Its meaning is like that of <i>Our fathers have sinned</i> (Lam. 5:7). I explained this in my commentary on Lamentations.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">130</sup><i class=\"footnote\">I.E. there explains Lam. 5:7 as meaning our sins were joined to the sins of our fathers and the combinations of our and our father’s sins reached the stage where punishment was due. However, when the bill came due our fathers were no longer alive and they thus escaped punishment.</i> AND THEY SHALL CONFESS. <i>Ve-hitvaddu</i> (and they shall confess) is a <i>hitpa’el</i>. IN THEIR TREACHERY WHICH THEY COMMITTED AGAINST ME. Which their fathers committed against Me. AND ALSO THAT THEY HAVE WALKED CONTRARY UNTO ME. These, their children, have walked contrary unto Me. I ALSO. Did the same thing to them.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">131</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>I</i> (God) <i>also will walk contrary unto them</i>.</i> I punished them by bringing them into the land of their enemies until their uncircumcised heart will be humbled. I will explain it<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">132</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The use of the term <i>af</i> (also) in the phrase <i>af ani</i> (I also). The word <i>af</i> appears unnecessary. Hence I.E.’s comment.</i> later. THEY THEN BE PAID THE PUNISHMENT OF THEIR INIQUITY. <i>Yirtzu</i> (be paid) means they will compensate and pay. THEN WILL I REMEMBER MY COVENANT. <i>My covenant</i> is to be read as if written twice. <i>Then will I remember My covenant with Jacob</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">133</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Our verse literally reads, “Then will I remember My covenant Jacob.” Hence I.E.’s comment.</i> is to be interpreted as if written, Then will I remember My covenant, My covenant with Jacob. Compare, <i>even the prophesy, Oded the prophet</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">134</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Translated literally.</i> (II Chron. 15:8), which is to be read as if written, even the prophesy, the prophesy of Oded the prophet; <i>your heads, your tribes</i> (Deut. 29:9), which is to be read as if written, your heads, the heads of your tribes. The Gaon says that the reason Scripture mentions Jacob first<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">135</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Scripture usually lists the patriarchs in order. It starts with Abraham and concludes with Jacob. However, here it starts with Jacob. Hence I.E.’s comment.</i> is that all of his years were in the covenant.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">136</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The covenant that God made with Abraham. See Gen. 17:1-14. Jacob was born after God entered into the covenant with Abraham. Thus Jacob spent his entire life under the covenant. This was not the case with Abraham. Isaac also was born under the covenant. However, Scripture did not start with him, for one cannot start a list from the middle.</i> FOR THE LAND SHALL LIE FORSAKEN WITHOUT THEM. This means I will also remember the land that paid off its Sabbaths and was forsaken without them. I will also remember that they paid for their sin. BECAUSE, EVEN BECAUSE. The first <i>because</i> corresponds to <i>they rejected Mine ordinances</i>. The second one corresponds to <i>and their soul abhorred My statutes</i>. The <i>bet</i> of <i>ve-ya’an</i> (even because) is superfluous. It is like the <i>bet</i> of <i>ba-rishonah</i> (in the beginning) (Gen. 13:4).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">137</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to I.E. the <i>bet</i> of <i>ba-rishonah</i> is superfluous. See I.E. on Gen. 1:1 (Vol. 1, p. 21).</i> AND YET FOR ALL THAT. <i>Ve-af gam zot</i> (and yet for all that) is an elegant phrase.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">138</sup><i class=\"footnote\">It is poetic. <i>Ve-af gam zot</i> literally means, and even, even this. Scripture could have read <i>ve-af zot</i> or <i>ve-gam zot</i>.</i> One word would have sufficed. We find this in all of Scripture.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">139</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Scripture employs similar phrases in many other places.</i> Compare, <i>ha-rak akh be-mosheh</i> (hath indeed…only with Moses) (Num. 12:2);<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">140</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Scripture could have read <i>ha-rak be-mosheh</i> or <i>ha-akh be-mosheh</i>.</i> <i>ha-mibbeli en kevarim</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">141</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Scripture could have read <i>ha-mibbeli kevarim</i> or <i>ha-in kevarim</i>.</i> (because there were no graves) (Ex. 14:11). I WILL NOT REJECT THEM…TO DESTROY THEM UTTERLY. But I will punish them until their hearts are humbled. NEITHER WILL I ABHOR THEM. <i>Ge’altim</i> (will I abhor them) means I did not turn away from them.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">142</sup><i class=\"footnote\">I did not treat them as an abhorrent thing.</i> Or, it means I did not abhor them. TO BREAK MY COVENANT. Which I made with them by oath. Even though, as Scripture states, they broke My covenant, I will not break My covenant with them, for I am the Lord. BUT I WILL FOR THEIR SAKES REMEMBER. Forever. THE COVENANT OF THEIR ANCESTORS.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">143</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hebrew, <i>rishonim</i> (literally, the first).</i> The reference is to the covenant made at Sinai. Scripture refers to this generation as “the first,”<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">144</sup><i class=\"footnote\">At first glance “the first” should refer to the patriarchs.</i> in contrast to their descendants who will be exiled in the land of their enemies. Some say that the reference is to the “patriarchs of the world,”<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">145</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.</i> and the meaning of <i>whom I brought forth</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">146</sup><i class=\"footnote\">God did not take the patriarchs out of Egypt.</i> is those to whom I swore that I would free their children from slavery. The first interpretation appears to me to be the correct one. THESE ARE THE STATUTES AND ORDINANCES. These statutes and ordinances are recorded in the Torah portion <i>Now Jethro…heard</i> (Ex. 18:1); <i>Now these are the ordinances</i> (Ex. 21:1), and <i>In mount Sinai</i> (Lev. 25:1). WHICH THE LORD MADE BETWEEN HIM AND THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL. This alludes to the covenant made at Sinai, for after the tabernacle was erected and the glory was present in the tent of meeting, Moses did not ascend Mount Sinai. Scripture also mentions the section of valuations here because it was related to Moses at Mount Sinai. The latter is clearly stated at the end of the portion.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">147</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Lev. 27:34.</i> For<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">148</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This refers back to I.E.’s first sentence in his comment on this verse.</i> the beginning of the Book of Numbers, <i>And the Lord spoke unto Moses in the wilderness of Sinai, in the tent of meeting</i> (Num. 1:1), is similar<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">149</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Reading <i>ke-sefer</i> rather than <i>be-sefer</i>. See Filwarg and Krinsky.</i> to the opening of the Book of Leviticus.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">150</sup><i class=\"footnote\">It too indicates that God spoke to Moses in the tent of meeting. See I.E. on Num. 1:1 (Vol. 4, p. 4): “This verse informs us that Moses did not go up to Mount Sinai since God’s glory was now present in the tent of meeting.”</i> SHALL CLEARLY UTTER. <i>Yafli</i> (clearly utter) means to explain<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">1</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Reading <i>yefaresh</i> as in <i>Vat. Ebr.</i> 38, not <i>yafrish</i> (set aside) as in the printed editions.</i> and to clarify. A VOW OF PERSONS.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">2</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Nefashot</i>, literally, lives.</i> Its meaning is, he will take a vow saying: If God will do the following for me then I will redeem my life in accordance with its value, or the value of my son’s life, or the value of the life of a beast. The <i>kaf</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">3</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The <i>kaf</i> suffix, which has the meaning of your (thy).</i> of <i>be-erkekha</i> (according to thy evaluation) is, according to all of the grammarians,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">4</sup><i class=\"footnote\">They read (<i>be-erkekha</i>) as if written <i>be-erekh</i>. Our verse literally reads: When a man shall clearly utter a vow of lives according to your valuation (<i>be-erkekha</i>) of lives to the Lord. The word “your” does not seem to belong in the verse. Hence these commentaries interpret the verse as follows: When a man shall clearly utter a vow of lives according to the valuation (<i>be-erkekh</i>) of lives to the Lord.</i> superfluous. However, there is one who says that the <i>kaf</i> is directed to the <i>kohen</i>.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">5</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>In thy valuation</i> refers to the <i>kohen</i>. This commentator explains our verse as follows: When a man shall clearly utter a vow of lives in accordance to what you the <i>kohen</i> shall value lives to the Lord.</i> He explains <i>ke-erkekha ha-kohen</i> (v. 12) as, as thou the priest valuest it.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">6</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The first mentioned commentaries interpret <i>ke-erkekha ha-kohen</i> as if written <i>ke-erkekh ha-kohen</i> because they believe that the <i>kaf</i> suffix of <i>be-erkekha</i> (according to thy evaluation) is superfluous, for if the <i>kaf</i> of <i>be-erkekha</i> refers to the <i>kohen</i>, then the word <i>ha-kohen</i> is redundant.</i> He refers to the <i>heh</i> of <i>ha-kohen</i> as a vocative <i>heh</i>.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">7</sup><i class=\"footnote\">If the <i>kaf</i> of <i>be-erkekha</i> refers to the <i>kohen</i>, then the word <i>ha-kohen</i> is redundant. Hence the interpretation that <i>ha-kohen</i> does not mean the <i>kohen</i> but <i>O kohen</i>. This interpretation renders <i>ke-erkekha ha-kohen</i> as, <i>as thou O priest valuest it</i>.</i> He says that the word, <i>he-erkekha</i> (of thy valuation) (v. 23), is an irregular word.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">8</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The definite article is not placed before a word with a suffix, for <i>he-erkekha</i> literally reads, the valuation yours. Thus the <i>heh</i> in <i>he-erkekha</i> is irregular. The <i>heh</i> in <i>he-erkekha</i> does not present a problem for the first commentaries quoted by I.E., for they claim that the <i>kaf</i> of <i>he-erkekha</i> is superfluous and the word is to be interpreted as if written <i>ke-erekh. He-erkekha</i> is similarly to be read as if written <i>he-erekh</i>.</i> It is like the word <i>ha-oholi</i> (of my tent)<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">9</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Ha-oholi</i> (of my tent) is irregular, for it is a noun with a suffix with the definite article prefixed to it.</i> in <i>the midst of my tent</i> (Josh. 7:21). However, in my opinion the meaning of <i>ha-oholi</i> is, the tent, mine. Similarly <i>he-erkekha</i> (of thy valuation) (v. 23).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">10</sup><i class=\"footnote\">It means, the valuation-yours. According to I.E. <i>ha-oholi</i> is not irregular, for the <i>heh</i> serves to emphasize the point made by the word’s suffix (Weiser). However, I.E.’s interpretation presents a problem, for it contradicts the rule that the definite article is not placed before a word with a suffix. See Filwarg.</i> <i>Nefashot</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">11</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Literally, lives. Hence I.E.’s interpretation.</i> (persons) takes in both men and beasts. FROM TWENTY YEARS OLD. Starting when one reaches the age of those who are counted [to go out to war].<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">12</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See Ex. 30:14; Num. 1:3.</i> SIXTY YEARS OLD. Old age. According to many, it is the decree of the King<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">13</sup><i class=\"footnote\">God.</i> that from a month until five years he shall give five <i>shekalim;</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">14</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In other words, it is God’s decree that the valuation of a child from the age of a month and a day until the age of five shall be five <i>shekalim</i>.</i> that is, if the child is a day past a month, the one who vowed shall give five <i>shekalim</i> (v. 6).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">15</sup><i class=\"footnote\">If someone points at a child a day past a month and says that he will give its valuation, he shall give five <i>shekalim</i>.</i> However, according to the Gaon,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">16</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Rabbi Saadiah Gaon.</i> he shall give a <i>shekel</i> per year<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">17</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Starting after a month of the first year has passed.</i> until five full years have passed.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">18</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Through the age of five. In other words, according to Rabbi Saadiah Gaon, for a child of the first year one gives one <i>shekel</i>, for a child of two years two <i>shekalim</i>, and so on.</i> Many<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">19</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Unlike the Gaon.</i> say that these are four valuations<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">20</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Up to the age of five, up to the age of 20, up to the age of sixty, from the age of 60 and above.</i> corresponding to four divisions of life.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">21</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See verses 1-7.</i> Next<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">22</sup><i class=\"footnote\">After the first stage of life, that is, from one month and above through the first four years.</i> comes nineteen complete years.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">23</sup><i class=\"footnote\">After the first stage comes the stage which starts at the age of five and lasts through the age of 19.</i> Then comes<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">24</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The third stage.</i> fifty-nine years<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">25</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Until the age of 60.</i> when one is valued at the amount he started with.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">26</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Literally, to return to the place he started.</i> The fifteen<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">27</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Given from the age of 60 and above (v. 7).</i> are for the completion of seventy-five years corresponding to the four parts.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">28</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The age of 75 concludes the fourth quarter of life; the quarters are 5, 20, 60, 75.</i> However, in truth, they are all complete years.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">29</sup><i class=\"footnote\">I.E. takes issue with those who say that when Scripture states <i>even unto twenty years old</i>, it means after 19 years have been completed, i.e., until the age of 20. I.E. says that the meaning of <i>even unto twenty years old</i> is, until 20 years have been completed. So too with regard to <i>even unto sixty years old</i>.</i> Or,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">30</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Or the meaning of <i>even unto twenty years old</i> is, after a day into the twentieth year. So too with regard to <i>even unto sixty years old</i>. I.E.’s point is that it is not clear whether <i>even unto twenty</i> means even unto the completion of 20 or from the start of the age of 20.</i> one day in the year is considered a year.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">31</sup><i class=\"footnote\">As it is with regard to other laws such as Bar Mitzvah.</i> We will only rely on the words of tradition.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">32</sup><i class=\"footnote\">To determine the meaning of <i>even unto twenty years old</i> and <i>even unto sixty years old</i> and how many <i>shekalim</i> are to be given from the age of one month until the age of 20. According to the <i>Mishnah Arakhin</i> 4:14, the years mentioned in Scripture are complete years. This means that the thirtieth day is considered less than 30 days; the fifth year is considered under the age of five. The twentieth year is considered under the age of 20; the sixtieth year is considered under the age of 60. Also according to the Mishnah five <i>shekalim</i> are given from a month onward through the age of five, and 15 <i>shekalim</i> from the age of five complete years through the age of 20.</i> For what reason is there to differentiate between a month until five, and from five until twenty since he gives a <i>shekel</i> for each year?<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">33</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Saadiah Gaon states that one gives a <i>shekel</i> per year from one month on. If so, there is no reason to differentiate between a month and five years and between five and 20 years since a child of one year gives one <i>shekel</i>, a child of two, 2 <i>shekalim</i>, and so on till the age of 20. Scripture should have simply said that a <i>shekel</i> per year is given from one month until the age of 20.</i> We can refute the latter from the law regarding a child of a month.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">34</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to Scripture a child of a month is valuated. However, according to Rabbi Saadiah Gaon a <i>shekel</i> is given per year for the first 20 years. However, a child of a month is less than a year old. Why then should a <i>shekel</i> be given for him?</i> Note, one who is less than a month old has no value.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">35</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Why should a child less than a month have no valuation?</i> After the age of sixty one goes backwards.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">36</sup><i class=\"footnote\">One’s valuation decreased. According to R. Saadiah it should increase.</i> Furthermore, what should one do after sixty? Shall he always give the same?<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">37</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Shall he give a <i>shekel</i> per year until he reaches the age of 75 or is he valued at 15 <i>shekalim</i> beyond the age of 75 for life?</i> These are all errors.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">38</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The opinions of Rabbi Saadiah Gaon and the other commentaries quoted.</i> The general rule is that it is a Scriptural decree.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">39</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The amount of valuation of each age. There is no logic to the amount of valuation.</i> If the amount to be given in valuation was based on the additional <i>shekalim</i> above which the male is valued over the female, then<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">40</sup><i class=\"footnote\">There would be some consistency in the amount given for the prosepective sexes at all stages of their lives.</i> note that after the age of sixty a third is added.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">41</sup><i class=\"footnote\">To the amount that a male is valued over the female. A female above the age of 60 is valued at 10 <i>shekalim</i>, and a male at 15 <i>shekalim</i>.</i> From five to twenty add a half, and from the age of a month until five and from twenty until sixty one adds to<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">42</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The female.</i> the half<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">43</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Of the male’s valuation.</i> its tenth.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">44</sup><i class=\"footnote\">A tenth of the male’s valuation. A female above the age of a month until the age of five is valued at 3 <i>shekalim</i> and a male at 5 <i>shekalim</i>. The female is valued at half of the male, i.e, 2.5 <i>shekalim</i> plus half a <i>shekel</i>. Half a <i>shekel</i> is a tenth of five <i>shekalim</i>. A female is valued at 30 <i>shekalim</i> from 20 to 60 years of age and a male at 50 <i>shekalim</i>. The female is valued at half of the male, i.e., 25 <i>shekalim</i> plus five <i>shekalim</i>. Five <i>shekalim</i> are a tenth of 50 <i>shekalim</i>.</i> AND THE PRIEST SHALL VALUE HIM. He shall be assessed in one evaluation based on every object that he owns.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">45</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Literally, he shall be assessed in one evaluation with such and such.</i> The word <i>arokh</i> (compared) in <i>none to be compared unto Thee</i> (Ps. 40:6) is similar to <i>he’erikh</i> (value him).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">46</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In our verse. It has the meaning of compare, value.</i> <i>He’erikh</i> is a <i>hifil</i>. Similarly <i>ya’arikhennu</i> (value him) in <i>shall the priest value him</i>?<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">47</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Ya’arikhennu</i> means value him.</i> <i>He’erikh</i> is to be distinguished from <i>ya’arkhennu</i> (he shall set it in order) in <i>he shall set it in order before the Lord</i> (Lev. 24:8).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">48</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Though both words come from the same root, they have different meanings.</i> [THEN HE SHALL BE SET.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">49</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Hebrew, <i>ve-he’emido</i> (literally, and he shall set him).</i> ] The <i>kohen</i>.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">50</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The <i>kohen</i> shall set him.</i> Our verse<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">51</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Which reads <i>ve-he’emido li-fene ha-kohen</i> [literally, and he (the <i>kohen</i>) shall set him before the <i>kohen</i> ].</i> should be interpreted as if written; and the <i>kohen</i> shall set him before the <i>kohen</i>.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">52</sup><i class=\"footnote\">For that is the literal meaning of our clause.</i> It is similar to my interpretation of <i>and pour it into the palm of his own left hand</i> (Lev. 14:15).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">53</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Lev. 14:15 literally reads, And the <i>kohen</i> shall take of the log and pour it into the palm of the <i>kohen’s</i> left hand. According to I.E. parts one and two of the verse refer to the same <i>kohen</i>. See I. E. on Lev. 14:15.</i> <i>Ve-he’emido li-fene ha-kohen</i> (then he shall be set before the priest) is lyrical.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">54</sup><i class=\"footnote\">That is, and he (the <i>kohen</i>) shall set him before the <i>kohen</i> is poetic.</i> On the other hand, <i>then he shall be set</i> might mean that the one who vows shall set him.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">55</sup><i class=\"footnote\">That is, <i>ve-he’emido</i> (literally, and he shall set him) refers to the one who vows. In this case <i>ve-he’emido li-fene ha-kohen</i> is to be rendered: and he (the one who utters the vow) shall set himself before the <i>kohen</i>.</i> SO SHALL IT STAND. <i>Yakum</i><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">56</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Literally, it shall arise.</i> means so shall it stand. AND IF…HIS POSSESSION. Which he inherited with the nation of Israel. A HOMER OF BARLEY. Scripture writes, <i>for ten baths are a homer</i> (Ezek. 45:14). Scripture there writes, <i>The ephah and the bath</i> (Ezek. 45:11).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">57</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The <i>ephah and the bath</i> are equal.</i> Note, the sowing of an ephah of barley is valued at five <i>shekalim</i>.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">58</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The sowing of a homer of barley is valued at fifty shekels. Thus an ephah of barley is valued at five <i>shekalim</i>, for an <i>ephah</i> is a tenth of a <i>homer</i>.</i> This is a decree of the King regarding the monetary value of a slave.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">59</sup><i class=\"footnote\">This is to be understood as follows: We find a similar divine decree with regard to the monetary value of a slave. A slave is valued at 30 <i>shekalim</i>. (Ex. 21:32). It makes no difference whether the slave in reality is worth more or less than the latter. Similarly with a field. A field is arbitrarily valued at 50 <i>shekels</i> per <i>the sowing of a homer of barley</i>, whether the field is worth more or less.</i> IF…FROM THE YEAR OF JUBILEE. In that very year.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">60</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In the very year of the Jubilee.</i> AND AN ABATEMENT SHALL BE MADE FROM THY VALUATION. The time that passed since the Jubilee.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">61</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The years that passed shall be deducted from the valuation.</i> [AND IF HE…WILL INDEED REDEEM.] The <i>vav</i> of <i>ve-im ga’al yigal</i> (and if he…will indeed redeem) is like the Arabic <i>fa</i>.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">62</sup><i class=\"footnote\">It does not introduce a new subject. See I.E. on Lev. 7:15 and the notes thereto.</i> It<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">63</sup><i class=\"footnote\">What follows.</i> is connected in meaning to the verses that are above<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">64</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Which speaks of a field’s valuation.</i> for the valuation is the main thing.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">65</sup><i class=\"footnote\">When one dedicates the value of his field.</i> Its<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">66</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The meaning of the two verses that follow.</i> meaning is, if he redeems the field or if he does not redeem it.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">67</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Verse 19 reads, <i>And</i> (ve) <i>if he…will indeed redeem it</i>. Verse 20 reads, <i>And</i> (ve) <i>if he…will not redeem the field</i>. According to I.E. verses 19 and 20 continue the thought of the earlier verses. Hence the <i>vav</i> is not to be translated, and our verses should be interpreted: If he…will indeed redeem it… Or if he…will not redeem the field.</i> OR IF HE HAVE SOLD. <i>Ve-im makhar</i> means, or if he have sold.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">68</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Not “and if he hath sold”. In other words, the <i>vav</i> of <i>ve-im</i> (or if) is not to be rendered as and.</i> The owner of the field cannot redeem the field because he sold it. It is to be holy to God.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">69</sup><i class=\"footnote\">After the year of the Jubilee.</i> WHEN IT GOETH OUT IN THE JUBILEE. Scripture employs the same language<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">70</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Scripture employs the same term, <i>yatza</i> (goeth out), with regard to this field, which does not revert to its owner but becomes the property of the Lord, as it does with regard to a field which goes back to its owner.</i> as it does with regard to all fields,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">71</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Which return to their owners in the year of the jubilee.</i> for it<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">72</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The field, which becomes the Lord’s.</i> goes out<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">73</sup><i class=\"footnote\">From the one who bought it.</i> in the Jubilee. AS A FIELD DEVOTED. It belongs to the <i>kohen</i> as a field does which one takes a vow to devote.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">74</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Verse 28.</i> The amount of the valuation<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">75</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The amount of money which the <i>kohen</i> assesses a dedicated object to be worth belongs to the <i>kohen</i> who estimated its value.</i> is the <i>kohen</i>’s, for he assesses it. He does not have to be a <i>kohen gadol</i>. THY VALUATION. <i>Mikhsat</i> (the worth of) is similar to <i>mikhsat</i> (number of) in <i>according to the number of</i> (Ex. 12:4).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">76</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See I.E. on Ex. 12:4 (Vol. 2, p. 219): “<i>Mikhsat</i> means a portion.” That is, according to the portions which each one will eat of the Passover lamb. I.E. renders our verse, the portion (i.e., the number of years left until the Jubilee) of your valuation.</i> OF WHOM IT WAS BOUGHT. The reference is to the seller.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">77</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The original seller.</i> This is explained by <i>to whom the possession of the land belongeth</i>. WHICH IS BORN AS A FIRSTLING TO THE LORD. Known to be the Lord’s. <i>Yevukkar</i> (which is born as a firstling) is a <i>pu’al. No man shall sanctify it</i> by saying, “I will give the first-born to the Lord.”<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">78</sup><i class=\"footnote\">For it already is the Lord’s from birth.</i> This is its meaning.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">79</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The meaning of <i>no man shall sanctify it</i>.</i> AND IF IT BE OF AN UNCLEAN BEAST. The first-born,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">80</sup><i class=\"footnote\">According to I.E. the unclean beast spoken of in our verse is a first-born animal.</i> along with the addition of a fifth of its value because he sanctified it.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">81</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The unclean first-born of the beast.</i> He shall also give a lamb,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">82</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In addition to giving the valuation of the first-born plus a fifth of its value.</i> for Scripture so writes.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">83</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>And every firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb</i> (Ex. 13:13). According to I.E. the same law that governs the first-born of an ass applies to all first-born of beasts, which are dedicated to God (Weiser).</i> If he does not sanctify the first-born,<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">84</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The first-born of an unclean beast.</i> it may be sold.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">85</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Like any other unclean beast, for unlike the first-born of an ass it does not require redemption.</i> The first-born of an ass shall be exchanged in accordance with its valuation.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">86</sup><i class=\"footnote\">If he dedicates the first-born of an ass.</i> He shall similarly give the sheep.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">87</sup><i class=\"footnote\">In addition to its valuation. Normally a first-born ass is redeemed by a sheep. However, if one dedicates the first-born ass he redeems it by giving its value in money. This is in addition to the sheep which he has to give. According to I.E. when the first-born of an ass is redeemed by a lamb, the value of the lamb given in exchange for the ass must be commensurate with the value of the ass. The value of the animals is established by the <i>kohen</i>.</i> Many say that it is not so.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">88</sup><i class=\"footnote\">They say that our verses do not speak of a first-born animal. See <i>Menachot</i> 102a. Also see Rashi and Ramban.</i> OF ALL THAT HE HATH. Which is in his control.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">89</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Even if he does not actually own it.</i> OF MAN. Compare, <i>I will devote</i> (ve-hacharamti)<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">90</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Translated in keeping with the meaning of the word <i>cherem</i> (devoted) in our verse.</i> <i>their cities</i> (Num. 21:2).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">91</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Our verse speaks of objects devoted to God (<i>cherem</i>). So does Num. 21:2. The devoted cities spoken of in Numbers did not belong to the Israelites. Similarly the object in our verse. Hence I.E.’s interpretation.</i>  [BE PUT TO DEATH.] The word <i>yochoram</i> (shall be devoted) is a <i>hofal</i>. Compare, <i>yo’omad</i> (shall be set)<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">92</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Yo’omad</i> is a <i>hofal</i>.</i> in <i>shall be set alive</i> (Lev. 16:10). UNDER THE ROD. The shepherd’s rod.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">93</sup><i class=\"footnote\">All animals that are under the supervision of a shepherd (Filwarg).</i> Now the number one<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">94</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The first-born.</i> is the chosen one. The tenth is the same as the first.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">95</sup><i class=\"footnote\">It too is holy.</i> However, he may redeem the tenth.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">96</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The tithe (v. 31) referenced is probably the second tithe (Weiser). See also Rashi and the Rashbam. The reference cannot be to the tenth of the cattle and flock, for Scripture says that these cannot be redeemed (v. 33).</i> This is not the case with the first-born.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">97</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See Num. 18:17.</i> Note, the Israelite shall give the first-born and the tenth of the beast, and of the seed of the ground, namely, of the produce, the first fruits<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">98</sup><i class=\"footnote\">All these are given to the <i>kohen</i>.</i> and the tithe.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">99</sup><i class=\"footnote\">The tithe is given to the Levite. The Levite then gives a tithe from the tithe given him to the <i>kohen</i>.</i> HE SHALL NOT INQUIRE. <i>Yavakker</i> (he shall…inquire) means he shall separate. I have previously explained that the word <i>yavakker</i> is related to the word <i>boker</i> (morning).<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">100</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See I.E. on Lev. 13:36.</i> IN MOUNT SINAI. I have explained this earlier in this Torah portion.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">101</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See I.E. on Lev. 25:1. <i>Be-Har and Be-Chukkotai</i> form one unit. Hence I.E. refers to them as one Torah portion (Weiser).</i> The person who has the intelligence to understand the secret of the world will understand the secret of the first-born and the tenth.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">102</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See I.E. on Ex. 3:15 (Vol. 2, pp. 69-71). I.E. there notes that “the number one is the…foundation of all numbers.” He goes on to say that there are ten spheres surrounding the earth: “The tenth sphere is holy because its power is manifest throughout the throne of glory.”</i> Now Abraham gave a tithe.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">103</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Gen. 14:20.</i> Our father Jacob, unto him the peace, did the same.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">104</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Gen. 28:22.</i> If the One who has no second will help me, then I will reveal part of the secret when I mention the second tithe.<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">105</sup><i class=\"footnote\">See I.E. on Deut. 14:22 (Vol. 5, p. 95): “If you start from the top, then one is the first number. If you start from below, then, behold, ten is the first number. This is the secret of the first-born and the tithe.”</i> The Book of Leviticus is completed.",
    "book": "Ibn Ezra on Leviticus",
    "format": "bulk_text",
    "complete": true
  },
  "downloaded_at": "2026-01-15T23:01:04.073045",
  "provider": "sefaria"
}