diff --git "a/txt/Tanakh/Rishonim on Tanakh/Chizkuni/Chizkuni/English/Chizkuni, translated and annotated by Eliyahu Munk.txt" "b/txt/Tanakh/Rishonim on Tanakh/Chizkuni/Chizkuni/English/Chizkuni, translated and annotated by Eliyahu Munk.txt"
new file mode 100644--- /dev/null
+++ "b/txt/Tanakh/Rishonim on Tanakh/Chizkuni/Chizkuni/English/Chizkuni, translated and annotated by Eliyahu Munk.txt"
@@ -0,0 +1,26494 @@
+Chizkuni
+חזקוני
+Chizkuni, translated and annotated by Eliyahu Munk
+http://www.urimpublications.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=UP&Product_Code=Chizkuni&Category_Code=bd
+
+Chizkuni
+
+Introduction
+
+
+
+Genesis
+
+
+
+Chapter 1
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+בראשית. The reason why G-d commenced the Torah with the letter ב, the second letter in the alphabet, instead of with letter א the first letter in the alphabet, is to draw our attention to the fact that the letter ב is surrounded from three sides, i.e. from east, west, and south, whereas the fourth side is left open, a warning that evil winds may blow from the north unimpeded by a barrier. We have a tradition dating back to Jeremiah, that disaster threatening the Jewish people has a habit of commencing from the North (Jeremiah1.14) . [This editor always found this puzzling as the meaning of the word צפון, “north,” is “hidden,” i.e. not easy of access, and here the letter ב being open in a northerly directions would appear to invite disaster. Ed.] We also find that the name of G-d when spelled אדני appears in the Torah 134 times, corresponding to the combination of the first and last letter of each of the letters in the words for “east,” i.e. 48 מזרח, “south,” דרום, i.e. 44, and “west,” i.e. מערב, i.e. 42. The “north” is not hinted at, and is left open until there is a need, i.e. to counter it with a different name of the Lord. The number 134 is equivalent to the numerical value of the word (Aramaic) קלד, “to lock up, insert a key.” When disaster faces the Jewish people, G-d’s people, the Creator will be called upon to seal the fourth side of this first letter in the Torah by using His “name” as the key. The answer to the question, why He had left it open in the first place, seeing He sealed all the other directions to prevent attacks upon His people, is in order to present a challenge to the blasphemers when the time of the redemption comes to close this side if they are able to. If you will count each letter of the alphabet and add it up according to their values as numbers, i.e. 2= ב+ 1=א plus ג = 3, you will get a total of 1500, i.e. 500 for each of the three other directions, corresponding to the number 500, the years of travel on foot travel on foot required to cross the surface of the globe in each direction. (based on Shir hashirim rabbah 6.14)
+בראשית; Rashi comments on this word as follows: “Rabbi Yitzchok said that there was not really any need to commence the Torah before the beginning of chapter 12 in Exodus, when G-d addressed the Jewish nation with legislation about the forthcoming Passover. He only did so in order to tell mankind that He owns the earth and therefore can allocate parts of it to those, whom He chooses, i.e. that the Israelites did not rob the Canaanites of their land, which had never been rightfully theirs. Rashi therefore considers the laws about Passover as the first commandment given to the Jewish people. If we were to counter that the seven universal laws that apply to all of mankind apply to us also, and these had been given many years before there was an Avraham, even, the answer is that what Rashi meant was the Passover legislation was the first commandment given to the Jewish people when all of them were present during that address. (Exodus 12,3) To the question that the mere idea of the Canaanites arguing that the Israelites had stolen their land, seeing that what belongs to the slave automatically belongs to his master, and Canaan (Noach’s grandson) had been demoted to being a slave by his grandfather ever since he had been cursed, so how could they have ever owned it? (compare Genesis 9,26) Canaan’s descendants had been slaves of Shem, the great-grandfather of Avraham ever since! Rashi himself pointed this out already on Genesis 12,6. The Canaanites, as alluded to in that verse, had robbed the descendants of Shem of their heritage! We would have to answer that the Canaanites i.e. the tribes making up that kingdom, also contained kings (King of Chatzor) and others who were not descended from the original Canaan. (Compare Joshua, beginning chapter 11) The latter might even have been descended from Shem, so that the Israelites would have had a legal claim on the land they occupied as they were rightful owners. An alternate way of explaining why the Torah commenced with the word (and the story that follows) of בראשית is this. It is to inform us of the sequence in which this material universe came into existence and how once created it was allocated to the creatures inhabiting it, as Rashi explained, i.e. to prove that the Canaanites had no legal claim to dispute the Jews’ viewing it as their inheritance, ancestral heritage, by claiming that rightfully Eylam had a legal claim to it. [Eylam was Shem’s firstborn son, (Genesis 10,21, whereas Avraham was a descendant of Shem’s youngest son Arpachshad, basing themselves on what is written in Genesis 11,13 where this son is listed last, not first as in 10,21. Ed.] Yet another reason for the Torah commencing with the words: בראשית ברא אלוקים, “at the beginning G-d created, etc.;” is to state categorically that the universe in which we live did not exist eternally, or is the result of “the big bang,” but was created by a Creator. When Rashi states that G-d allocated the land of Israel to the Israelites מרצונו, “as an expression of His goodwill,” this is an implied warning that such an allocation was not absolute and irreversible for all future time, otherwise how could He take it back by exiling its people and reallocate it to someone else? Rashi also makes the point that the word ראשית, whenever it occurs in the Bible is invariably linked to the word following it. The author, supporting Rashi, cites an example from Leviticus 2,12: קרבן ראשית תקריבו אותם, “you are to present them as an initial offering.” [Rabbi Chavell, in his annotations, already pointed out that the author’s statement is not quite accurate, pointing to Deuteronomy 33,21, וירא ראשית לו. Ed.]
+בראשית ברא, “first of all, before any creatures were created, G-d created heaven and earth;” Our author compares this to Jeremiah writing in Jeremiah 26,1: בראשית ממלכות יהויקים בן יאשיהו, “at the beginning of the rule of Yehoyakim, son of Yoshiyahu, etc.” The author mentions that Onkelos also translates these two words as: “at the beginning He created.”'אלוקים וגו, if there is a person [Jewish believer, of course] who is baffled by the plural ending in the word for G-d in the Holy Tongue, (i.e. אלוקים, אלוקינו, אלוקי) thinking that this is utterly inappropriate in a Book teaching monotheism such as the Torah, such a person should reflect for a moment and consider that references to Divinity and addressed to the individual are generally phrased as the Divinity mentioned being in the plural mode. [as is the custom for earthly kings, who speak of themselves in the plural mode, something known as pluralis majestatis. It would border on blasphemy if the Torah would accord G-d alesser title than the one arrogated to themselves by earthly rulers. Ed.]. Examples quoted by the author are: Exodus 3,16אלוקי אברהם יצחק ויעקב, or Genesis 42,7: דבר האיש אדוני הארץ or Exodus 22,14: אם בעליו עמו; there are many more examples of this. Do not answer me by saying that the vocalization of the word אדני when written with the kametz is sacred, whereas when not it is profane. Are you going to argue the same for the roots: בנאי ,זכאי ,שדי (fool) אשמאי and others, [that when using the vowel kametz they are transformed into sacred words? Ed.] The truth is that that the Divine name for G-d is also used in the plural mode, and no one as a result disputes that He is unique and solitary! The deeper meaning of the word elohim is “majesty, authority.” When G-d proclaimed at the beginning of the Decalogue: אנכי “I” (singular) ה' אלוקיך, “am the Lord your G-d(s)” (plural), i.e. the meaning is that whereas every other ruler or king rules over a certain narrowly defined domain, “I am the One Who rules over everything, the entire universe.” [Surely this justifies the use of the plural mode! Ed.] Not only that, earthly rulers or kings, being mortal, have to worry about who will succeed them, and in the event that a king does not have a biological heir, or has otherwise become weak and unable to carry out his functions for the benefit of his subjects, he must be replaced. None of these problems, will ever face the G-d Who introduces Himself to His people at Mount Sinai at the beginning of the Decalogue. Furthermore, from the subject’s point of view, if a subject feels oppressed by a particular king whose domain he inhabits, he has the option (unless he is in jail) to move to the domain of a different earthly king. Not so with G-d’s, the Creator’s, subjects. There is no place in the universe to which they can flee to escape His rule. On the other hand, the subjects of G-d enjoy the advantage that they never have to worry that the successor of a benign king such as He, will be autocratic and make the lives of his subjects miserable.
+את השמים, “the heavens;” in an ancient version of Midrash Tanchuma Bereshit, 8, Rabbi Yishmael is quoted as having asked Rabbi Akiva: (who was preoccupied with counting every apparently unnecessary word את and גם in the Torah) ‘what is the significance of the two words את in this verse,’ i.e. what do these words contribute to our understanding of the line: “G-d had created the heavens and the earth?” Rabbi Akiva replied that if the Torah had merely written: בראשית ברא אלוקים שמים והארץ, people would have thought that the terms שמים and ארץ refer to two separate divinities each of whom had created part of the universe Phrasing it as it did, the Torah ensured that we could not have made such an error and that elohim had created both the heavenly and the earthly regions of the universe. [In other words, the word את before the words השמים and הארץ makes it clear that what follows are creatures, products of G-d’s creative activity. Ed.] השמים, the prefix ה is to tell us that “the” heavens, (and “the” earth,) are phenomena with which the reader is supposed to be familiar. The fact that the plural mode is used does not mean that there are many small units which combine to make a heaven or an earth, but the plural ending is similar to the plural ending in the words: ,מים, חיים, פנים מלקחים, מעיים, רחיים, water, life, face, tongs, entrails, millstones, and many more like it. Basically, the term שמים describes something above us, whereas the term ארץ describes something below us.1,2. 
+השמים, the prefix ה is to tell us that “the” heavens, (and “the” earth,) are phenomena with which the reader is supposed to be familiar. The fact that the plural mode is used does not mean that there are many small units which combine to make a heaven or an earth, but the plural ending is similar to the plural ending in the words: ,מים, חיים, פנים מלקחים, מעיים, רחיים, water, life, face, tongs, entrails, millstones, and many more like it. Basically, the term שמים describes something above us, whereas the term ארץ describes something below us.1,2. ויכולו השמים והארץ וכל צבאם; “heaven and earth, and all their components had been completed.” (2,1) The Bible also writes: (Nechemyah 9,6) ,אתה עשית את השמים שמי השמי, וכל צבאם, הארץ וכל אשר עליה, הים ואת כל אשר בהם, “You have completed heaven in all its details, as well as the upper heaven and all their host, the earth and everything on it, the ocean and everything in them.” We also read in Exodus 20,11 (part of the Decalogue): כי ששת ימים עשה ה' את השמים ואת הארץ, את הים ואת כל אשר בם, “for during a sequence of six days, the Lord completed the creation of heaven and earth, as well as the ocean and all their respective inhabitants;There is no reason for you, the reader, to be amazed at the feminine mode, i.e. היתה, “she had been,” used by the Torah when describing phenomena which are masculine; we find more such examples in the Bible, one being in Judges 18,7: ויראו את העם אשר בקרבה יושבת לבטח, “they observed the people dwelling in it carefree, etc.” [We would have expected יושב instead of יושבת seeing that the subject עם is masculine. Ed.] In Samuel 1,4,17 even the Holy Ark, which is always considered masculine, is referred to in the feminine mode, when the prophet wrote: וארון האלוקים נלקחה, “and the Ark of G-d was captured;” in Numbers 11,15, Moses is quoted as saying to G-d: ואם ככה את עושה לי “and if You, feminine mode for G-d, are doing (masculine mode) thus to me,” etc.”Incidentally, the prefix ו before the word: הארץ, appears to be unnecessary, as it does on numerous occasions, a glaring example being Exodus 13,7 ולא נחם אלוקים “(and) G-d did not guide them, etc.”
+
+Verse 2
+
+והארץ היתה תוהו ובוהו; “and the earth had been in a chaotic state;” the Torah, out of respect for the heavenly regions, did not include “heaven” as having been in a chaotic state, seeing that it was the home of G-d’s Presence. According to the view expressed in the Talmud (Chagigah 2) the meaning of the line is that also this “state of chaos” had been subject to creation. In order to visualise this, we must assume that G-d created this ”chaos” in a region surrounding the earth.
+תוהו , this word in a similar construction appears in Psalms 107,40: ויעתם בתוהו לא דרך, “and He makes them lose their way, in a trackless desert.” It also occurs in Jeremiah 4,23: ראיתי את הארץ והנה תוהו, “I saw the earth, and here it is chaotic.” It would be incorrect to understand our verse as referring to the condition of the universe before heaven and earth had been created. If that translation were correct, the Torah should have written: והארץ היה תוהו ובוהו, i.e. “what is now viewed as “earth” already existed but in a chaotic state.” Seeing that the Torah wrote instead: היתה, is proof that that word refers to the earth itself, i.e. that at its inception the earth had been in a chaotic state. An alternate explanation: the whole phrase refers to the future, i.e. before the Lord created heaven and earth, there was only chaos. The same would apply to the words following, i.e. על פני תהום, on the surface of what in the future would be known as the תהום, “the great depth.” An alternate way of saying this is: מרחפת על פני המים, “was hovering on the surface of the ocean.” (the darkness). We must remember that the phenomena described by the Torah had not yet been created at the “time” described by the Torah. There are a number of phenomena that had not yet been created, such as the angels, the heavenly regions for the righteous and the abyss for the wicked, known respectively as maasseh merkavah and gehinom. The Torah, in describing the creation, refers only to phenomena visible to the human being. Even the planting of the garden in Eden has been written about in the Torah only in order to explain to us how and why first man declined so precipitously morally shortly after having been created. Nonetheless, the text conveys that the garden of Eden was created (planted) at the same time as the heavens and the earth, and that is why the Torah wrote: ויכולו השמים והארץ וכל צבאם; “heaven and earth, and all their components had been completed.” (2,1) The Bible also writes: (Nechemyah 9,6) ,אתה עשית את השמים שמי השמי, וכל צבאם, הארץ וכל אשר עליה, הים ואת כל אשר בהם, “You have completed heaven in all its details, as well as the upper heaven and all their host, the earth and everything on it, the ocean and everything in them.” We also read in Exodus 20,11 (part of the Decalogue): כי ששת ימים עשה ה' את השמים ואת הארץ, את הים ואת כל אשר בם, “for during a sequence of six days, the Lord completed the creation of heaven and earth, as well as the ocean and all their respective inhabitants; There is no reason for you, the reader, to be amazed at the feminine mode, i.e. היתה, “she had been,” used by the Torah when describing phenomena which are masculine; we find more such examples in the Bible, one being in Judges 18,7: ויראו את העם אשר בקרבה יושבת לבטח, “they observed the people dwelling in it carefree, etc.” [We would have expected יושב instead of יושבת seeing that the subject עם is masculine. Ed.] In Samuel 1,4,17 even the Holy Ark, which is always considered masculine, is referred to in the feminine mode, when the prophet wrote: וארון האלוקים נלקחה, “and the Ark of G-d was captured;” in Numbers 11,15, Moses is quoted as saying to G-d: ואם ככה את עושה לי “and if You, feminine mode or G-d, are doing (masculine mode) thus to me,” etc.”Incidentally, the prefix ו before the word: הארץ, appears to be unnecessary, as it does on numerous occasions, a glaring example being Exodus 13,7 ולא נחם אלוקים “(and) G-d did not guide them, etc.”
+והארץ היתה תוהו ובוהו ; “and the earth had been in a chaotic state;” the Torah, out of respect for the heavenly regions, did not include “heaven” as having been in a chaotic state, seeing that it was the home of G-d’s Presence. According to the view expressed in the Talmud (Chagigah 2) the meaning of the line is that also this “state of chaos” had been subject to creation. In order to visualise this, we must assume that G-d created this ”chaos” in a region surrounding the earth.
+וחשך על פני תהום, “and there was darkness on the face of the abyss;” the “abyss” is the term used for this region surrounding earth. The fact that G-d had created the initial stage of darkness is recited by us in our daily prayers when we recite the words: יוצר אור ובורא חשך, “Who fashioned light, whereas He only created darkness in its initial stage.” [The creative process is divided into three stages, each progressively more detailed, i.e. בריאה, יצירה, עשיה. When it came to the creation of human beings, G-d involved Himself personally right through the process of עשיה, completion. Ed.] According to our author, there was a “time” previous to the existence of even light and darkness. Our sages in the Talmud taught us not to even try and understand what preceded the “time,” when G-d created light, nor the ”time” when this universe will have completed the function for which He had created it. (Chagigah 12).
+ורוח אלוקים, “and the spirit of G-d, etc.” This expression too tries to describe for us something that exists outside the “universe” is abstract, similar to the expression תהום, in the first half of this verse. This “רוח” is also perceived as קדש, holy, [something apart, in this instance, not tangible, Ed.] and is described in the Talmud Chagigah 12 as one of the 10 phenomena that G-d created on the first “day.”
+ורוח the prefix ו at the beginning of this word is meant to include the four winds which blow on earth in four directions every day at different levels of the atmosphere. According to our author (based on the Talmud in Gittin, 31) the east wind blows daily in the morning until noon, its principal feature being that it is hot and moist. From noon until sunset, the south wind blows, its principal feature being that it is hot and dry. During the first half of the night a westerly wind blows, its principal feature being that it is cool and moist, whereas the north wind is apt to blow from midnight until sunrise, its principal feature is that it is cold and dry.
+ורוח אלקים, this wind was needed as a feature on physical earth, at the time when G-d commanded the waters to recede so that dry land would become visible. (Genesis 1,9). Compare also Exodus 1,21 when Moses credits the east wind with having made possible the splitting of the sea of reeds, enabling the people of Israel to cross on dry ground.
+
+Verse 3
+
+ויאמר אלוקים, “G-d said:” seeing that there were no intelligent creatures as yet that G-d could have spoken to, the meaning of this statement must be that “G-d spoke to His heart, to the seat of His thoughts.” Even in our physical world nowadays when a human being expresses thoughts verbally, these are products of his thought processes which preceded his thoughts being formulated. If we needed proof for the correctness of this approach, the reader only needs to look at Genesis 6,67: וינחם ה' כי עשה את האדם בארץ ויתעצב אל לבו. ויאמר ה׳ אמחה את האדם אשר בראתי וגו', “The Lord became regretful that He had created man on the earth, and His heart was saddened; He said: “I will wipe out the human race on earth, etc.”
+יהי אור, “let there be light!” Before the heavens had been stretched out over the firmament the light of G-d had permeated the entire universe in equal measure. Once He had stretched out the sky like a carpet, (Psalms 104,2) the heavens formed the barrier between the rest of the universe and the תהום, the deep abyss beyond. This is why the Torah had stated that the darkness had formed a cover over that abyss. (Verse 2) This is why its creation was preceded by a commandment, seeing that the light created now was something good for all the stages of creation that were to follow.
+יהי אור; three phenomena were created on the first “day;” heaven, earth and light. Each of these phenomena contributed its accessories at the appropriate time. The heaven produced its offspring, i.e. the horizon, רקיע, on the second “day,” and the earth, on the third “day,” produced simple vegetation, i.e. grass and trees. The “light” produced the luminaries and the stars on the fourth “day.” Proof that these developments were not “something from nothing,” as the first phase of the creation is that the Torah describes G-d’s commandment in each instance not with the word: “let there be,” יהי, but with the word “produce,” תוצא. This is similar to G-d’s command to Noach at the end of the deluge, when He said: צא מן התבה, “exit from the ark!” (Genesis 8,16).
+ויהי אור, and “light” had materalised. The reason why on subsequent occasions, the Torah merely writes: ויהי כן, “and so it came to be,” is for the sake of brevity. Our sages therefore have taught us in Pessachim 3, that one should always strive to express one’s thoughts as concisely as possible, [while avoiding being misunderstood. Ed.] In this instance, by spelling out the word אור, the Torah did not add a single syllable beyond what was required.
+
+Verse 4
+
+וירא אלוקים את האור, “G-d saw the light;” the meaning of the word: וירא in this verse is that He contemplated, understood the impact that this light had made. In other words, this was “seeing” with one’s heart; we find the verb ראה used in this sense also in Exodus 12,13, where G-d is described as “‏וראיתי את הדם,” “When I take note of the blood” (on the entrance of the homes of the Israelites”); we find it used again use in that sense in Exodus 33,12, as well as in Kohelet 2,17. Even though everything in the past present and the future is “visible” to the Lord, it is impossible to explain the word here in the usual sense of seeing with one’s eyes.
+ויבדל אלוקים, “G-d made a distinction;” this referred to the earliest point in time that was possible, i.e. on the fourth day, (1,18) after the luminaries had been created. We find a similar example of when the Torah reports something as the ultimate purpose before it could be carried out when the Torah describes G-d as having created man as “male and female” (1,28) זכר ונקבה ברא אותם, although the Torah had not yet told us that G-d took part of Adam’s body to create woman. (2,22) In both instances the Torah reveals G-d‘s ultimate purpose already when it reports G-d as having made the first step in that process. Some commentators understand the word ויבדל as telling us that G-d already named the result of what He did in advance by naming it “day” and “night,” respectively. (verse 5)
+
+Verse 5
+
+ויקרא אלוקים לאור יום, G-d named the light: “day;” G-d named a total of six phenomena that He created, as there was as yet no human being that could name these phenomena. [Compared to the time when He invited Adam to name the animals. Ed.] They are: ,אור, חשך, שמים, ארץ, ימים אדם, “light, darkness, heaven, earth, days and man.”Rabbi Elazar is quoted as saying that the Lord does not associate His name with anything that is evil, only with phenomena that are good, positive, and constructive. (Bereshit Rabbah 3) You will note that when referring to the light, the Torah associates G-d’s name with it by writing the sequence ויקרא אלוקים לאור יום, whereas when speaking of the darkness,.ולחשך קרא לילה, “and the darkness He called night.” G-d’s name was not repeated.
+ויהי ערב ויהי בקר, “there was evening, there was morning;” even though the darkness had existed since the first hour of the night, the Torah refers once more to the darkness, this time with the name לילה, “night.” The reason is that the Torah wished to stress that the creation of a day, i.e. a consecutive period of 24 hours was not two halves, but one whole. The same applies to the following “days” of creation.
+יום אחד, “one day.” According to the commentary of Rashi, the reason why this “day” is not described as “the first day,” as opposed to the subsequent “days” which have an ordinal number, i.e. “second,” “third,” etc;” this is to remind us that on that “day” the Holy One blessed be His name, was still unique, alone in the universe, there not being even angels in heaven. A different explanation for the word אחד, instead of ראשון in this verse: It is grammatically not proper, to speak of “first,” i.e. the beginning of a numerical sequence while the next item in the sequence does not yet exist. Even when the first day had been completed, the second day had not even begun as yet.
+
+Verse 6
+
+יהי רקיע בתוך המים, “let there be a horizon in the midst of the waters.” The heaven of which the Torah spoke as being part of G-d’s creative activity on the first “day,” had been an enclave within the waters which had covered the entire “universe” at that time. This paragraph therefore is closely associated with the previous one, i.e. to what had happened on the first “day.” The proof of this lies in the sentence that G-d had created heaven and earth, which makes it clear that both had been created on the first “day. (Compare Genesis 2,4, where the Torah refers specifically to the horizon having been created on the same day as heaven and earth).
+ויהי מבדיל, “so that it can serve as a separating domain, (between water and water.)” The horizon was supposed to raise itself. In other words, the horizon existed since the first day and had not yet begun to fulfill its function of being an atmosphere between heaven and earth. A different exegesis: the answer to the question which “horizon” the Torah is speaking about in this verse, is that it is the one above the chavot. the highest category of angels in heaven. (Compare Pirkey de Rabbi Eliezer chapter 4 That Rabbi quotes Ezekiel 1,22 as his source)
+
+Verse 7
+
+ויהי כן, “and so it came to be.” The meaning of the word: כן, is that what came to be then is still so nowadays. Actually, according the sequence of the subject matter discussed by the Torah this statement could have been expected already immediately after the words: בין מים למים, “between one type of water and the other type of water,” in verse 6. The reason it was not inserted there is that it might have misled us into thinking that the separation by itself constituted the completion of a creative act by G-d involving the water. Nonetheless, seeing that a certain stage of the separation of the waters had been concluded, the Torah saw fit to insert the line: “it was evening, it became morning, a second “day.”Our sages in the Zohar on Parshat Eykev page 273, state that one does not do things “in pairs.” What they mean is that just as in the story of creation something that had been commenced on one day was not completed until the second day, [to avoid creating both types of water on the same day, Ed] there is no need to complete on the same day other matters that one has commenced on a certain day. The quotation we cited from the Zohar continues with: “just as one does not begin to do something in pairs so one should not complete it in “four.” The reason is that on the fourth “day,” the universe as we know it was completed; [except for the living creatures therein. Perhaps the deeper meaning of this is that man must not try to “copy” what G-d did at the time of creation so that he may not be viewed as competing with the Creator, as a form of idolatry. Ed. ] As to the fact that we do not read that “G-d saw that it was good,” at the end of the report of the second “day” of His creative activity, the reason most likely is that on that day gehinom, purgatory, was also created, as stated in Pessachim 54, and the Creator does not derive any satisfaction from having to consign any of His creatures to that region of the universe. We know this from Sanhedrin 39. Moreover it is written in Chronicles II 20,21: ויועץ אל העם ויעמד....בצאת לפני החלוץ ואמרים הודו לה' כי לעולם חסדו, “aftertaking counsel with the people.....as they went forth ahead ofthe vanguard, saying: ‘praise the Lord for His steadfast love is eternal.’” [The subject there is the miraculous salvation of Yehoshaphat and the army of Yehudah from a combined assault against them by three nations. Ed.] Our sages say that the reason that in this prayer of thanksgiving by the army of the King of Yehudah the attribute of G-d’s goodness is omitted, is that He does not enjoy the necessity of having had to kill His creatures, even when in fact they killed one another, as in that instance.(verse 23 there) Rabbi Elazar claims that on the sixth day of creation the Torah added the word: מאד, “very,” after the word טוב, “good, to make up for the missing “good” at the end of the report of what had been created on the second day.” (Compare Genesis 1,31)
+
+Verse 8
+
+
+
+Verse 9
+
+יקוו המים, “let the waters be gathered together;” this is the conclusion of G-d’s creative activity of the second day. The רקיע, “atmosphere/horizon,” did not become operational until the earth had dried out. The reader is asked not to be astounded at the fact that the Torah had previously inserted the phrase: “it was evening, it was morning, the second day.” The reason why this is no contradiction as supposed at first glance, is that the meaning of the words: יקוו המים is that G-d’s commandment for the process of the waters gathering together had been issued already beforethe evening and subsequent morning of the second day. There are numerous such constructions in the Torah; we must not forget also, that both the gathering together of the water and the resultant visibility of the earth, were no new phenomena that could be described as “creation.” Expansion of one phenomenon so that another phenomenon could become visible is no basic change.
+
+Verse 10
+
+
+
+Verse 11
+
+תדשא הארץ, “let the earth sprout vegetation;” at this point the Torah begins with its report of G-d’s creative activity on the third “day”. The major result was that the surface of the earth became covered with different categories of vegetation including trees, in anticipation of G-d’s placing the luminaries in the sky on the fourth day. A different exegesis: the waters had already completed the process of contracting on the second day as part of that day’s activity, aided by the רקיע, horizon/atmosphere blowing itself up on the second day; for if the (upper) waters had not contracted, how could the earth beneath have become visible and already be covered with vegetation including trees?.
+עץ פרי , “edible trees;” the earth did not carry out this part of G-d’s instructions, producing only trees with edible fruit instead. On the other hand, it produced more species of herbs than it had been instructed to. Bearing this in mind, we can deduce that the “earth’s” intention in doing so was not to countermand G-d, but was well intentioned. It reasoned that if the trunks were edible it would not take long before many such species of trees would die out, as the creatures on earth would consume both the fruit and the trunks. In spite of the earth’s, i.e. nature’s good intentions, when G-d cursed man as a result of his sin, the earth’s non compliance with the directive of its Creator was remembered and it was cursed also. This was in keeping with the principle expressed in B’rachot 10, that when Chiskiyah said to G-d that he had not married as he foresaw that his children would become renegades, G-d asked him if that was a reason to refuse to carry out His command? [In other words, “never mind your good intentions, you must not countermand My orders to be fruitful and to multiply.” G-d did not need his advice about how to achieve His goals. Ed.].
+פרי , “fruit(s) of;” this is one of numerous words in classical Hebrew which always appear in the singular mode; others are: שמש, sun, טף, children, שכר, reward, wages, כר,cushion, בצק, dough, to mention just a few.
+
+Verse 12
+
+ועץ עושה פרי, “and fruit bearing trees.” If you were to argue that there are many trees that do not bear fruit, the answer is that what the Torah really meant was that the fruit that the trees mentioned, were to be fruit matching its species, i.e. למינהו. Seeing that this definition would not apply to non fruit bearing trees, it is clear that the Torah did not mean that aj] trees were to be of the fruitbearing kind.
+כי טוב, “that it was good.” The reason why this word “good” appears twice in the report of G-d’s creative activity on the third “day,” is that on that day the garden in Eden was created (see pessikta zutrata 593)
+
+Verse 13
+
+
+
+Verse 14
+
+יהי מאורות, “let there be luminaries;” it is the style of the Holy Scriptures to refer even to phenomena that exist in multiples as if they existed as individuals, by using the singular mode [יהי instead of יהיו, Ed.] Examples are: ויהי אנשים אשר היו טמאים “there were men who were ritually unclean,” [where we would have expected the Torah to have written: ויהיו אנשים.] (Numbers 9,6) We should therefore understand the word יהי as referring to a creative act about to occur, and what follows as referring to the details, i.e. the answer to the question: “what was there to develop?” The answer is: “luminaries.” The term מאורות, reminds the reader that these luminaries were derivatives of the אור, light, created already on the first day. These derivatives were now divided into two separate light giving bodies, one larger than the other. They were named “sun,” and” moon,” respectively. As to the Torah adding: ואת הכוכבים, “and the stars,” this applies only to the execution of G-d’s directive, not to the directive itself. It is to teach us that these “stars” came into existence without a specific directive from the Creator, but as a result of fragments, sparks, resulting when G-d split the original luminary into sun and moon respectively.
+מארת, the word is spelled defectively, the letter ו of the plural ending being absent. The reason it is spelled defective is that the stars were not meant to dispense light but were meant to guide us navigationally merely by being visible, and to help us tell time as they appeared at regular intervals.
+ברקיע השמים, “in the part of the horizon that spans the atmosphere.” [like an umbrella. Ed.] It is positioned below the upper layers of heaven.
+להבדיל בין היום ובין הלילה “to form a visible partition between day and night.” The sun separates day from the preceding night, whereas the moon separates what follows after the day that preceded it.
+והיו לאותות, “they will serve as (backgrounds to) miracles; such as when their orbits were arrested temporarily at the command of Joshua (Joshua 24,17) when he reminded the people of that. On an individual basis, G-d performed such a miracle for King Chizkiyahu to confirm that he had been granted an additional 15 years of life. (Kings II 20,911) A different way of understanding these words: the constellation of the stars will serve astrologers as indications when foretelling certain events in the future.
+ולמועדים, and to determine certain calendar events which are tied to specific dates by the Torah, such as observance of the new moon, the fifteenth of Nissan as the day when the first day of Passover is to be observes, the sixth of Sivan for the observance of the festival commemorating the revelation and the giving of the Torah, etc. David confirmed this as one of the meanings of this term when he said in Psalms 104,19: עשה ירח למועדים שמש ידע מבואו, “He made the moon to mark the seasons, the sun knows when to set.”
+
+Verse 15
+
+ברקיע השמים להאיר על הארץ, ”in the sky of theheavens to disseminate light all over the earth.” One of the luminaries’ functions is similar to that of lanterns which are also always placed on high poles to better illuminate their surroundings. According to the plain meaning of the text, the sun and moon are necessary to illuminate earth, whereas the light created on the first “day,” is needed to illuminate the heavenly regions, seeing that on the second “day,” a partition had been erected between the former and the latter by the horizon/atmosphere. Alternately, when the Torah reported that on the first “day” light came into existence, i.e. ויהי אור, this was the “light” which enabled “life” to exist, whereas here we speak about the light provided by the sun and moon respectively. Although as yet this “light” was not needed as the creatures for which the sun and moon were to shine had not been created yet, there were grasses and fruit bearing trees which needed it in order for them not to wither and die. The fruit could not have ripened without the rays of the sun. We also know from Deuteronomy 33,14, that there are plants which cannot grow without moonlight. Furthermore, G-d had created some living creatures such as creeping things and birds on the fifth “day,” and the means for their survival had to exist before they came into existence.
+
+Verse 16
+
+המאורות הגדולים, “the large luminaries;” according to Rashi this means that they were originally of equal size and strength. Other commentators say that the meaning of the word גדולים is that they remained as large as they had been created. Rashi also states that the moon was downsized as it had claimed that it is impossible for two queens to rule side by side with equal powers as this would lead to jealousy and friction between them. G-d agreed and suggested that the moon downsize itself in order for harmony to continue. Some commentators claim that the moon downsized itself at the beginning of each monthly orbit.
+הגדולים, “the term is used to describe how the sun and moon appear to us when compared to the stars.
+לממשלת היום, “to rule by day;” to enable the fruit to ripen due to receiving the sun’s warmth.
+לממשלת הלילה, to rule by night in order to cool off the plants so that they would not generate worms. The light created on the first “day,” could not be described as “ruling,” as it did not generate any fruit, or otherwise demonstrate tangible benefits to man.
+
+Verse 17
+
+
+
+Verse 18
+
+ולמשול ביום ובלילה, “and to rule during the day and the night.” One would rule by day, the other by night. The moon even when visible by day, hardly “rules.” Or, in the words of the moon itself, quoted in the Talmud Chulin folio 60, “who needs light at noontime?”
+ולהבדיל בין האור ובין החשך, “and in order to make a clear separation between periods of light and periods of darkness.” This phrase does not refer to either the sun or the moon. The Torah had already told us in verse 14 that this would be the function of the great luminaries. The phrase therefore refers to the stars, whose visibility tells us if it is day or night. They become visible when day fades, and they fade when dawn approaches.
+
+Verse 19
+
+
+
+Verse 20
+
+ישרצו המים, “let the waters swarm, etc.” After G-d had positioned the luminaries in the places assigned to them, G-d proceeded to create living creatures. All stationary waters, even water in small vessels, will generate life after a while. Each such form of “life” will continue to reproduce, each according to its kind. This is the reason why the Torah here did not refer to: הימים, “the oceans,” or to הנהרות, “the streams.”
+רקיע השמים; there are many places in the Torah where the air (atmosphere) is simply referred to as שמים, to name just one such example: Deuteronomy 4,17, אשר תעוף בשמים, “which flies in the air.” [It would not occur to any thinking person to translate this line as “which flies in the heaven,” or even: “in the sky.” Ed.] Consider also Exodus 10,21 where Moses had been told: נטה ידך על השמים, which no one would understand as Moses being asked to “extend his hand above the heaven,“ but as an instruction to extend his hand over the air in front of him. The Torah also describes Canaanites as possessing cities fortified בשמים (Deuteronomy 9,1) which no one in his right mind would translate as “fortified right into heaven,” but would understand as the walls “rising high into the surrounding airspace.” The reason that we do not find the customary expression ויהי כן, “and so it came to be,” at the end of the report of G-d’s activities on the fifth day, is because seeing that the fish were created on that day and by far the greatest majority of them are never seen by man, it was not considered appropriate to insert that conclusion here.
+
+Verse 21
+
+
+
+Verse 22
+
+פרו ורבו בימים והעוף ירב בארץ, “be fruitful and multiply in the oceans, and let the birds multiply on earth.” The reason why G-d did not extend a similarly worded blessing for the mammals was so that they should not increase at a faster rate than the human race and man would not be able to prevail against them. Birds and fish whose habitat is the airspace and the seas respectively, do not pose a similar problem.
+
+Verse 23
+
+
+
+Verse 24
+
+
+תוצא הארץ, “let the earth bring forth;” when it comes to producing creatures whose habitat is earth, creatures equipped with a נפש, a life force, [of some spiritual dimension, my words, Editor.] we find that G-d created 4 different species, i.e. חיה, בהמה, ורמש, וחיתו ארץ, but when they are listed separately only 3 of them, the ones that are almost exclusively made up of bodies, are listed before the Torah states that “G-d saw that it was good.
+
+Verse 25
+
+”Man is the fourth of these species, and that it why the Torah continues 2,7 ויהי האדם לנפש חיה that the human species became part of that group only after G-d having provided it with a Divine soul, נשמת חיים.
+
+Verse 26
+
+נעשה אדם, “let Us make a human being;” it is remarkable that the Torah did not write: נברא אדם, “let us create a human being;” the reason is that the first step, i.e. בריאה, is something that only the Creator Himself is able to perform, He cannot share this step of the process with any of His creatures. Compare Genesis 1,27: ויברא האלוקים את האדם, “the Lord created Adam, (no plural mode here); or compare Genesis 6,7: האדם אשר בראתי, “the human being whom I created.” When it comes to secondary or tertiary stages, G-d may coopt other forces in His endeavor. [Compare Kimchi on Isaiah 6,8 on the word לנו; Ed.] An alternate exegesis: we find a similar formula: “let us interpret,” in Daniel, 2,36 where Daniel offers to reveal the meaning of the king’s dream, but only he himself in a private audience with King Nebuchadnezzar will actually reveal it [out of deference to the King, since it contained unpleasant news. Ed.]
+.נעשה אדם, the word אדם includes males and females. Proof that this is so is found in Genesis 5,2, when both the males and the females of the species are described as having been “created,” i.e. בראם, “He had created them;” we also have a statement by Rav Hunna, who asks the rhetorical question: ‘how do we know that Chava was also called אדם? Answer (Isaiah 44,13) כתפארת אדם לשבת בית, which is translated by the Targum as: “like the beauty of a woman who resides in a house; (or who transforms a house into a home).” Furthermore, we have a verse in Numbers 31,35: ונפש אדם מן הנשים, “and human souls, of the women;”
+בצלמנו, “in our likeness,” comparable to angels.
+כדמותנו, “like the image of the angels.”This comparison of the human species to that of angels is going to stand man in good stead when exercising his authority (superiority) over all the other creatures on earth G-d had created. A different exegesis of the word: כדמותנו: seeing that it is impossible to compare human beings to the Creator, seeing that Isaiah 40,8 has already stated that this is impossible, (Isaiah 40,18) but on the other hand, it is also impossible to compare human beings to the creatures G-d had created before He created the human species, as in that case what advantage would this species have over the beasts created before him, there was no other way to describe our superiority except by comparing it to Divinity in some degree, i.e. as “a shadow of our essence,” בצלמנו כדמותנו; [just as a shadow is only a two dimensional likeness of the person or object it reflects, so the human beings are lacking in some dimension possessed only by their Creator. My words, Ed.] The common denominator between G-d and man on the one hand, and man and beast on the other, is that just as G-d is our ruler, so we rule over the other creatures in the universe.
+ובכל הארץ, “and over the whole globe;” what had the Torah omitted to mention regarding man’s dominion over the creatures on earth, so that this additional term was needed? It is a reference to spiritual, non corporeal forces that abound in our universe and appear to interfere with our freedom, especially demons.
+
+Verse 27
+
+בצלמו, a metaphor for the angels; do not wonder why the Torah had not spelled out the creation of the angels in the report of G-d’s creative activities; Moses had deliberately refrained from writing down anything about either the domains of heaven or purgatory or about other details such as the heavenly Court, etc.; as the purpose of the written Torah is to acquaint us with phenomena visible in our habitat, as I have already pointed out earlier (verse 2) Another exegesis of the word: בצלמו: it is a reference to G-d Himself; G-d wished to forestall people who would view Him as reflection of their image.[Unfortunately, people have a tendency of describing something unknown to them as in some manner reflecting phenomena with which they are familiar. In other words, they make G-d over in their own image by using their own attributes as the yardsticks by which they “measure” Divinity. Ed.]
+בצלם אלוקים, as similar to angels. When angels appear to human beings on earth, as in the case of the three angels that appeared to Avraham before the destruction of Sodom, or the angel that appeared to the wife of Manoach telling her that she would give birth to Shimshon, they had assumed the countenances of human beings. This is also how we must understand the serpent saying to Chavah in Genesis 3,5: והייתם כאלוקים “and you will be like elohim.”Proof that this interpretation is correct can be traced to Bereshit Rabbah 20,4: where it is pointed out that the word אלוקים appears 71 times in the Torah prior to G-d speaking to the serpent in Genesis 3,14. If you were to include the expressions: בצלם אלוקים and והיית כאלוקים, in that count, there would be 73 mentions of the name of G-d instead of 71 as stated in the Midrash. It is clear therefore that here the expression is meant to make a comparison between man and angels. This is also the reason why the Targum (Onkelos) did not translate the word כאלוקים in 3,8 as “you will become like G-d.”Still another exegesis for the expression בצלם אלוקים ברא אותו, “He created man to appear like a judge and person of authority.”Still another exegesis: “as opposed to the other creatures whom G-d created by means of an oral directive; when creating the human species He had first created a mould,” (pattern) i.e. He had taken extra care about every detail. This was already proof of the importance G-d attributed to the creature called .אדם
+זכר ונקבה ברא אותם, “He created them as possessing male and female organs.” This is explained in greater detail in Genesis 2,21, where the physical separation of the female from Adam is described as G-d building up one of Adam’s ribs into a whole new body.
+
+Verse 28
+
+פרו ורבו, “be fruitful and multiply.” Some commentators believe that after Adam and his wife had sinned and as a result had been condemned to be mortal; G-d told them to multiply and thereby to insure their vicarious survival through their offspring. If this command (or blessing) which included the word: “and fill the earth,” had been issued prior to their sin, the impression would have been created that Adam’s offspring was meant to populate and eventually overpopulate the garden in Eden. The reason it was already written here is that having offspring is the nearest thing to creating another human being, and this had been the subject at this point.
+וכבשה, “and conquer it, subdue it.” The word is written defectively, as it is it in the imperative mode; if it had been spelled with the dot (in the letter ב) it would have been transformed into a past mode, as in Joel 2,6 קבצו.
+
+Verse 29
+
+. הנה נתתי לכם, “here I have given to you, etc.” The line is to be understood as if written in the present tense, “I am giving to you’” there are numerous such verses which though written in the past tense, actually were meant to be understood as being in the present tense. The author quotes a few examples, including: Genesis 14,22; 23,13.
+את כל עשב זורע זרע, “all the herbs that perpetuate themselves by shedding their seed.” Examples are grains and vegetables such as peas and beans, etc; as well as the fruit of the trees which contain stones or pips. All these were intended as food for the human race. The beasts of the field were assigned only simpler herbs, i.e. grass that did not perpetuate itself by shedding their seeds. As a result of man’s sin, G-d decreed that they would be limited to eating the same kind of food as did the animals. This is the deeper meaning of the verse in Genesis 3,18: קוץ ודרדר תצמיח לך ואכלת את עשב השדה, “the earth will grow thorns and thistles in (response to your efforts) so that you will be reduced to eating the grass of the field.” This is also reflected in Psalms 49,21: “he is like the beasts (that perish)”. If G-d had permitted man at that stage to eat meat, it would have been viewed as man being rewarded for having sinned.
+לכם יהיה לאכלה ולכל חית השדה, Rashi comments on this line that man had been reduced to eat the same kind of food as the beasts of the field. When we find the statement in Sanhedrin 59, that the angels in heaven were purifying wine for Adam and roasting meat for him while he was sitting in the garden (on the Sabbath), which appears to contradict the aforesaid, this refers to meat that had descended from heaven just as the manna descended from heaven for the Israelites in the desert. When G-d had told man that they would rule over the fish in the sea, etc.; this did not mean that he was allowed to eat them, but that they were to perform work on his behalf, as pointed out on the same folio in the Talmud. The Talmud explains that even birds could be trained to perform menial tasks for man. ובכל החיה הרומשת על הארץ, “and to all the living creatures that creep on the earth.” This is a reference to the serpent alluded to in verse 28. It can serve man as carrier of messages as spelled out in Sanhedrin 59.
+
+Verse 30
+
+
+
+Verse 31
+
+וירא אלוקים את כל אשר עשה וגו׳ , “G-d saw, (reviewed) all that He had done, etc;” He even included the evil urge in what he described as being “very good,”
+והנה טוב מאד, “and here it was very good;” why was even the evil urge “very good?” Without it man would not possess an active libido, without which siring offspring would have been next to impossible. Unless man reproduced, the species the human race would have died out and would have been created in vain. The expression: כי טוב, occurs twice in connection with G-d’s activities on that day, once in connection with the mammals, and again in connection with the creation of the first human being.
+יום השישי, “the sixth day.” The prefix ה reminds us of the special role of that day as it was the only day on which G-d completed the entire process of creating the universe. This hint is repeated more clearly in Exodus 20,1, (the fourth of the Ten Commandments) where we read: 'כי ששת ימים עשה ה את השמים ואת הארץ, “for during an unbroken string of six days, the Lord created heaven and earth.”
+
+Chapter 2
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+
+
+Verse 2
+
+ויכל אלוקים ביום השביעי, “the Lord had completed on the seventh day;” at first glance this wording gives the impression as if G-d had still been working on the seventh day; seeing that on the sixth day it had not yet been known that this was the last day on which G-d performed creative activities, there is no contradiction. This became known only in retrospect on the seventh day through G-d’s abstaining from any such activity.
+השביעי, “The seventh;” this day too has the prefix ה, as it was a day reserved for rest from physical activity, something that is taboo on all the other days.
+
+Verse 3
+
+ויברך אלוקים את יום השביעי, “G-d blessed the seventh day.”[If I understand the author correctly, he does not understand the word ויברך here as in the immediate past, but as description of the state of the universe on that day as a result of its Creator having blessed it previously. Ed.] On this day the world was in a state of perfection full of everything positive, and fully satisfied. Compare Deuteronomy 5,14: אשר ברכך ה' אלוקיך תתן לו, “that the Lord your G-d has blessed you with, give him of it.” (the departing servant). This is also what we recite regularly in our prayers: “You have blessed it more than any other days.”
+ויקדש אותו “He sanctified it;” according to Rashi, this refers to the fact that the manna would not descend to earth on that day. [Maybe Rashi means that the Sabbath rest is observed also in the celestial regions. Ed.] If you were to counter that on festival days the manna did not descend either, as we read in Exodus 6,26: וביום השביעי לא יהיה בו , and our sages in the Mechilta, (according to Rashi) claim that this verse was written only in order to include the day of Atonement and the other Festivals as days on which no manna descended, we have to remember that the festivals are frequently also referred to as Sabbaths, so that there was no need for a special verse to include those days as days on which the manna would not descend. A different exegesis of these words: the meaning of “He sanctified it,” is that no creative activity was to be performed on that day, seeing that the Creator Himself had abstained from carrying out such an activity on that day. The idea that a day known as שבת must be sanctified even if it is not the seventh day of the week, is demonstrated when the Torah in Leviticus 23,3 calls that day שבת שבתון, before adding that this is the reason that no work may be performed on it. The day of Atonement is also called שבת שבתון (Leviticus 16,31) although most of the time it does not occur on the seventh day of the week. It makes sense therefore that because it is also a שבת שבתון, the rules about work prohibition are identical to those occurring every week on the seventh day.
+כי בו שבת, the word שבת when applied to G-d, cannot mean “He rested,” in the sense this term is commonly used, as we have it on the authority of Isaiah 40,28 that G-d never “grows faint or weary;” seeing that He did not have to exert Himself when creating the universe, why should He have been tired so that would have to “rest?” The word has to be understood as G-d having put a temporary stop to an activity. We find a similar term used when the regular descent on weekdays of the manna came to a halt after the Israelites had crossed the Jordan, (Joshua 5,12) before they commenced eating from the produce of the land of Canaan. Both events are reported there as having occurred on the same day. We also find the verb שבת used in the sense of an interruption Job 32,1 when Job’s friends interrupted their arguing with Job for three days out of their respect for his righteousness. An even better proof is Genesis 8,22, where G-d assures Noach after the deluge that the regular phenomenon of day and night following one another will never again be suspended, i.e. יום ולילה לא ישבתו, “day and night will occur without interruption.” Neither day nor night will take “a break from their routine.”
+מכל מלאכתו אשר עשה, “from all His work;” a reference to the functioning henceforth of the earth and its inhabitants, i.e. living creatures developing and multiplying, trees producing fruit, etc. An alternative exegesis of the phrase; the word: לעשות at the end of this verse refers to the continuity of this process for as long as earth would exist. This would be the Torah’s, i.e. G-d’s answer, to the heretics who claim that G-d performs His activities on the Sabbath seeing that He allows it to rain and bring about the growing and ripening of trees and crops on that day. This is utter nonsense, as these processes had all been part of the directive given by G-d when these phenomena or creatures were first created. The Torah here states categorically that G-d does nothing of the sort. Proof of this is that the fact that manna which, because G-d had not created it, i.e. it had not descended to earth during the first six days of the universe, was also not allowed to descend on the Sabbath, and it also had never been seen until after the Jewish people had left Egypt; all this refutes the theory that G-d “works” on the Sabbath. Yet another exegesis of our verse: the emphasis in our verse is on the expression אשר ברא לעשות, instead of אשר עשה; we are told here that the various types of destructive forces with which the earth seems to abound at time, were only “created,” i.e. were only made possible by G-d, but were not developed into finished products, i.e. powered by Him. G-d did not have time to completely fashion those destructive forces until dusk on the sixth day when it had already turned dark, as Midrash Tanchuma (ancient version) tells us on Bereshit 17. According to this exegesis our verse refers only to the constructive phenomena that G-d had created while it was still daylight on the sixth day. The reason that the Torah, at the end of its report on G-d’s “activity” on the seventh day does not conclude with the words: “it was evening it was morning,” is that there had been no evening; the entire Sabbath had been a day bathed in full light. (Bereshit Rabbah, 11,2.)
+
+Verse 4
+
+אלה תולדות השמים והארץ וגו, “these are the derivatives of heaven and earth, etc.; seeing that in the first chapter the Torah had been extremely concise on a number of aspects of the story of creation, the Torah now fills in some of these gaps, by explaining more about the “how” of that period. We have a statement by Rabbi Abahu, quoted in Bereshit Rabbah 12,3, according to which every time in the Holy Scriptures when a paragraph commences with the word: אלה, this is meant to indicate that a state of affairs which had been described as in effect previously, is no longer valid. On the other hand, if a paragraph commences with the word: ואלה, this is meant to indicate that what follows is a continuation of a state of affairs that already been in existence. The state of affairs that the word אלה in our verse is to supersede is that of tohu vavohu, chaos and darkness, which the Torah had introduced in Genesis. 1,2.
+תולדות השמים. This is a reference to the luminaries and the stars as well as to all the phenomena that are part of the celestial regions, including fire (lightning) hail, tornados, etc.; However during the reign of King David, the latter succeeded in making most of these phenomena part of our terrestrial world. (Compare Talmud, Chagigah 12)
+והארץ, this is a reference to both living creatures, and all manner of vegetation on earth. ביום עשות, at the time when heaven and earth had first been created, i.e. on the first day. All of these phenomena mentioned already on the first day, G-d had completed during the following five “days.”
+ביום עשות ה' אלוקים, “on the day the Lord G-d had completed;” now that heaven and earth had been completely built up, the Torah for the first time reveals G-d’s full name in accordance with the principle we have learned from Proverbs 14,28 that ברב עם הדרת מלך “when there is a multitude the king’s real honour becomes manifest.” We find this principle invoked also in B’rachot 49 where the Talmud says: ”one does not invoke the tetragram when preparing to recite grace after a meal unless there are at least 10 adult males present.”The author quotes Rashi as commenting on our verse that G-d, now that there were free willed human beings on earth, coopted the attribute of mercy so that He would not automatically have to destroy His universe when man sinned. This has been hinted at in the prefix letter ו before the line: 'וה שמים עשה, “and the Lord (by contrast) completed the heaven.” [This quote is not found in our editions of Rashi on this verse. Ed.]
+ארץ ושמים, “earth and heaven.” Previously, in 1,1 the Torah had listed heaven before referring to earth. Midrash Tanchuma comments on this that when speaking of the creation of something out of nothing, i.e. the stage known as בריאה, heaven preceded earth chronologically, whereas when speaking of the completion of their coming into existence, earth was completed first.
+
+Verse 5
+
+
+
+Verse 6
+
+ואד, “and a kind of mist;” the letter ו at the beginning off the word אד, appears to be superfluous; there are numerous such apparently superfluous prefixes ו in the Torah. As a result, in order not to have to consider that letter as superfluous, our author suggests that the meaning of the two verses 56 must be understood thus: “all the grasses etc. in the field were in a state of suspense after having been created, as only a kind of mist had been rising from the earth due to the influence of sun and moon, this being only sufficient to provide minimal moisture for these herbs. The section of the verse commencing with: for “G-d had not yet let it rain, nor had there been a human being to till the earth,” interrupts the story in order to provide us with the reason why none of these plants have been reported as growing.
+יעלה, “would rise;” the word must be understood as being in the past tense. Compare Genesis 8,20: ויעל עולות במזבח, “he (Noach) would offer burnt offerings on the altar.” (past tense).
+
+Verse 7
+
+. וייצר ה' אלוקים את האדם, “G-d shaped the human being;” seeing that the Torah wished to write that G-d placed man inside the garden, it repeated part of the process by which man was created, [showing that G-d was active in his creation beyond the initial stages. Ed.] The words: ויטע, “He planted,” and ויצמח, “He made grow,” were written in order to lead up to the story of the tree of knowledge, and the commandment forbidding man to eat from that tree.
+ויפח באפיו נשמת חימם, “He blew into his nostrils a living soul.” G-d personally blew the breath of life into the human being, something He had not done for any of His other creatures. Why was all this necessary? This was in order to enable man to have the wisdom, i.e. holy spirit, to enable him when viewing all the animals to name them correctly after having discerned how each was different from the other.
+נשמת חיים, “an immortal soul,” surviving the death of the body it inhabits.
+
+Verse 8
+
+וישם שם את האדם, “He placed Adam inside it.” When Adam had been created he did not find himself in the garden, for if he had been created in the garden he would have thought that the entire earth is such a garden. G-d deliberately created him outside the garden in order to show him that the rest of the earth was overgrown with thorns and thistles. His transfer to the garden, it was hoped, would make him grateful for having been placed in such a superior environment.
+ויטע, this has to be understood as “He had planted.” The same applies to the statement: ויצמח, “He had made it grow.” The plants had preceded the creation of man (Rabbi Shmuel son of Nachmeni, in Bereshit Rabbah, 15,3) is on record as saying that if we thought Gan Eden had preceded the creation of the universe this is an error. It only preceded the creation of Adam. [This is a reference to the word: מקדם, “previously;” Ed] When the Talmud stated in Pessachim 54 that one of the phenomena that were created before “the world,” was גן עדן, the meaning is: “before the universe had been completed, i.e. on the third “day”.
+
+Verse 9
+
+
+
+ועץ הדעת טוב ורע, “as well as the tree of knowledge about good and evil.” The meaning is that eating from the fruit of that tree would give that person knowledge of the difference between good and evil.
+
+Verse 10
+
+
+
+Verse 11
+
+אשר שם הזהב The word: חוילה, occurs in the Torah twice more, once in Genesis 10,7, and once in verse 29 of that chapter. Therefore the Torah wished to indicate that the gold mentioned here is that which used to be brought from Ophir.
+
+Verse 12
+
+וזהב הארץ ההיא טוב, “and the gold originating from that area is good.” What is meant is that it lends itself to amalgamation with copper, without losing its appearance as gold. Actually, this is no more than logical; if the gold found in the rivers emanating from Gan Eden was “good,” the gold inside the garden surely must be good.
+
+Verse 13
+
+
+
+Verse 14
+
+קדמת אשור, the letter ת at the end of the word: קדמת is in lieu of the letter ה, as in קדמה. Sometimes the Torah also uses the letter ה as a suffix instead of the letter ל as a prefix as in למזרח אשור “east of Ashur.”
+הוא פרת, “known to the Israelites at the time when the Torah was given as the river Euphrates.” It borders the larger land of Israel, as in G-d’s promise to Avraham in Genesis 15,18. Seeing that this river was well known, the Torah only needed to write “הוא פרת,” the one known as Euphrates. More details had to be given about the other three rivers as the reader would not have known which rivers were meant.
+
+Verse 15
+
+לעבדה, “to irrigate it;”
+ולשמרה, “and to protect it against animals that would trample it.” The Torah speaks of a period prior to when the angels with drawn swords would prevent entry into Gan Eden. An alternate exegesis of these two words: the word לעבדה, is to be understood as in Exodus 20,8, i.e. ששת ימים תעבוד, “during the six days you are to work, etc;” and the word: לשמרה, is to be understood as in Deuteronomy 5,12: שמור את יום השבת, “observe the Sabbath,” in other words, G-d commanded Adam already at that time to observe the seventh day of the week as we observe the Sabbath after the Torah had been given, by not performing work on it.
+
+Verse 16
+
+ויצו ה' אלוקים על האדם; “the Lord G-d issued a command to Adam, etc.” This is not to be considered as a test which G-d wanted to subject Adam to, seeing that He knows all that was, is, and will be. He commanded Adam not to eat from the tree in order to demonstrate to the angels who had appealed for G-d’s mercy on his behalf, that this Adam to whom they had looked with that much respect and almost awe, did not even have the power to resist the only temptation to which G-d had subjected him. Our sages in Sanhedrin 60 derive from this verse that G-d issued the seven universal commandments for mankind at this time. Each of them is hinted at in the words of this verse.
+ויצו, a reference to establishing courts and judges to deal with disputes and violations of G-d’s commandments. The Torah refers to this again in Genesis 18,19 when explaining why G-d discusses the imminent destruction of the Sodomites with Avraham.
+ה, a reference to G-d’s “honour,” i.e. a hint that blasphemers must be punished. (Compare Leviticus 24,16)
+אלוקים, a hint not to practice paganism, as spelled out in Exodus 20,3, “you must not have other deities.”
+על האדם, a hint forbidding the shedding of human blood, (murder). This has been spelled out in greater detail in Genesis 9,6.
+לאמור, this is a hint not to commit incest and other forbidden forms of gratifying one’s libido. It is spelled out clearly in Jeremiah 3,1, where the prophet condemns legal maneuvers by “divorcing” a wife so she can legally sleep with another partner, all the while intending to take her back.
+מכל עץ הגן, an allusion to not commit robbery, i.e. unless we have permission from the Creator to enjoy what He placed on earth for that person it is considered as if we had robbed Him. 
+אכל תאכל, a hint not to eat flesh from an animal that is still alive. During Avraham’s time G-d added another command (for his descendants only) circumcision of the males. During Yaakov’s lifetime another prohibition was added, (by him?) namely, not to eat the גיד הנשה, the thigh muscle near the hip. During the lifetime of Yaakov’ son Yehudah, the law for a surviving brother, under certain circumstances to marry the widow of his deceased brother, was added. This law is known as yibbum. The Israelites added the commandment to honour father and mother. This commandment preceded the Ten Commandments, and was apparently introduced as part of the commandments mentioned when the people were encamped around a place called marah where the bitter waters had been made sweet. (Exodus 15,25).
+על האדם, the commandment applied not only to the first human being, but to all subsequent generations; this is implied in the prefix ה, as it would be unnecessary otherwise; after all there was as yet only one human being. Or, if the command applied only to this first human being, the Torah should have written: את האדם, instead of על האדם, an expression that includes the entire human species.
+
+מכל עץ הגן אכל תאכל, “you are encouraged to eat of the fruit of every tree in the garden;” if that were literally so, we might think that man was allowed to eat also of the tree of life? You would be wrong. The tree of life did not present a challenge to Adam as he was as yet immortal, and could not understand the purpose of such a tree. Moreover, according to tradition, Adam spent an entire 3 hours of his life in that garden. (Compare Sanhedrin 38) If you were to say that during those three hours Adam had indeed eaten from the fruit of that tree, so how could death have been decreed for him after that? If that were so the tree of knowledge would have been misnamed and should have been named the “tree of death,” as its fruit brought about man’s mortality. Alternately, it is possible that eating from the tree of life would serve as an antidote for people who had eaten from the tree of knowledge. This would explain why G-d became concerned about Adam eating from the tree of life only after he had eaten from the tree of knowledge, Alternately, if he were to eat from the tree of life a second time, he might become immortal as a result. Another exegesis of the whole verse: The words: “you may surely eat from all the trees of the garden,” did not include eating from the tree of life, as G-d forbade eating from the tree in the middle of the garden (3,3 and 3,9) Onkelos also translates 2,9 that the tree of knowledge was located in the center of the garden; it may well be that both the tree of life and the tree of knowledge were in fact in the middle of the garden, the tree of knowledge surrounding the tree of life from all sides. This is why the warning had to be issued only concerning the tree of knowledge. As long as man had not eaten from that tree, the tree beyond had not even been a challenge. It was only after they had become aware of the difference between good and evil that eating from the tree of life had become of special interest. Anyone who is immortal by definition was not interested in eating from a tree of life which promised no more than what he already possessed. Seeing that the concept of sinning, i.e. deliberately disobeying G-d’s instruction, came into existence only after he had eaten from the tree of knowledge, the most that could have happened would have been that he had inadvertently eaten from the fruit of the tree of life, something that hardly qualified for a penalty. After having eaten from the tree of knowledge, eating from the tree of life became a deliberate sin, and would bring in its wake the appropriate punishment. It was therefore preferable for man to have eaten from the tree of knowledge to his having eaten from the tree of life, as the penalty for eating from the latter would have been harsher.
+
+Verse 17
+
+כי ביום אכלך ממנו מות תמות, “for on the day youwould eat from it you would surely become mortal.” Man had not been created as a mortal body, but after having sinned he was punished by becoming mortal. G-d’s warning did not mean that he would die immediately. He only had warned him that he would lose his entitlement to infinite life. At some time in the future he would not be able to escape the need to die. This is why he had to be separated from proximity to the tree of life, so that he could not regain the immortality that he had now lost.
+
+Verse 18
+
+לא טוב היות האדם לבדו, “it is not good for Adam to remain solitary;” this was not a new idea that G-d had; He had planned for it all the time; He did not want to impose a partner on Adam, and that is why He gave him a chance to name the animals and to find that all of them had suitable mates, something that he now felt he lacked. G-d therefore responded to a wish of Adam that he had not even voiced as yet. If the mate was provided in response to his longing he would appreciate his wife more.
+
+Verse 19
+
+וייצר ה' אלוקים, “The Lord G-d fashioned, etc.” In one verse we have read that G-d created the birds from the water (1,21), here it states that the birds were the product that G-d fashioned from the earth. How are we to understand this? We have to consider that some birds make their habitat in water, (geese, ducks, swans) and whereas others are unable to survive in water, for instance, chicken and turkeys, to name only a few.
+ויבא אל האדם, “He brought to Adam;” G-d did not bring the fish as they are water bound and cannot survive on dry land. As a result of this, man does not enjoy authority over the fish. He did not bring domesticated mammals to him either, as Adam was already familiar with them. G-d did not have to bring them.
+לראות מה יקרא לו, “to find out how he would name it;” (the species). G-d wanted to find out how Adam reacted to the living soul He had blown into his nostrils i.e. if he would be able to correctly name the various species that fitted their nature. This is what is meant when the Torah wrote: הוא שמו “which is its appropriate name.” [The name G-d would have given these creatures if Adam had not named them. Ed.]
+וכל אשר יקרא לו וגו, “and whatever name Adam would give that species, etc.” The reason that Adam named each species was so that whenever he needed one of them he knew how to call for it, i.e. by its name. If G-d Himself had named each species and Adam would have had to ask Him for its name, it would have been a cumbersome procedure. This way he himself remembered the name of each species.
+
+Verse 20
+
+ולאדם לא מצא עזר, “but Adam had not found a suitable partner for himself;” why did G-d not create Chavah at the same time as He had created Adam? G-d had known that the time would come when her husband would blame her for his own sin. (3,12) This is why He delayed creating her until Adam had expressed a wish for her explicitly. (Compare Bereshit Rabbah 17,4) As soon as Adam had expressed his wish for a suitable partner, G-d put him to sleep and proceeded to fashion Chavah from him.
+כנגדו, from raw material which matched that which had had been made of both in substance and in appearance. (See Targum Yerushalmi). This is why when the mammals had been paraded before him, the Torah had written that he had not found עזר כנגדו “a mate that would match him.” He had found numerous animals that could have served him as helpers for one purpose or another, but none that would have been suitable all round.
+
+Verse 21
+
+.ויפל תרדמה על האדם, according to the plain meaning of the text, the meaning of this phrase is that “G-d cast a deep sleep over Adam;” this was so that the surgery He performed on him should not cause him any pain. He made him unconscious.
+וישן ויקח אחת מצלעותיו, “and while he was asleep, He took one of his ribs;” Samuel, in Breshit Rabbah 17,6 says that He took one rib from between other ribs, and that this justifies the word תחתנה, which is in the plural mode.
+ויסגר בשר תחתנה, “He closed up that spot with flesh.” The Torah did not write: תחתה which would have meant that He replaced the area of the incision with flesh instead;
+ויסגור בשר; until the creation of woman the letter ס had not appeared in the Torah; this is to teach us that Satan had not found an entrance into the world until woman had been created. A different exegesis: the appearance of the letter ס is to remind us that a wife is always close to her husband. Concerning the query raised in Bereshit Rabbah that the letter ס had already appeared in the word: הסובב in verse 11 of our chapter, we must answer that the subjects in that verse are two rivers, not a human being.
+בשר תחתנה, a reference to the flesh of man’s buttocks. (Compare Bereshit Rabbah 17,6.)
+
+Verse 22
+
+ויביאה אל האדם; “He brought her to Adam.” Where did He bring her from? After all she had been part of her husband’s ribs before, i.e. right next to him? The Torah here describes how her sudden appearance next to him was viewed by Adam when he awoke from his deep sleep. He thought that G-d had brought her to him, just as He had brought the animals to him to be named. It was only after he noticed that now one of his ribs was missing, that he realised that she had formerly been part of his own flesh; this is why he exclaimed: “bone from my own bones, etc.” If we were to look for a similar formulation in the Holy Scriptures, we can find it in Joshua 2,7: והאנשים רדפו אחריהם, “and the men had chased after them” (the spies). Actually, they were only under the impression that they pursued them, as they never found them. Some commentators claim that our verse means that Adam thought that G-d had performed the operation beyond the borders of the garden, and this is why the Torah wrote: “He brought her to Adam.”
+
+Verse 23
+
+זאת הפעם, “this time;” he meant that this time the male’s partner was made of his own flesh. But he realised that this was a one time occurrence and would not repeat itself. Henceforth, instead of woman emanating from man, man would emanate from woman. (her womb).
+זאת הפעם עצם מעצמי; Rashi claims that Adam had already attempted carnal relations with each female of the species and had found such mating unsatisfactory. (The source appears to be the Talmud in Yevamot 63, as well as Rabbi Saadyah, Gaon) We would have to assume that each of these species had become pregnant from such relations before Adam had had relations with them. If we were not to assume this they would have become sterile after mating with a human being. (Compare Avodah Zarah, 22).
+עצם מעצמי, “bone from my bone;” Adam realised that this new creature was basically different from all the others that he had become familiar with, so that he concluded it could only be due to the fact that she shared the same raw material with him. The reason why G-d may have arranged this so was in order for the human being to be encouraged to set up a home only with its own species when leaving their parents’ home. This would encourage them in the words of the Torah: והיו לבשר אחד “to become one flesh.” (a body composed of uniform human raw material) None of the other creatures pursue females in order to set up “house” with them. The reason is that they do not miss the “missing rib” which G-d had taken from Adam and had given it to his wife.
+לזאת יקרא אשה, “this person must be called “אשה,” as it had been taken from “איש.” Compare the words: נער and נערה, for “boy” and “girl,” and ילד and ילדה. The author was troubled why the Torah uses the expression: נערה בתולה, instead of אשה בתולה, for an adult virgin
+כי מאיש לקחה, “for she emanated from the human species.” He meant that the female of the human species is reserved for a single male partner, as distinct from the beasts. Seeing that the females of the various animals did not originate from their male counterparts, the names they are known by reflect this. Example: תישים for male goats, as opposed to עזים, for the female of the species. [What about פר and פרה, for the male and the female of the species respectively? Ed.] 
+When the Torah writes in verse 24: ודבק באשתו, that there is a special bond between man and his wife, Rabbi Akiva in Sotah 17, explains this as follows: when a man and his wife are loyal to one another, forsaking the temptation to commit adultery, G-d Himself will be a constant companion of them, seeing that each of them has a letter of His name in their respective names, i.e. the letter י in the word איש, and the letter ה in the word אשה. If they conduct themselves in an unworthy manner, giving in to the temptation to engage in forbidden carnal relationships, G-d withdraws from them leaving only the letters אש, “fire,” burning lust, in their respective names. This fire will consume them. This “fire” will burn more fiercely in woman than in man, so that she will experience its destructive effect sooner than her erstwhile loyal partner, as the letter of G-d’s name was only a suffix in the word אשה, where in the name איש it is central to that word.
+
+Verse 24
+
+.והיו לבשר אחד, “they will each have marital relations only with their legal partner.”
+
+Verse 25
+
+
+
+Chapter 3
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+והנחש היה ערום, we must assume that the serpent per chance had already eaten from the tree of knowledge, as the warning not to eat from it was issued not only to man.
+ויאמר אל האשה, “it said to the woman;” G-d had given the serpent the power of speech, just as He had given that power to Bileam’s ass (Numbers 22,28).
+אף כי אמר אלוקים, “even though G-d has said, etc.;” the word אף implies that the serpent was aware that only eating had been forbidden not touching.
+
+Verse 2
+
+
+
+Verse 3
+
+
+ולא תגעו, neither must you touch it. This is the plain meaning of the verse. We find that the Torah does forbid something that is forbidden to eat, i.e. a carcass that did not die through ritual slaughter. (Compare Leviticus 11,8, where the halachic meaning is that it must not be touched when the purpose is to eat it.) The truth is that when one adds a restriction to G-d’s commandment, instead of improving it, one causes harm to it, makes it less effective instead of more effective. Seeing that the additional restriction had not been issued by G-d directly, it is less than useless. (Compare Sanhedrin 29).
+
+Verse 4
+
+לא מות תמותון, according to Rashi, this expression means that the serpent had first pushed the woman against the tree to demonstrate that though she had touched it, she had not died. Neither would she die by eating from it. If you were to ask how did the serpent know that the woman would not die by touching that tree? G-d had threatened that anyone eating from that tree would die on that day, and the day had not come to an end yet?We must not ask such questions when examining the exegesis of our sages! Actually, this question has been asked, and answered as the serpent having convinced the woman that death would follow instantaneously if she would violate G-d’s commandment. In order to answer the doubters or deniers of the truth of the Torah, this dialogue was not completed until the next morning when the previous day had already passed without any harm befalling the woman. [Some commentators claim that the serpent had eaten herself and demonstrated that she had not suffered any harm. In that case we must assume that the animals had not been forbidden to eat from that tree. Ed.] A different interpretation of the words: לא מות תמותון: the serpent told the woman that she now risked nothing by eating, as if she had said that also touching had been forbidden, she could not die more than once anyways, so what did she have to lose by also tasting the fruit of that tree? The literal meaning of the words: לא מות תמותון, would therefore be: “you cannot die twice.”
+
+Verse 5
+
+והייתם כאלוקים, “and you will wind up being just like G-d;” the word as used by the serpent means: “like angels.” We have confirmation for this from the translation of Onkelos, i.e. כרברמין חכמין, “of superior intelligence;” (according toMaimonides in his moreh nevuchim, this is not the only time that the word; elohim is used to describe angels.
+
+Verse 6
+
+ותרא האשה, “the woman saw,” with her mental eye; as in Kohelet 1,17 ולבי ראה הרבה חכמה, “and with my heart I saw a great deal of wisdom.”A different exegesis of these words: the verse must be rephrased as: “the woman took from the fruit and ate; as a result she realised that the tree (its fruit) was good to eat, and she also gave to her husband to share it and he ate.” [The problem was that one can taste that something is good, but one cannot know by looking at it that something tastes good. Ed.]
+גם לאישה, “also to her husband;” this included her twins who had already been born by that time, as we have been taught in Sanhedrin 38. [The Talmud there describes that no more than an hour elapsed between Adam and Chavah mating and Kayin and Hevel, their twins having being born, Ed.]
+ותאכל, “she was the first one to eat;” she had assumed eating had not been included in the prohibition. According to Rashi, she reasoned that if she had to die G-d would surely provide Adam with another wife. In order to forestall this, she gave her husband to eat so that they would both die. Alternately, they would both continue to live. (Rashi may have used the word: לאשה, “to her husband,” instead of “to Adam,” as the inspiration for this insight.) Moreover, she thought that by her survival her husband would be able to fulfill G-d’s commandment to become fruitful and to multiply by means of her surviving.
+
+Verse 7
+
+ותפקחנה עיני שניהם “and the eyes of both of them were opened;” had they then been blind before? The meaning of the expression is that only now did they realise how many generations each of them had lost through eating from the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Furthermore
+וידעו, they recognised that
+ערומים הם, that their being nude was something they have to be ashamed of. The word עירומים is sometimes spelled with the letter י after the letter ע and sometimes not. The author offers no reason for why it is sometimes one way and sometimes another. According to Minchas Shay, the text in our author’s manuscript should read that when spelled with the letter י after the letter ע, the word as both meanings, i.e. “naked” as well as “crafty.”
+ויתפרו עלה תאנה, “they sewed a fig leaf, as a temporary device to cover their private parts. They used this as a device to atone for their sin, by making it into some type of loincloth.
+We find the expression לחגור, as describing a device to prevent a garment from falling, in connection with David in Samuel II 6,14.
+
+Verse 8
+
+מתהלך בגן, “the sound of G-d’s voice appeared to take a walk in the garden” This expression describing the movement of sound, occurs elsewhere also. Examples are: Exodus 19,19, קול השופר הולך, “as the sound of the shofar became progressively stronger;” it also occurs in Jeremiah 46,22, קולה כנחש ילך, “she rustles like a snake.”
+לרוח היום, as if accompanying the prevailing wind; it did not cause the wind to blow harder so as not to give Adam the excuse that he had to hide in order to escape the force of the wind. An alternate exegesis of this expression: Adam and his wife had been sitting in a position where they could take advantage of the cooling effect of that wind. As soon as they heard G-d’s voice, they fled from their position to escape G-d’s voice. 
+According to Rashi, this was a westerly wind. This sounds logical as the seat of G-d’s Presence is always perceived as being in the West. [not the Rashi on our verse; perhaps the author refers to the Rashi on Song of Songs 4,6. In the Temple the holiest section was at its western end. Ed.]
+
+Verse 9
+
+
+
+Verse 10
+
+כי עירום אנכי, because I am nude;” although they wore the fig leaf. Perhaps that leaf only covered their private parts.
+
+Verse 11
+
+
+
+Verse 12
+
+האשה אשר נתתה עמדי, “the woman You have given me to be my companion;” Adam complains that this woman who had been meant to be his helper, assistant, had instead turned out to be his seducer. He had assumed that he could trust her implicitly. He claimed that he had not known from which tree she had taken the fruit she offered him. The Torah had not mentioned which fruit she had asked him to share, i.e. the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Adam implied that if he had known that this was the fruit of the tree of knowledge he would not have eaten from it. Had he refused her offer of the fruit, he would have appeared as ungrateful, for how could he refuse something that G-d had provided, seeing that only good things emanate from G-d. (Compare Avodah Zarah, 5)
+
+Verse 13
+
+ויאמר ה' אלוקים לאשה, “The Lord G-d said to the woman: where was Adam? Abba Chalfi ben Karchi said that after having engaged in marital relations with his wife he was tired and had gone to sleep.
+
+Verse 14
+
+כי עשית זאת, (G-d speaking to the serpent) “because this is what you have done, etc;” Rashi comments that we learn from here that seducers are not given an opportunity to defend their actions, as if G-d had asked the serpent why it had acted as it did, the serpent would have answered: ”since when does one follow the instructions of the pupil when they contradict the instructions of the teacher, i.e. G-d?” Since the Torah had expressly forbidden the seducer to practice his trade, this will never be accepted as his excuse, i.e. that he only wanted to “test” the victim of his seduction. If the seducer himself does not use this argument, we (the court) certainly must not use it on his behalf. If you were to ask: the Torah’s legislation about this subject only deals with someone who seduces others to commit idolatry, not other sins!? (Compare Deuteronomy 13,712) The answer is that the serpent had held out the hope to the woman that by eating from the tree of knowledge they would be just as great as G-d, והייתם כאלוהים, i.e. the seduction was based on leading them into worshipping themselves as deities.
+ארור אתה, “you are cursed;” G-d began the series of curses, in the same sequence as the seduction had begun, i.e. the serpent was punished first. The woman was punished next, and Adam was punished last.
+מכל הבהמה ומכל חית השדה, “more than any mammal or beast of the field;” Rashi asks the rhetorical question: “if G-d punished the serpent more than any mammal, is it not understood that it also punished it more than any beast of the field?” The sages in Bechorot 8 explain that a female cat gives birth after 52 days of pregnancy, whereas domesticated mammals such as donkeys require 49 weeks, i.e. about seven times as long. The serpent was condemned to a pregnancy of seven years instead. The Torah had only used this opportunity to inform us that the pregnancy of large mammals had already been longer than that of smaller mammals. The duration of a snake’s pregnancy would be so much longer.[This editor may be forgiven when he fails to understand that snakes which do not produce live young, but lay eggs, like birds, “suffer” pregnancy pains at all. I have found in Google that there are some snakes which reside in cool climates that do produce live young. This still does not mean that they have carried them for seven years? Ed.] A different exegesis: seeing that there is no other beast that is forced to crawl on its belly, not even having many short legs, it is quite obvious that the snake, in order to secure its food, labours under greater difficulties than any other type of living creature. Besides, the manner in which a snake has to eat the grass of the field makes it impossible that its mouth does not also swallow some of the earth that the grass grew out of.
+ועפר תאכל, “and you will be forced to eat dust.” The reference is to virgin earth. The meaning of the whole verse is: ”as long as you live you will search for virgin earth from which to secure your food; this is the penalty that has been decreed for you.”
+על גחונך תלך, “you will have to move by using your belly.” This part of the penalty would commence forthwith and would continue indefinitely.
+
+Verse 15
+
+ואיבה אשית, “and I will set enmity, etc.” Rashi’s comment, printed in our chumashim as belonging to this verse, although appearing at the end of G-d’s speaking to the serpent, refers to the original intention of the serpent to cause Adam’s death as a result from eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge; the reason it had not tried to seduce Adam, G-d was well aware of, was that it is easier to deceive women, so that the woman was used as the serpent’s tool in seducing Adam. The Torah adds this line in order to show how much the punishment fitted the crime, the ultimate objective of the serpent having been (according to Rashi’s source (Bereshit Rabbah, 20,5 ) that it would marry the woman.
+הוא ישופך ראש, “he will strike your head,” seeing that you are crawling on the ground,
+ואתה תשופנו עקב, “whereas you will only be able to attack the heel.”
+
+Verse 16
+
+אל האשה אמר, “to the woman He had said:” the gentiles asked Rabbi Joshua why the woman was punished for eating from a tree, seeing that she had not even been created yet when G-d issued the prohibition to eat from it to Adam. He replied that the Torah did not write that G-d forbade eating from the tree “to” Adam, but that it worded it as a general prohibition including the human species, by writing: על האדם, “concerning all his limbs and sinews,” or “the human species,” i.e. himself and all his offspring. (Compare 2,16) Woman, after all, had been constructed from what had been part of his body. A different exegesis: the woman had included herself in the prohibition when she had told the serpent that G-d had forbidden, quoting Him in the plural mode: לא תאכלו ממנו, “you (pl) must not eat from it.” (3,4).
+הרבה ארבה, “you will be in a state of retardation, held back throughout your life.” You will always be in a position of trying to catch up. If you were to ask that she could console herself by arguing that she would assign her household duties to her paid servants, G-d added that there were duties, such as her carrying a fetus in her womb which she could not outsource, i.e. הרונך, your pregnancy and the pain associated with her giving birth; if she were to respond that she would forego having marital relations with her husband, G-d added that it would become her second nature to long for the physical union with her husband, ואל אישך תשוקתך. If she would respond that she would learn to control such urges, G-d added that והוא ימשול בך, “he would exercise control over her.”
+והוא ימשול בך, according to Rashi, [as understood by our author, Ed.] the meaning of this phrase is that her husband will be the driving force in all matters of marital union, and that seeing you do not experience the desire for such physical intercourse, unless he has been aroused, you will not be able to arouse him, but on the other hand, he can force marital union on you;”Our sages state in Bereshit Rabbah 20,18, “you might have thought from this phrase that her husband dominates her in every respect;” to prevent you from thinking thus, the Torah in Deuteronomy 24,6 wrote: לא יחבול רחים ורכב, “he must not inflict injury upon her by overburdening her.” [It is clear that the Torah there refers to the woman, as in the previous verse it had ordered the husband to provide his new bride with joy for the first year of the marriage. Ed.] Furthermore, that verse has been translated by the Jerusalem Talmud as meaning: “you must not take the upper millstone as pawn for overdue debts, as the livelihood of the debtor depends upon it.” Our author accepts a different exegesis which understands the verse to mean that a man who has become engaged to a woman, must not allow undue delay before the actual marriage, as his “bride” would then be considered as if her groom had abandoned her. [The word כי יקח in the previous verse refers to engagement not actual consummation, Ed.]
+
+Verse 17
+
+ולאדם, Rabbi Yehudah, son of Rabbi Shimon points out that the word for G-d appears a total of 71 times before this word. This is an allusion to the number of judges that comprise the Jewish Supreme Court, known as Sanhedrin. The verse is a hint that G-d convened the Supreme Court in the celestial regions to decree the death penalty on Adam. If, after making your own count you found that G-d’s name had already appeared 73 times, you must remember that in the expression: בצלם אלוהים or in והייתם כאלוהים, the word ”elohim, is not sacred, as it does not mean ��G-d,” but “angel.” Our author had drawn attention to this already in his commentary of Genesis 1,27.
+ולאדם אמר, ”and to Adam He had said:” Bereshit Rabbah, 20,3 in commenting on the words: “and He had said to Man,” writes that of all creatures only three perform sexual union while facing one another’s face; they are: the human beings, the snake and the fish. They enjoy this distinction because in the Holy Scriptures we read that each of these species had been spoken to by G-d, directly. Man had been addressed by G-d in our chapter. The snake had been addressed by G-d also in our chapter. The fish that had swallowed and spat outJonah had also been addressed by G-d directly, as we read in Jonah: 2,11.
+כי שמעת לקול אשתך, “because you (preferred) to listen to the voice of your wife, etc.;” instead of to My voice. She had revealed the secret to you that the serpent had revealed to her, you cannot claim to have been ignorant, and that is why you have to be punished.
+ארורה האדמה, “the soil has become cursed;” the earth had been guilty on its own account, as G-d had commanded it in Genesis 1,11: תדשא הארץ עץ פרי עושה פרי, “to produce edible trees bearing edible fruit;” however the earth had failed to produce edible trees (compare 1,12) The curse on the earth lasted only as long as Adam would live on it, i.e. כל ימי חייך, “as long as you are alive.” If you will make a careful count, you will find that from the day Adam died until Noach was born, no one had been born, and with Noach’s birth the original blessing returned to the earth. Noach’s father, Lemech, was aware of this, this is why he exclaimed at the birth of his son (Genesis, 29) זה ינחמנו ממעשי ידינו ומעצבון ידינו מן האדמה אשר אררה ה'. “this one is destined to comfort us for the hard work we had to do and the disappointments we have experienced as the result of G-d having cursed the soil.”The Torah, after the deluge, testifies that Noach became an outstanding farmer, איש האדמה, who also planted a vineyard. (Genesis 9,20)
+בעבורך, not “on account of you,” but “relative to your harvest.” We find the word עבור meaning: “harvest,” in Joshua 5,11, where the Israelites are described as for the first time eating from the produce of the Holy Land (instead of manna). The Torah had told us that subsequent to the earth’s having been cursed it would (not exclusively) produce thorns and thistles although it had been sowed with perfectly good seeds. (3,18)
+כל ימי חייך, “all the days of your life.” If you were to ask that if the earth only produced thorns and thistles how was Adam able to live on it for 930 years as testified by the Torah? (Genesis 5,5) Besides, had the Torah not warned him that he would die on the day he ate from the tree of knowledge? He was allowed to continue living for a while as part of his excuse had been perfectly logical, namely his argument that he had thought that G-d had given him a wife only for his benefit not as someone who would seduce him into sinning.
+
+Verse 18
+
+קוץ ודרדר תצמיח לך, “it will grow thorns and thistles for you.” Until this moment the decree of Genesis 1,26 according to which the human species would rule in an unrestricted manner over all the creatures on earth had been in effect. There had been no need to guard the garden against invasion of wild beasts. From this moment on the negative phenomena on earth would be in effect, but would be directed only against the human species, לך, “against you.” The animal kingdom would not experience thorns and thistles as an impediment of their life on earth.
+
+Verse 19
+
+בזיעת אפיך, “in the sweat of your face; etc.;” the word אף in this verse refers to the protrusion called “nose,” which is the first organ beginning to perspire when one engages in physically strenuous activity. This particular curse affects only farmers, people working the soil. The second curse, that of enduring pain and hardship during the process of giving birth, affects only women. This was because Chavah had not only sinned but had also caused others, i.e. her husband, to sin. As a result she had been cursed more severely.
+עד שובך אל האדמה, “until you return to the soil.” As soon as man had died the decree cursing the earth became null and void, as we explained. (verse 17) [Our author appears anxious to counter the Christian doctrine that all of mankind, forever suffers from the consequences of Adam and Chavah’s sin, especially woman which is considered as having brought hereditary sin into the world. Ed.]
+
+Verse 20
+
+חוה, a variant of the word חיות, “life.” It is a derivative of the root: .הוה היה
+אם כל חיה, “mother of all living human beings.” According to Rabbi Simmon, in Bereshit Rabbah 20,11, what is meant is the “mother of all living creatures.” According to his view during all the 130 years that Adam lived apart from his wife, male disembodied spirits used her body warmth to produce living creatures that emanated from her womb. Female spirits also used her body as the means to reproduce. Our author directs the reader to a Midrash on Samuel II 7,14 where the words: והוכחתיו בשבט אנשים ובנגעי בני אדם, “I will chastise him with the rod of men and the affliction of mortals,” are explained in the manner he had described. The 130 years of which the Torah speaks are explained in the Talmud Eyruvin 18. A different exegesis: the words אם כל חי, are a compliment to Chavah who is the human mother of the human species. Devorah refers to herself in similar terms at the beginning of her famous song thanking G-d for her and Barak’s victory in Judges 5,7, where she refers to herself as “the mother of Israel.”
+
+Verse 21
+
+כתנות עור, according to Rashi, “tunics made of skin/leather.” This “leather” was smooth as nails, no hair ever having been on it. Rashi contradicts commentators who explained the term as referring to the skins of hares which are completely covered with hair. (Compare Bereshit Rabbah 20,20)
+כתנות עור, the term כתונת is familiar to us from the outer garment made for Joseph by his father, and the linen tunic worn by the High Priest, was intended to cover their bodies and their flesh, as described in Job 5,5, the extremities of their bodies, as opposed to the torso. The point is that the material was not taken from the body of a large mammal that had died, as there had not been time as yet for such skin to have been stretched to make it into leather. Compare Onkelos. According to some opinions the material stemmed from the Leviathan, the female of which G-d had killed and whose meat had been salted away by G-d for use to serve to the righteous in the future.
+וילבישם, “He dressed them.” First Adam and Chavah had made some kind of aprons that could be tied around their loins.(3,7) Now their entire bodies were covered by these tunics.
+
+Verse 22
+
+ועתה פן ישלח ידו, “and now, lest he stretch out his hand;” this is an abbreviated verse, [reflecting the urgency of the matter? Ed.] The word: ועתה, could have been omitted as it is well known that הכל בידי שמים חוץ מיראת שמים, “everything is subject to control by heaven except matters that depend on one’s degree of awe for heaven.” G-d did not therefore have to “fear” what Adam was about to do, but He knew it beforehand. G-d was perfectly capable to prevent Adam from eating of the tree while he was in the garden. It was His domain also, and He could have denied him access without having to expel him. Why then did the Torah bother to begin our verse with the word: ועתה, “and now?” It was inserted as the attribute of Justice urged G-d to test man’s ability to resist his temptation. G-d was certain that, especially now, Adam would not be able to resist that temptation, therefore G-d put him beyond such temptation. This was going beyond the demands of justice, an act of Mercy by G-d. It gave Adam an opportunity to claim that even if he had remained within the garden he would have resisted the temptation to eat from the tree of Life.
+ולקח גם מעץ החיים, “and he will also take from the fruit of the tree of Life.” One reason that would have caused him to eat from that tree is that he had not even been warned not to eat from it. At any rate, after Adam had already sinned once by eating from the tree of knowledge, there was reason to assume that to breach the restrictions once more, especially if the objective was to repair the damage he had caused himself by eating from the tree of knowledge was not far fetched, and G-d took that into consideration by physically preventing him from carrying out such an intention.
+ואכל וחי לעולם, “he will eat and live forever.” If you were to remind us that the Torah had previously written that as a result of, or even on the day of eating from the tree of knowledge man would die, what good would it do him to eat from the tree of Life? We are forced to assume that the tree of Life, i.e. its fruit, was a medication intended to heal people that had been afflicted with a fatal disease. Anyone not so inflicted would not feel the urge to eat from it; [for all we know its fruit did not even look inviting. Ed.] Perhaps the translation of the expression: מות תמות, especially the repetition of the word for “death”: means that after having eaten from the fruit of the tree of knowledge man would be considered as if already legally dead. A different exegesis: G-d said that seeing death had already been decreed for man, and He had decreed that anyone eating from the tree of Life would live forever, how could both decrees exist side by side except by denying those who had eaten from the tree of knowledge access to the tree of Life?A third possible exegesis: if Adam and Chavah would give birth to children while still in the garden, and these had not eaten from the fruit of the tree of knowledge, it would be unfair to decree death for them; and if they were to eat from the tree of Life they would live forever. Therefore they had to be denied access.[Seeing that G-d did not consider uprooting the tree of Life, it is proof that anything in this universe which dies out, or perishes, does not do so as an act of G-d Who had created it for the benefit of His creatures, but must be a result of those creatures having forfeited by their actions the good such a phenomenon could do for them. Ed.]
+
+Verse 23
+
+וישלחהו מגן עדן, “He expelled them from Gan Eden”. He was punished in a manner similar to that of a person killing another person through neglect rather than with intent to kill, i.e. he is exiled to a city of refuge. [the whole earth other than Gan Eden in this instance. Ed.] The reason why this penalty was appropriate was that at the moment when Chavah and Adam had eaten from the tree of knowledge they had not yet possessed the knowledge of good and evil which would have made them deliberate sinners.
+
+Verse 24
+
+ויגרש את האדם; “as soon as He had expelled Adam, etc.;” this verse does not mean to tell us that G-d had expelled Adam and his family, as we have already been told this in the previous verse. We have to understand this verse as follows: “as soon as G-d had expelled Adam and his wife, G-d positioned angels at the entrance to Gan Eden.
+הכרובים “the cherubs;” who were these cherubs? They were creatures whose very appearance frightened all those who merely looked at them. They carried gleaming swords in their hands. המתהפכת, “these swords exuded flashes of lightning from either side of the blade.”
+
+Chapter 4
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+
+קניתי איש את ה, “I have acquired a man with the Lord.” Chavah considered herself as having become a partner with the Creator. From the beginning of creation until Genesis 2,4, where the תולדות, derivatives of the creation have first been mentioned, the name used for G-d had always been elohim. This meant that the only attribute that G-d had employed was His attribute of Justice. During the period that He made various improvements, securing the continued viability of the universe He had created, the Creator has been referred to by both the name elohim, as well as the tetragram. This means that He was employing both His attribute of Justice as well as His attribute of mercy, רחמים. This suggests that possibly by G-d using these two attributes the universe would be able to survive all challenges. Do not use the argument that from the serpent’s referring to Him only as elohim, (3,1 and repeatedly afterwards) this disproves my argument; the serpent’s words are not the Torah’s words, even though they have been quoted in the Torah. The undeniable fact is that commencing with the verse relating that Adam had had marital relations with Chavah and that a human being fathered and mothered only by other human beings appeared on earth, G-d had decided that unless He no longer appeared as the attribute of Justice regularly, the world as we know it had no future.
+
+Verse 2
+
+
+
+Verse 3
+
+מקץ ימים, “a year after Kayin and Hevel had been born;” this is not the only time that the word: ימים, meaning “year,” appears in the Torah. The reason why this makes sense is that in the course of a year, all its days, the long and the short ones, have appeared once.
+ויבא קין מפרי האדמה, “Kayin brought an offering to G-d from the fruit of the earth;” according to Rashi, he had chosen the most inferior of the fruit of the earth. He refers to a Midrash which says that it was flax seed. The reason why G-d rejected his offering was that he offered something which 1) was of no use to him as he had plenty of it; 2) that it was the product of the earth which G-d had cursed. His brother Hevel, as the Torah is at pains to point out, presented G-d with the choicest product he had raised, the best of his animals. Seeing that these two offerings became the cause of destruction on earth, G-d subsequently forbade the Jewish people to wear garments containing a mixture of linen and wool. (Tanchuma Bereshit, 9)
+
+Verse 4
+
+וישע, according to Rashi, this word here means the same as: ויפן, “He turned (benignly);” it appears in this sense also in Exodus 5,9, where Pharaoh warns the Jewish people not to place their hopes in false prophets (Moses). This is difficult, as in our versions of Rashi he states there that the meaning is not the same as here, as the Torah uses the prefix ב there instead of the prefix אל.
+
+Verse 5
+
+
+
+Verse 6
+
+
+
+Verse 7
+
+הלא אם תיטיב שאת, the word שאת is to be understood as: “gift.” In other words, G-d promises Kayin a reward if he would change his attitude. The word appears in this sense in Genesis 43,34, where Joseph offers his brothers gifts. G-d is telling Kayin that when he will offer Him another offering, based on his changed attitude, it will be gratefully received by Him. On the other hand, if he will not change his attitude, he will find that Satan will constantly try to lead him into committing further sins. The whole sentence is a condensed version of G-d’s message to Kayin. Basically, G-d warns Kayin that words are not enough to rehabilitate himself, but that actions must reflect such words. Such verses, i.e. condensed versions, occur again, for instance in Genesis 4,15, כל הורג קין, “anyone daring to kill Kayin,” etc. The second half of the verse has been intentionally omitted as the first half makes its meaning clear. Compare also Samuel II 5,8, where David implies a reward for soldiers defeating the Jebusites in possession of the city of Jerusalem. [It was a most dangerous mission, considered as “mission impossible.” Ed.]) A different exegesis: G-d warned Kayin that if he were able to suppress his plan to kill his brother due to his jealousy, He could find it in His heart to reward him for his sin (of offering a sacrifice consisting of inferior produce). The word שאת being interpreted in the same manner as נושא עון, “downgrading a sin,” (Exodus 34,7). G-d added that if Kayin would not restrain his evil urge he would be punished for this. חטאת, “a punishable sin.” We find an example of this in Samuel I 28,10. (King Shaul who wished to speak to the spirit of Samuel, reassuring the witch that she would not commit a punishable sin by calling him from beyond the grave). If you (Kayin) were to say that Hevel is at liberty to flee and thus escape (Kayin’s) wrath, G-d explains to him that seeing that Hevel is his brother and has brotherly feelings for him, he would never dream, of having to escape to save his life from a murderous brother. [Very novel interpretation of ואליך תשוקתו. Ed.] If, on the other hand, you were to argue that Hevel being physically stronger than he, he would not have to fear you, G-d says that he, Kayin, would find means of neutralising Hevel’s physical strength, i.e. ואתה תמשול בו. In the ensuing conversation between the two brothers, Kayin told him that he would play the role of the senior brother, something that Hevel was not willing to accept. As a result of this, Kayin determined to kill him, losing no time to carry out his desire.
+ואליך תשוקתו, “according to Rashi the word is from the root שקק, “sin, Satan, who is constantly yearning for you.” (in the negative sense of trying to trip you up.) You might argue that if this is the case, how could G-d punish a person for falling into this trap, G-d answers that He has given man the power to withstand such temptation to commit sins, i.e. ואתה תמשול בו, “but you are able to overrule him. (Satan).”Yet another exegesis, about the phrase: ואתה תמשול בך: “you, Kayin will outrank your brother in terms of your share in your parents’ inheritance and other privileges accruing to the firstborn.” (Compare Zohar Bereshit, 36) There is a story in Bereshit Rabbah about what Kayin and Hevel were at odds about. They were discussing how to divide up the earth between them, Hevel wanting all the movable property, and Kayin claiming the soil, as is written in Genesis 4,2 that “Kayin became a farmer whereas Hevel became a shepherd.” Kayin objected to Hevel’s flocks grazing on “his” earth. Hevel claimed that all the clothes Kayin was wearing had been “stolen” from the backs of his sheep. He told Kayin to disrobe, while Kayin told Hevel to vacate his land. This led to an altercation during the course of which Hevel was killed.
+
+Verse 8
+
+
+
+Verse 9
+
+
+
+Verse 10
+
+
+
+Verse 11
+
+מן האדמה, according to Rashi: “more than the previous curse decreed on earth as a result of Adam’s having eaten from the tree of knowledge when it was punished for failing to have produced trees with edible trunks.”An alternate exegesis: the verse is to be understood as “you, Kayin, the farmer, are to have to work an earth cursed additionally when you work it, during this year, as it will not continue to yield its fruit for you in the year to follow; seeing that this is so, from now on you will be wandering on earth without permanent homestead, noting that you are cursed,”
+אשר פצתה את פיה לקחת את דמי אחיך, “because it opened its mouth, to accept, (hide) the blood of your brother, cooperating with you in hiding your foul deed.” As long as you and your descendants are living on earth; you will therefore have to find new earth to till, earth whose productivity has not been exhausted from the previous year’s harvest. [Kayin’s male descendants came to an end at the time of the deluge. If Noach’s wife was descended from Kayin, this does not contradict this interpretation, as women did not till the soil. Ed.] We have a verse in Job 15,23, which describes the wicked man as wandering in search of bread without succeeding.”
+
+Verse 12
+
+
+
+Verse 13
+
+גדול עוני מנשוא, “my sin is too great to bear.” Kayin refers to the punishment decreed as a result of his sin. It is more than he thinks he can bear. Having been expelled from having a permanent home on earth is already enough, in his opinion. We find a similar reaction in Lamentations 4,6 where Jeremiah describes the punishment of the Jewish people in similar terms, i.e. ויגדל עון בת עמי מחטאת סדום, “the guilt (and punishment) of my people exceeded that of the people of Sodom;” according to Ibn Ezra, Samuel I 28,10 is also to be understood in that sense. According to another exegesis, Kayin’s exclamation is to be understood as a query? “Is my sin really too great to be forgiven? You have already expelled me from my home etc., and made it impossible for me to plant roots, as the soil will not respond to my labour; my father has been expelled from Gan Eden for his sin, but You have seen fit to let him atone for it. Why do You not give me chance also to atone for my sin?” [Adam is not even on record as admitting having sinned. Ed.]
+
+Verse 14
+
+והיה כל מוצאי, וגו, “and anyone who will encounter me (in my exile will feel free to kill me;”) I will not even be able to atone while in exile.
+
+Verse 15
+
+לכן כל הורג קין, “therefore, because Kayin has already been so humbled,”
+שבעתים יוקם, according to the plain meaning of the text, the meaning is that anyone who will kill Kayin will be avenged sevenfold for having killed him.
+שבעתים, an alternate word for שבעה, seven, just as ,ארבעתים in Samuel II 12,6, is an alternate word for ארבע, four. There is no point in reading anything special into this formulation as it is commonplace in Holy Scriptures. Our author proceeds to quote at least a half a dozen additional examples; [anyone interested can look this up in any concordance on the Bible. Ed.]
+וישם ה' לקין אות, “G-d provided Kayin with a visible sign of identification to warn people not to kill him;” the Torah does not give details of the nature of this sign.
+לבלתי הכות אותו, “not to slay him;” the need for this was because mankind had not yet been warned about the sin of murder; at any rate, the penalty of Kayin remaining an exile was not lifted, ever.
+כל מוצאו, this cannot be translated as “everyone” who would come across him,” but means “anyone” who would come across him. The use of the word כל in this sense also occurs in Exodus 22,21, כל אלמנה ויתום, where it does not mean “every widow and orphan,” but “any widow or orphan.” The law legislated there is not restricted to a widow who is also an orphan, but to any widow or orphan.
+
+Verse 16
+
+ויצא קין מלפני ה, “Kayin left the Presence of Hashem;” this formula also appears in Esther 8,15, where Mordechai is described as leaving the Presence of the King. The verse informs us that on account of his exile, Kayin was given a new lease on life, and he accepted G-d’s judgment. He was eventually killed inadvertently after seven generations.
+וישב בארץ נוד, “he settled in a land known thereafter as Nod”. Originally, he had been condemned to be נע ונד תהיה בארץ; our sages derive from this line that if one is condemned to be in exile, this diminishes the original sin one qualifies for by half.
+
+Verse 17
+
+
+
+Verse 18
+
+
+
+Verse 19
+
+
+
+Verse 20
+
+אבי יושב אהל ומקנה, “the original nomad living in tents” (instead of caves) as the owner followed his herds to where grazing was available. According to a Midrash quoted by Rashi, Yovol built houses to worship idols in. [This Midrash understands the word: מקנה, not as cattle, but as mekaneh, doing something to arouse jealousy, i.e. G-d’s jealousy. Ed.] His brother would then have been the first one to use musical instruments for the purpose of worshipping idols.
+
+Verse 21
+
+ושם אחיו יובל, “his brother’s name was Yuval.” From the manner in which the Torah reports their births it is clear that they were twins. If not, his birth would have been introduced with: ותלד עוד, “she gave birth also, etc.” It is customary for shepherds to entertain themselves by playing the flute or a similar musical instrument. Most likely Naamah, Tuval Kayin’s sister, (verse 22) born by Tzilah, was also a twin, as Tzilah is not credited with having given birth twice.
+
+Verse 22
+
+וצלה גם היא ילדה, “and Tzilah, she too had given birth.” The reason why the Torah introduces this statement with the word גם “also,” is that Lemech had married her only for her physical attributes. She was not intended by him to bear children. All the birth control devices she used had proved ineffective. There are bodies that are immune to such devices (as ancient man used to delay or prevent pregnancy). [The reader can find more on the subject in the Talmud Niddah folio 30. Ed.] The reason why the Torah even mentions the vocations chosen by these people is that due to the earth having been cursed, they needed to find ways other than farming to make a living.
+
+Verse 23
+
+ויאמר למך לנשיו, “Lemech said to his wives:” from the pleading manner in which the Torah describes his address to his wives, i.e. שמען קולי,....האזנה אמרתי, “hear my voice...give ear to my speech,” it is evident that his wives were quite angry and rebellious at him at that time. Lemech exclaims (seeing that he had been blind) “did I deliberately kill someone?” [In other words, how can you blame me? Ed.]
+האזנה, this word, meaning: “listen please,” has the vowel tzeyreh under the letter zayin.
+
+Verse 24
+
+כי שבעתים יוקם קין, “if even Kayin, who had deliberately murdered his brother will be avenged sevenfold if someone took the law into his own hands and killed him, after G-d had been content to merely exile him, how much more so will anyone killing me be avenged, seeing that I had not done any harm to anyone deliberately, ever!? He is threatening his wives of what would happen to them if they felt they had to avenge Kayin’s death by harming him or killing him.
+שבעים ושבעה, “seventy seven times.” According to Rashi, Lemech’s wives had separated from him after he had fulfilled the commandment of being fruitful, as they knew that the descendants of the killer of Kayin had been cursed by G-d for the following seven generations, so why would they have to bring children into the word in order for them to have to endure that curse? They would all be killed by the deluge. There appears to be a contradiction here in Rashi’s commentary. If these wives refused to bear more children because by that time, more than 120years prior to the deluge, that threat had already been known, then their refusals to bear children on account of a curse resting on the seven generations following Kayin’s killer are quite irrelevant.[Seeing that the Torah does not provide us with details of the ages at which Kayin’s descendants were born relative to Adam’s expulsion from Gan Eden, the only clue we have is the tradition that Naamah, Lemech’s daughter, became the wife of Noach, who started having children about 100 years before the deluge (1656). Seeing that the people mentioned in the Torah, with the exception of Chanoch, had all lived for more than 800 years the fact that Lemech (the descendant of Kayin), not to be confused with the Lemech who was a descendant of Sheth, and Noach’s father, had every reason to expect to be still alive when the deluge would occur. After all, 777 years of the 1656 years prior to the deluge had already elapsed at the time Kayin was killed. The tradition concerning’ Naamah’s ancestry is plausible unless we were to believe that none of Kayin’s descendants survived the deluge. Ed.] Our author prefers to believe that the daughters of Lemech erred in their calculations about during which Lemech’s lifetime the deluge would commence. Their father was the sixth generation from Adam, but seeing that Kayin married presumably at a much younger age than his brother Sheth who was 130 years younger than he, this is not plausible either, as Noach’s father died before his own father Metushelach who lived to 969, until the week before the commencement of the deluge. [Noach was the tenth generation, counting from Adam. Ed.] Our author believes that Rashi believes that Lemech and his daughters must have been great fools if they believed that G-d will allow 7 generations to pass before avenging someone’s wrongful death. If that were G-d’s way, who would ever associate the penalty with the wrongdoer, seeing that seven generations had elapsed since the crime had been committed? It is clear that what Rashi wrote was not his own interpretation, but he quoted the foolish notions entertained by Lemech’s daughters. [How could G-d then have punished the generation born less than a generation before the deluge started?]
+
+Verse 25
+
+ותקרא את שמו שת, “she named him Sheth. Later on we get the impression that Adam had called this son Sheth. (5,3). The reason that there Adam, the father is credited with having named this son is only because when writing history, the Torah always traces the ancestry first and foremost to the father, it was quite in order to do so in that context.
+שת, a reminder that the entire human race is descended from this man. The word is used in a similar context in the Bible in Samuel I 2,8: וישת עליהם תבל, “He has set the world upon them.” [Compare Chanah’s prayer, saying that G-d set the rocks as the foundation of the earth. Ed.] She hinted that the descendants of the senior brother all perished during the deluge.
+
+Verse 26
+
+ויקרא את שמו אנוש, “he called him Enosh.” There were four major upheavals on earth during the lifetime of Enosh. 1) Mountains and hills became bare rocks, unfit for grazing or any form of agriculture; 2) bodies of dead people began to emit foul smell as they started to decompose; 3) man’s facial features gradually became more like that of apes; 4) as a result of their losing the “image of G-d,” in which original man had been created, demons lost their fear of attacking human beings. (Compare Yalkut Shimoni, Chronicles I 1072.)
+אז הוחל, “then began desecration;” the word is similar to Numbers 30,3, where it describes dishonouring one’s vow, desecrating something sacred.
+
+Chapter 5
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+זה ספר תולדות אדם, “this is the book recording the history of mankind;” the Torah refers to the history of the strain of human beings that survived the deluge, i.e. the descendants of Sheth, through Noach and his children. It therefore commences once more with the founding member of mankind, Adam.
+
+Verse 2
+
+ויקרא את שמם אדם, He named them: “Adam.” G-d called them by the name by which Adam had described himself when asked by G-d how he would name himself. (Compare Torah Sh’leymah for source) In the Midrash socher tov, a conversation during which G-d asks Adam how he would like to be named, he answered that he would like to be called אדם to reflect the fact that the raw material his body was made of was the earth. When G-d continued by asking him how he viewed Him, he answered that He should be refereed to as “Master, Lord” (אדון) as He is the Master of the universe. G-d accepted this suggestion when He declared in Isaiah 42,8: אני ה',הוא שמי, “I am the Lord, this is My name as Adam called Me thus.” [He added there that this is the reason why no other phenomenon must ever be called by His name; Ed.]. The reason why this paragraph has been inserted here is in order to teach us the origins of some names.
+
+Verse 3
+
+ויולד בדמותו כצלמו, “he begot a son in his likeness in his image;” the emphasis on this is to show us that anything he begot during the previous 129 years were only creatures that did not reflect his likeness or image, i.e. disembodied spirits, mostly מזיקים, injurious, destructive spirits. (Compare 3,20)
+
+Verse 4
+
+
+
+Verse 5
+
+ויהיו כל ימי אדם תשע מאות שנה ושלשים שנה, “Adam lived for a total of 930 years.” This is not a precise number, i.e. that he lived 930 years to the day after his creation, but that he lived longer than 929 years. This rule applied to all the numbers given in the Torah for the number of years that people lived prior to the deluge.
+וימת, “he died;” this is the standard formula used by the Torah for the death of anyone who died before Noach. It is to tell us that this death occurred not due to sickness, etc., but due to the curse of mortality that man became subject to after having been seduced by the serpent. From Noach’s time onward, the Torah did not always add the fact that a person died, once it had informed us about how many years they lived. [The author’s problem appears to have been that the words: “he died,” were superfluous once we knew how old they became. Ed.]
+
+Verse 6
+
+
+
+Verse 7
+
+
+
+Verse 8
+
+
+
+Verse 9
+
+
+
+Verse 10
+
+
+
+Verse 11
+
+
+
+Verse 12
+
+
+
+Verse 13
+
+
+
+Verse 14
+
+
+
+Verse 15
+
+
+
+Verse 16
+
+
+
+Verse 17
+
+
+
+Verse 18
+
+ויולד את חנוך, “he begat Chanoch.” This was the seventh generation, a number that was predestined for holiness and sanctity. David is also mentioned as having been the seventh son of his father Yishai, although that had been obvious from the way Samuel had been looking for the man to replace King Shaul. (Chronicles I 2,15) The number “seven” is special in the seven “heavens,” the seven deserts the Jewish people traversed, i.e. the desert of Sinai, in the seven seas, i.e. Lake Tiberias. [The subject has been expanded upon in Pirkey de Rabbi Eliezer, chapter 18. Ed.] The seventh universe (which according to our tradition, will be the last and perfect universe), as well as the seventh day of Creation, are all examples of the significance of the number “seven.”
+
+Verse 19
+
+
+
+Verse 20
+
+
+
+Verse 21
+
+
+
+Verse 22
+
+
+
+Verse 23
+
+
+
+Verse 24
+
+ואיננו, “and suddenly he had disappeared;” his “death” is described as if he had never lived, as he died so much younger than all the other people named in the Bible so far [except for Hevel who had been murdered. Ed.]
+ואיננו כי לקח אותו אלוקים, “he had disappeared as G-d had taken him.” [In the Torah commentary of Samuel DavidLuzatto, (translated recently by this editor) this formulation is understood as definite proof that there is an afterlife of the soul in heavenly region. Ed.] According to our author, Onkelos [not in our editions, Ed,] translates the word איננו here as meaning: “he still exists,” meaning that seeing that G-d had not let him die, he will return at the time before the Messiah comes, with Elijah. He claims that this contrasts with Onkelos in all other places where the word: אין appears where he translated it as that the phenomenon described no longer existed. According to the Zohar, Chanoch died a natural death, G-d removing him from the temptation to fall victim to the wicked ways of his contemporaries. [This would explain why so many outstanding Jewish Rabbis died before reaching the age of 40, G-d rewarding them before they would succumb to more temptations on this earth. Ed.] The prophet Jonah had asked G-d to be treated thus. (Jonah 4,3) Compare also Psalms: 49,16.
+
+Verse 25
+
+
+
+Verse 26
+
+
+
+Verse 27
+
+
+
+Verse 28
+
+ויולד בן, “he begat a son;” the Torah did not write: “he sired Noach,” as it did in similar situations, i.e. Genesis 5,6; 5,9; Judges 11,1; Chronicles I 1,34, et al. The reason is that Noach warranted an extra verse seeing that the whole human race today exists thanks to him. The entire human race was destroyed during his lifetime; only he, his wife and his children and their wives, having been saved. A different interpretation: Metushelach, Lemech’s father, advised his son not to immediately name him as his contemporaries who were worshipping all kinds of idols, and who would curse and kill people who were monotheists, would try and kill him by telling their idols his name. After Noach had married and had sired a son, his father turned to his father again and was told then to call him Noach, as he had the potential to save all of mankind if they would follow his lifestyle. If not, they would all perish before they could harm him. (Compare Torah sh’leymah item 71 on this verse)
+
+Verse 29
+
+זה ינחמנו מן האדמה, “this one will bring us consolation regarding the condition of the earth. Seeing that he had been born after the death of Adam, the curse decreed on earth as being effective during Adam’s lifetime could now be lifted. [According to my calculation Noach was born in the year 1056 after Adam had been created. Seeing that theTorah did not report anyone being born after Lemech, Noach’s father, who was born when Adam was still alive, there is no contradiction here. Ed.]
+
+Verse 30
+
+
+
+Verse 31
+
+
+
+Verse 32
+
+ויהי נח בן חמש מאות שנה ויולד, “When Noach was five hundred years old, he begat;” people knew that the deluge was about to occur, as explained by Rashi already in connection with the attitudes displayed by the wives of Lemech (the descendant of Kayin); he therefore delayed becoming a father until G-d had promised him that he and his children would survive. [Up until then, the Torah had reported of people beginning to father children around the age of 100. Ed.] (based on an ancient version of Tanchuma)
+
+Chapter 6
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+
+
+Verse 2
+
+בני אלהים, according to Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai,(in Bereshit Rabbah 26,5) the word אלהים here is to be understood as: “judges.” He was very angry at people who translated this expression as “sons of G-d.” The question remains why, the other Rabbis translated the word as they did? The answer given by both Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish and Rabbi Yochanan is that these people lived untroubled lives of tremendous length, so that they could easily have been confused with children whom G-d Himself had sired.
+
+מכל אשר בחרו, as they were extremely intelligent, they selected for themselves wives who were equally intelligent or almost so, so that their children would enjoy the genetic benefits of their superior intelligence and physical strength.
+
+Verse 3
+
+לא ידון רוחי באדם, “My spirit will not predominate within man;” according to Rashi, the meaning of this phrase is that G-d feels that He will not continue for much longer to entertain conflicting emotions concerning the future of mankind in such conditions; we find a similar construction as here in Job:2,3 where G-d is on record as telling Satan that nowhere on earth can there be found a man as righteous Job. An alternate exegesis of this phrase: the philological background is נדן ותיק, “returning one sword to its sheath,” quoted by Ibn Ezra, but not attributed to a source that he revealed. The “sheath,” would be man’s body. In other words, man would be reduced to being a body without Divine spirit.
+לעולם, for an interminably long period. Compare use of the word לעולם, in Samuel I 1,22. [When Chanah made this vow concerning her son Samuel, she did not use the word as meaning: “forever,” as in: לעולם ועד. Ed.] In Exodus 21,6 where the Torah speaks of the servant who had his ear pierced continuing to serve the same master: לעולם, the meaning also could not possibly have been: “forever.”
+בשגם הוא בשר, seeing that he is composed only of “flesh,” i.e. a combination of components that will not endure forever. Seeing that he was not meant to live forever anyways, he might as well have his normal lifespan shortened, as longevity did not inspire him to be loyal to his Creator. On the contrary, the illusion of living forever contributed to his feeling unaccountable to Me. (G-d).
+והיו ימיו מאה ועשרים שנה, “and his (average) life span shall be one hundred and twenty years.” On this Rashi comments that the Torah is not restricted to report events in their chronological order. When we learned in Pessachim 6, that when the subject is a single one, the rule of the Torah not being bound to report them in chronological order does not apply, so that here we would be faced with a contradiction, this is not so. We are dealing here with two separate subjects. Consider that from the birth of Yephet until the onset of the deluge only 100 years had elapsed, seeing the Torah testified that Noach, who was 600 years old at the outbreak of the deluge, had only married and become a father at the age of five hundred. The Torah was concerned with the moral image of Noach, and so that the world would not be able to say that Noach had sired a child knowing that it would perish after he knew already that G-d would destroy the human race, (Genesis 6,7) the Torah reported Noach’s having sired Shem already before it referred to G-d’s resolve to destroy the human race. G-d’s decision to destroy mankind (bar Noach and his family) had not been revealed to anyone including Noach until 6,13. Rashi offers a similar commentary on Genesis 11,32, where the death of Avraham’s father is reported at an age of 205 years, before it reported Avram’s moving to the land of Canaan, although Terach lived on after Avram’s leaving him for another 40 years. Had his death been reported in chronological order, some people would have faulted Avram for abandoning an aged father in Charan. As it is reported, the subject of Terach had already been concluded.
+
+Verse 4
+
+הנפלים, “of outstanding stature;” the absence of the letter א in this word which we would have expected to have been spelled הנפלאים, is not unique; we find it also in Exodus 33,16: ונפלינו אני ועמך, “and we, Your people will be outstanding;”
+היו בארץ בימים ההם, “were prominent on earth at that time.” This is a reference to conditions discussed by the Torah previously, which had been introduced with the words: ויהי כי החל האדם in 6,1.
+וגם אחרי כן, “and also subsequently.” Even after G-d had expressed His anger at man’s conduct on earth, as described in: 6,3, Man had not leaned to submit to the supremacy of its Creator as testified to by verse two which described their disrespect for holy matrimony, i.e. the status of a wife as inalienably linked to her husband was completely ignored by the physically superior men wishing to possess women to whom they were attracted.
+אנשי השם, “men of great reputation; Rabbi Acha, in Bereshit Rabbah 26,7, contrasting our verse with Job 30,8 in which these people are described as בני נבל גם בני בלי שם נכאו מן הארץ, “scoundrels, nobodies, stricken from the earth,” queries the way the Torah here refers to these wicked people as: “somebodies;” He therefore understands the word השם in our verse as meaning that השמו: “they desecrated the world and as a result were הושמו, eliminated from it. [From the root: שמם to desolate. Ed.]
+
+Verse 5
+
+כי רבה רעת האדם, “for man’s wickedness had become very great;” it is futile to ask that seeing that G-d has foreknowledge of all that man will do, creating him had been an exercise in futility to start with; why had G-d bothered? The answer is that everything is under the control of heaven except man’s decision to live in awe of the Creator or to defy Him. Seeing that G-d had decided to create a creature equipped with free will, He had simultaneously abrogated His right to interfere as long as man’s use of his freedom did not threaten to undo His universe. The reader is reminded of Deuteronomy 10,12, where Moses tells the people that G-d “asks” the people to revere Him; he did not say that G-d had “commanded” the people to revere Him. He also quoted G-d as expressing the wish that the people could maintain their moral high, as expressed after the revelation at Mount Sinai. In other words, He Himself had restricted His freedom in matters of religious belief of His creature. (Deuteronomy 5,26) “May they always be of such mind, to revere Me, etc.”A third verse spelling out the choice before all of us is found in Deut.30,14: “see I have given before you this day, life and goodness, or death and evil.”
+
+Verse 6
+
+וינחם ה, the expression: נחם, נחמה is used in three different contexts; 1) deliberate failure to fulfill a vow, such as when it could not be fulfilled as the person who had made it does not have the means to do so. 2) He has simply changed his mind. 3) It is used repeatedly in connection with G-d having second thoughts about something He had done. G-d’s having second thoughts works in two directions as we know from: רגע אדבר על גוי לנתוש ולנתוץ ושב הגוי מרעתו ונחמתי על הטובה,“at one moment I may decree that a nation or a kingdom shall be uprooted and pulled down and destroyed; but if that nation against which I had made the decree, turns back from its wickedness, I change My mind concerning the punishment I planned to bring on it. (Jeremiah 18,79) [I am sure all my readers are familiar with the story of Jonah and the whale, and how G-d changed His mind about the fate of Nineveh when He observed how they repented. Ed.] There is no need here to repeated how G-d “repented” the decree He had issued against the Jewish people after they had made the golden calf and had danced around it calling it a deity. G-d had “regretted” allowing Shaul to have been crowned king, and He ordered Samuel to anoint his successor. (Samuel I 15,11 and subsequent.)at one moment I may decree that a nation or a kingdom shall be uprooted and pulled down and destroyed; but if that nation against which I had made the decree, turns back from its wickedness, I change My mind concerning the punishment I planned to bring on it. (Jeremiah 18,79) [I am sure all my readers are familiar with the story of Jonah and the whale, and how G-d changed His mind about the fate of Nineveh when He observed how they repented. Ed.] There is no need here to repeated how G-d “repented” the decree He had issued against the Jewish people after they had made the golden calf and had danced around it calling it a deity. G-d had “regretted” allowing Shaul to have been crowned king, and He ordered Samuel to anoint his successor. (Samuel I 15,11 and subsequent.) As to the statement by Bileam in Numbers 23,21, that what distinguishes the Jewish G-d from other deities is that: ובן אדם כי יתנחם “neither is He like a human being who changes his mind,” there the word is used in the reflexive mode, i.e. the human being who initiates his own change of mind, whereas when changing G-d’s mind is the issue, this was always forced upon G-d from the outside. He does not allow Himself the luxury of changing His mind as an act of pique, completely unprovoked.
+ויתעצב אל לבו, “He was saddened to have listened to the advice to create man;”A different exegesis: the words: אל לבו refer to the heart of man; G-d felt saddened on account of man’s heart, i.e. the constantly evil thoughts that he entertained. We find a similar construction in Samuel I 20,34 כי נעצב אל דוד כי הכלמו אביו, “he was saddened on account that his father had humiliated him.” (Yonathan about his father the King, humiliating his bosom fried David) Still another exegesis of our verse: Whenever the root עצב occurs it refers to mourning or something akin to it. Example: כי נעצב המלך על בנו, “for the king mourned over the los of his son.” (Samuel II 19,3, about the death of Avshalom) In our verse the Torah describes G-d as mourning the world He had created and which He now had to completely restructure. If you were to ask how it is possible to mourn people who had not died yet, this rule applies only to mortal human beings who cannot be sure of any event in the future until it materializes; G-d Who foresees developments clearly, can be saddened and in a state of mourning even before the actual event has taken place. Still another interpretation of our verse; the human race had become something only worthy of sadness and distaste.
+
+Verse 7
+
+אמחה את האדם, “I shall wipe out the human race;” when G-d had created the human He had not prefaced this with the singular mode: אעשה, “I shall make,” but He had said: נעשה, “let us make,” as He had consulted with the angels about that project. As soon as He had created them the angels had belittled this creature, saying: מה אנוש כי תזכרנו, “what is so special about the human race that You, G-d, should devote so much time and effort to its creation?” (Psalms 8,5) This is why He did not consult them about wiping out the human race. A few hundred years later, when man had built the Tower, G-d once more consulted with the angels about what punishment to administer to these people who had developed such arrogance. (compare Genesis 11,7: הבה נרדה ובבלה שפתם, “let us descend and confuse their language.”
+כי נחמתי כי עשיתי, this is how G-d referred to sinful man; but when man was loyal and G-d fearing, He boasted with their loyalty, lauding them for their steadfastness and refusal to regret having accepted the Torah; (compare Numbers 23,21, לא איש אל ויכזב ובן אדם כי יתנחם, “I am not disappointed in this people. It does not cause Me any regrets.” (loosely translated by this Editor) We find in that verse another allusion that change in attitude always first occurs in G-d’s creature, never in G-d, so that what appears as G-d changing course is really only His reaction to man’s perversity.
+
+Verse 8
+
+
+
+Verse 9
+
+אלה תולדות נח, “These are the descendants of Noach;” according to Bereshit Rabbah 30,3, whenever a paragraph commences with the word: אלה, this is equivalent to dissociating what occurs from then on with what had been discussed previously; Noach, was not a continuation of the history of mankind up until now, but represents a 180 degree turn from that history. Whereas the generations prior to him progressed toward their destruction, he represented a new beginning for mankind. He founded a new type of human being.
+תולדות נח, the word תולדות, refers to happenings and their causes. For instance: Proverbs 27,1 כי לא תדע מה ילד היום, “for you do not know what the day will bring.” Rashi offers the same interpretation concerning the line: אלה תולדות יעקב, יוסף, “these are the descendants of Yaakov, Joseph.” (Genesis 37,2). The Torah now readies itself to record the history of mankind as if it had commenced with Noach, and it attributes events that will be described as the direct or indirect result of Noach’s influence on them. It sums up the difference by describing Noach as a righteous man, when compared with his ancestors. It attributes the demise of his ancestors as basically due to their wickedness, [even though a few individuals in each generation had not been wicked. Ed.]
+איש צדיק, תמים היה, “a righteous man, basically perfect.” This is the reason why Noach had found favour in the eyes of his Creator.
+תמים, according to bar Chataya in Bereshit 30,8, the meaning of this word is that the people named all lived a number of years which divide into the number 7. Noach lived 350 years after being called תמים, i.e. 50 times seven, Avraham 175, i.e. 25 times seven, etc. [The commentators on Midrash Rabbah elaborate on that strange sounding definition of תמים. Ed.]
+היה, anyone in the Holy Scriptures of whom it is said: היה, experienced a new world, i.e. radical changes in the world. In the case of Noach, he was a witness to the destruction of earth and its inhabitants during the year he spent in the ark, only to become a witness to its renewal after he emerged from the ark. Joseph at one time was a lowly second rate shepherd with his brothers, יוסף היה רועה את אחיו, and became the second most powerful man in Egypt, whose population he saved from starvation. Moses was a shepherd for his fatherinlaw, ומשה היה רועה, yesterday he had had to flee for his life, and subsequently he rose to lead his people into freedom and greatness. Job started out as a wealthy man, איש היה בארץ עוץ איוב שמו, was reduced to absolute misery and destitution, only to rise again to be even greater than originally. (Job 42,10)
+
+Verse 10
+
+ויולד נח שלשה בנים, “Noach fathered three sons;” the Torah repeated this, having told us this already in 5,32, as it wanted to tell us that Noach was righteous in the generations prior to the deluge and after the deluge.
+
+Verse 11
+
+ותשחת הארץ לפני האלוהים, the words: לפני האלוקים at first glance appear unnecessary; however these words are providing the clue to the moral disintegration of mankind. It started at the top, because the בני האלוהים, high ranking individuals, mentioned in Genesis 2,6, had set an example of depravity; it did not take long for them to be copied by the people at large. Noach was the only one who “swam against the stream.” בארץ, they raped women against their will.
+ותמלא הארץ חמס, there is a discussion between the sages as to the difference in meaning between the word: חמס (violence) and the word גזל (robbery) when used in the Holy Scriptures. According to Rabbi Chaninah, the difference is m erely in the amount m isappropriated by violent m eans. If the object one robs is worth more than a certain ancient copper coin, known as p’rutah, the term חמס is used, whereas if it is worth less than that, the Torah refers to it as גזל. The people of the generation of the deluge devised a nefarious scheme of avoiding to become guilty of having misappropriated at one time more than the worth of a prutah. When someone brought a basket full of fruit to market offering to sell it, he would be mobbed by people each of whom helped himself to less than the value of that coin. By using this subterfuge, the party helping himself to fruit without paying for it, escaped being cited before a judge, who did not entertain claims below that amount. How did G-d outwit these people? He would deprive them of the excess wealth they had accumulated by such means at the times they died. (This is how Ibn Ezra interprets Job 4,21 which he explains as G-d depriving such “robbers” of the excess money they had accumulated at the time they died, so that they would be punished by not having benefited by Torah knowledge (according to our author).[If I understand the author correctly, he means that when people use their Torah knowledge in order to escape their responsibilities, then instead of getting credit for their Torah studies, they will find that their abuse of Torah had been counterproductive; they will be worse off than if they had not studied Torah. Ed.] Another interpretation understands the word as indulging in sexual misconduct, basing itself on Jeremiah 51,35: חמסי ושארי על בבל, “let the violence done to me and my kindred be visited upon Babylon.”A third interpretation understands the word חמס as an alternate for idolatry, quoting Ezekiel 8,17: כי מלאו את הארץ חמס להכעיסני, “that they must fill the land with the abominations in order to anger Me;” (these have been described in the verses preceding this one)?Lastly, some commentators understand the word חמס as applying to shedding innocent blood, basing itself on Joel 4,19: מחמס בני יהודה אשר שפכו דם נקי בארצם, “from the חמס of the inhabitants of the Kingdom of Yehudah who spilled innocent blood in their land.”
+
+Verse 12
+
+כי השחית כל בשר את דרכו, “for all flesh had corrupted its behaviour on earth. This is a reference to sexual perversions as in Proverbs 30,19, ודרך גבר בעלמה, “and the way of a man with a virgin.” Mankind had already been commanded since the 6th day of creation: תוצא הארץ נפש חיה למינה. בהמה ורמש וחיתו ארץ למינה, “let the earth produce living creatures each according to its kind; cattle, creeping things, and wild beasts, each according to its kind. This made it clear that bestiality, homosexuality, lesbianism and all other kinds of unnatural sexual behaviour is considered by the Lord as an abomination, and had been so since creation. “When I will now destroy man I am only applying the same yardstick man applied when indulging in unnatural sexual practices which do not result in populating My earth.
+”כל בשר, “all flesh,” excluding the fish; seeing that fish had not become corrupted, they were spared; this is why the Torah emphasised that כל אשר בחרבה מתו, that “all the creatures whose habitat was the dry land had died.” (Genesis 8,22).
+
+Verse 13
+
+
+
+Verse 14
+
+עשה לך תיבת, “make an ark for yourself etc;” Rashi comments on this by asking the rhetorical question that “seeing that G-d has unlimited space at His disposal, why did He choose such a compact little ark in which to coop up all the creatures He meant to save?” His answer is that if mankind would constantly see that Noach was totally preoccupied with the construction of this ark as a means to ride out the deluge, perhaps they would take this to heart and become penitents. (Based on Tanchuma) Our author finds this difficult, seeing that G-d had known His hopes would be disappointed, and that was hardly a reason to make life in the ark so uncomfortable for all the creatures in it. He therefore prefers to answer the question in a different manner. He claims that G-d wanted to show the attribute of Mercy that He had done all in His power to encourage people to stave off disaster when they saw how seriously Noach took G-d’s warning. In 7,12 Rashi himself mentions this attempt by G-d to stave off disaster by G-d initially allowing rain which was not accompanied by storms and subterranean sluices opening, to serve as an a additional warning. G-d did all this to convince the attribute of Mercy that further delay was quite useless.
+עצי גופר, “gopher wood;” this is the wood the resin of which yields sulfur. It is not soluble in water, and G-d chose it to remind those who watched it. [Noach included according to this interpretation, as it had taken an act of mercy by G-d to save him and his family Ed.] being used that they deserved to be judged by sulfur. (The material used to destroy Sodom some 400 years later. Compare Genesis 19,24)
+וכפרת אותו מבית ומחוץ בכופר, “you are to seal it from the inside as well as from the outside with pitch;” our sages (Sanhedrin 108) comment on this that seeing mankind had sinned with “boiling water,” they were punished by means of boiling water. [The expression is used in the Talmud to describe ejaculation of heated semen in sexually forbidden intercourse. Ed.] If you were to query that in our experience pitch does not withstand boiling water but dissolves in it, this was another miracle [to show that G-d can use even such material to help save the innocent. Ed.] A different exegesis: The water surrounding the immediate proximity remained cool, whereas the waters further away were bubbling hot. If this were not the correct interpretation, how could we explain that Gog, Sichon and his brothers had survived the deluge? (Compare Talmud Niddah 61, according to the opinion in the Talmud that the deluge had also inundated the land of Israel)
+
+Verse 15
+
+
+
+Verse 16
+
+צהר תעשה לתיבה “you are to provide means of illumination for the ark.” According to most opinions this is a reference to the window that Noach used later on to dispatch the raven and the turtle dove. During the period that this “window” was kept closed he suspended in that area a jewel which sparkled and provided interior lighting. When we understand this in this manner, our sages, some of whom spoke only of the jewel and others only of the “window,” are both correct, except that neither of them gave us the full explanation. When the Torah told Noach to provide interior lighting it was because during most of days of the deluge illumination from the sky was totally absent, neither sun, nor moon or stars being visible. Noach had to use his ingenuity to provide for interior lighting.
+ואל אמה תכלנה מלמעלה, this phrase describes more detail about the expression צהר. It instructs Noach to affix the lighting near the top end of the ark. The “lamp” was supposed to be fuelled by oil, as hinted at by the letters in the word צהר which are the same as יצהר, “pure oil.” Both the words חלון and צהר are used in Scripture in the masculine and feminine mode. Compare Kings I 6,4. Interestingly enough, the word חלון, window is used both in the masculine and feminine mode, presumably as a reminder that windows can be used both in order to look out or in order to look in, or to allow light to come in.
+ופתח התיבה בצדה תשים “and you are to position the entrance to the ark sideways.” Contrary to what we might think the entrance was not to be in the middle of the broadside of the ark, but at the corner where it would be least exposed to the elements. An alternate interpretation of the word: בצדה; on the third level (from the bottom) of the ark.
+תחתיים שניים, ושלישים, the third floor (deck) was intended for the human beings inhabiting the ark, as well as for the storage of the entire food supply.
+
+Verse 17
+
+ואני הנני, Rashi interprets these two words as: “and I have agreed,” i.e. “against the pleas of the attribute of Mercy which acted as advocate for sinful mankind.”
+
+Verse 18
+
+והקימותי את בריתי אתך, “I will maintain My covenant with you.” The reference is to the covenant that Noach’s descendants will not be wiped out during the deluge.
+
+Verse 19
+
+ומכל החי, “and of all living creatures, etc.” according to Rabbi Yehudah, the fully grown animal known as reem did not enter the ark as it was too tall, whereas not fully developed specimens, did enter. (Compare Matnot kehunah on Bereshit Rabbah 31,13. According to Rabbi Nechemyah, the mature pair of reems was tied by Noach to the outside of the ark. He bases himself on a verse in Job 39,10, which hints at the length of the legs of this kind of animal.
+
+Verse 20
+
+מהעוף למינהו ומן הבהמה למינה “including the feathered birds according to their various species and according to the fourlegged beasts according to each specific species.” Seeing that the birds had been created on the fifth day of creation and the mammals on the sixth day, they are listed here in that order.
+
+Verse 21
+
+מכל מאכל, “from every category of food;” seeing that the ark contained all the living creatures that consumed food, Noach had to store the kind of food that was eaten by all these various creatures. The reason was that some creatures refused to touch food that other creatures enjoyed eating.
+
+Verse 22
+
+כן עשה, “so he did.” This is a reference to bringing all these various kinds of food inside the ark.
+
+Chapter 7
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+ויאמר ה׳, “The Lord said:” The previous time G-d had been reported as speaking to Noach, (6,13) it was His attribute of Justice speaking, whereas here it refers to His attribute of Mercy addressing him.
+
+Verse 2
+
+מכל הבהמה הטהורה, “of all the pure mammals, etc;” according to Rash,i we can learn from this verse that Noach had studied the Torah. [from where else would he know which of the mammals are “pure” mammals. Ed.] If you were to counter that in the Talmud Zevachim 116, we find the question: “since when did there exist a difference between the pure and the impure mammals at that period,” and the answer given to this question is that indeed at that time there did not exist a difference,” [If so what does Rashi mean seeing that he was familiar with the section of the Talmud? Ed.] The answer given there is that all the animals which the ark accepted without delay were the species which had never been used as sacrifices for idols. The others were rejected by the ark. This still does not solve our question. On the contrary, it shows that seeing that Noach apparently had brought more than one pair of the impure animals to the ark he had been unaware that that species was going to be impure according to the Torah in the future!We therefore have to resort to a different answer; any category of mammal of which Noach knew that it mated only with members of its own species, was recognised by Noach as one that in the future would be categorised by the Torah as a “pure species,” fit as an offering to the Lord;”When the Talmud referred to some categories of mammals initially being rejected by the ark, this indicated to Noach that the “concept” of purity and impurity had to do with the manner in which these species conducted their mating practices. In the Torah, in the future, the concept of purity and impurity is repeatedly used in respect to incestuous relationships in the Book of Leviticus chapter 18,34 and 20,25. In those chapters the term “pure” and “impure,” refers to which of these animals may be used as food for members of the Jewish people. Seeing that Noach recognised which of these species were (to be) allowed as food, we can understand Rashi’s comment. [which incidentally is based also on a statement in Sanhedrin 118. Ed.] A different approach to the questions raised by our verse: the Talmud quoted in the tractate Zevachim did not deal with mammals, but with birds, so that the question raised referred only to how Noach could know which birds would qualify as the ones of which he was to take seven pairs each into the ark. Seeing that there are an innumerable number of “impure” birds, and even the written Torah had not revealed how to know which was which, the question of how Noach could know what even the written Torah did not reveal to us in Moses’ time was most appropriate. The Talmud’s answer that this was revealed to Noach when he watched what happened when the birds tried to enter the ark is therefore very reasonable. Noach had to rely on Divine guidance. The Talmud did not refer to the same problem concerning pure mammals, as there are only a small number of such, and Noach was familiar with the mating habits of these mammals. This led Rashi to conclude that Noach had foreknowledge of what the Torah would decree at some time in the future. Seeing that due to the fact that these species would be allowed as food, the dangers that unless there were multiple pairs of them in the ark, they might die out, make it plausible that the Torah ordered him to take seven pairs of each. [Eating of meat had been completely forbidden prior to the deluge. Ed.] Even though certain other non pure mammals serve as food for the gentiles, such as pigs, etc, the fact that these give birth to multiple young made it unlikely that they would die out even if only a single pair of them would be taken into the ark.ft npn, “take for yourself;” seven males and seven females each, so as to diminish the chances that they would die out. If any of the animals that were not considered as worth eating would die out this was a minor concern, as man would not miss that species. Seeing that the word שבעה, masculine for seven, was repeated by the Torah, led Noach to believe that he was meant to sacrifice some of these after surviving the flood.
+שבעה שבעה איש ואשתו, “seven pairs each.” Seeing that among the mammals the males and the females of the animal kingdom are similar to that of human beings, the Torah describes the males and females as איש and אשתו. When speaking of the birds, which are not sexually recognisable by similar means, the Torah does not use this expression, but contents itself with writing: שבעה שבעה.
+
+Verse 3
+
+
+
+Verse 4
+
+ארבעים יום וארבעים לילה, “forty days and forty nights, consecutively.” The number of days, i.e. forty, corresponds to the number of lashes administered to people who have deliberately violated G-d’s negative commandments. (Deut. 25,3) Alternately, the number is reminiscent of the 40 days during which Moses received the Torah from G-d while he was on Mount Sinai.
+
+Verse 5
+
+
+
+Verse 6
+
+
+
+Verse 7
+
+מפני מי המבול, “on account of the waters of the deluge, and not on account of G-d’s command to enter the ark. [This is why the sages comment that even Noach was not a strong believer as he waited till necessity forced him to take refuge in the ark. Compare Rashi. Ed.]
+
+Verse 8
+
+ומן הבהמה אשר איננה טהורה, “and of the category of mammal that was not pure, etc.;” This “clumsy” way of describing “impure,” טמאה, by using eight extra letters merely to avoid having to use the expression: “impure,” caused the sages in the Talmud Pessachim 3, to teach us how concerned the Torah is that we use only dignified language even when describing repulsive phenomena. Actually, the Talmud could have derived this already from verse two in our chapter, i.e. אשר לא טהורה היא, but the Torah preferred to use this fine point when referring to beasts which basically are suitable as sacrifices on the altar, i.e. domesticated mammals, and free roaming mammals, although the latter do not qualify for the altar even though they may be allowed for us to eat. According to the Talmud, the word טהורה in verse 2 of our chapter would have had to be spelled with the letter ו, i.e. plene, which it is not in our texts.
+
+Verse 9
+
+
+
+Verse 10
+
+
+
+Verse 11
+
+
+
+Verse 12
+
+
+
+Verse 13
+
+
+
+Verse 14
+
+כל צפור כל כנף, “every bird, every wing.” According to Bereshit Rabbah 32,8, these apparently superfluous words are to tell us that every one of these birds some of which Noach would use as sacrifices later on, were complete, whole, i.e. did not have a single feather missing, as this would have disqualified them as potential sacrifices. None had damaged reproductive organs.
+
+Verse 15
+
+
+
+Verse 16
+
+ויסגור ה׳ בעדו, “the Lord closed the door from the outside on his behalf.” Noach had left the door open, as seeing he did not know every species of creature, he was afraid that by closing the door prematurely he might prevent a species from gaining entry to the ark and that it therefore would die out. After they had all come, the wind closed the door as a signal that they had arrived. We find another example of this in the Talmud Pessachim 64, where the doors to the Temple entrance are described as closing apparently on their own account on the eve of Passover to signify that otherwise there would be overcrowding.
+
+Verse 17
+
+ויהי המבול ארבעים יום, “the deluge lasted for 40 days;” how do we square this with verse 12 according to which the rain had continued for 40 days? We must assume that matters which had not been spelled out in the earlier verse have now been added, i.e. that after a period of 40 days of continuous rain and other manifestations of the deluge, the ark began to rise from its site. We find a similar construction in verse 19 where the waters are described as covering the mountains, after the Torah had first given details about the gradual inundation of high places on earth by the waters of the deluge. Had we only read verse 18 and the first half of verse 19, we would not have been able to imagine the extent of the flooding.
+
+Verse 18
+
+
+
+Verse 19
+
+
+
+Verse 20
+
+ויכוסו ההרים, “the mountains were covered (with water) hence what follows: ויגוע כל בשר “all flesh perished.” (verse 21) There was no place left to take refuge from the water.
+חמש עשרה אמה מלמעלה גברו המים וגו. This verse teaches us, using our intellect, that the ark could not have been submerged in the waters to an extent of more than six cubits. How do we arrive at this conclusion? The water level on earth has been described as at its highest level being 15 cubits above the top of the highest mountain. This level had been attained during the 7 days from the 17th day in Tishrey in which the ark ran aground on Mount Arrarat. By the first day in Tevet, the highest mountain tops became visible. It was then easy to determine the level at which the ark had been waterlogged prior to having run aground. The water leaves marks on the outside that can easily be distinguished. The inhabitants of the ark were therefore able to calculate that the speed at which the waters had been receding was one cubit for each 12 days. Having arrived at this calculation they had to count another 180 days from the 28th of Sivan the day on which the rains had ceased. They were therefore able to calculate that at its highest point the waters had been 15 cubits above the highest mountain. [There is a very minor discrepancy, a few centimeters when allowing for 2 days not included in the above count. Ed.]
+
+Verse 21
+
+וכל האדם, “as well as every human being.” The word: אדם when used in the Holy Scriptures always includes men women and children. If you were to ask why the human race was punished when it had not been given commandments by G-d that had to be observed, we must answer that there are a number of rules for behaviour of society that mankind can be expected to honour without the need to be specifically commanded to do so. If proof were needed for this statement we remind you of Kayin being punished for having killed his brother Hevel, although there is no record that he was ever warned by G-d not to kill another human being.
+
+Verse 22
+
+
+
+Verse 23
+
+
+
+Verse 24
+
+ויגברו המים על הארץ חמשים ומאת יום, “the waters kept rising above the earth for a period of 150 days.” The Torah reconstructs Noach’s calculations based on the waters not having started to recede until the ark had run aground on Mount Arrarat. In actual fact, however, the waters had commenced to recede already since the twenty eighth day in Sivan, as testified to by the Torah (8,23). [The line about the rain having disappeared from the skies, (verse 2) and the immediately following report about the receding of the waters is extremely puzzling when compared to 7,12. No wonder the commentators had difficulty with this. In order to remove apparent contradictions the two reports have to be understood as: 1) objective report by the Torah; 2) subjective report as seen by the inhabitants of the ark, [who were somewhat limited in their observations. Ed.] After the ark ran aground on the 17 day of Tishrey, on the first day of Tevet, the tops of the mountains became visible. Forty days after that, on the eleventh day of the month of Sh’vat, Noach opened the window of the ark and sent out the raven. Seven days thereafter as explained by Rashi, on the 18th of Sh’vat, he sent out the pigeon, i.e. on the 25th of that month. He waited another seven days until the second day of Adar and sent out the pigeon again, but this time the pigeon did not return. He remained inside the ark for another 28 days, until the first day of Nissan. This is what the Torah meant when it wrote: “It was on the first day of the 601st year on the first day of the month when Noach removed the cover from the ark and found that the waters on the surface of the earth had dried.” At the same time he noted that the earth’s surface was still muddy and not fit to be walked on. It took another 57 days until the 27th day of lyar before Noach saw that the earth was absolutely dry whereupon G-d commanded him to exit the ark. (verse 15).
+
+Chapter 8
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+ויזכור אלקים את נח, “G-d remembered Noach;” G-d remembered that for a full year Noach had fed the entire animal kingdom that was with him in the ark, playing “waiter” for them.
+וישכו המים, “the waters subsided.” The wording proves that the waters were almost boiling hot. [Subsiding, meaning that they had bubbled previously. Ed.] The expression שככ is used also for King Ahasverus’ angers subsiding in Esther 7,10. Compare Sanhedrin 108 on that verse.
+
+Verse 2
+
+ויסכרו מעינות תהום רבה, “The subterranean sluices of the earth were shut down;” Rashi points out that the absence here of the word: כל, “all,” i.e. all these sluices, is proof that some of these springs were left open for healing purposes so that man could enjoy them in the future. [Spas such as Marienbad, Karlsbad, Leukerbad, etc. Ed.] The hot springs of Tiberias are quoted by Rashi as an example. If you were to ask that according to the opinion quoted in the Midrash that the deluge did not affect the land of Israel, whence did the hot springs in Tiberias originate? 1) There are similar hot mineral springs all over the world, Tiberias just happens to be the only such in the Holy Land. 2) When the Torah first wrote about these springs having been opened at the time of the deluge, (7,11) when the Torah there spoke about “all the springs,” it clearly included the hot springs of Tiberias, although rain may not have fallen in the Holy Land during that period. When the springs closed, the ones in Tiberias were one of the several that remained open.
+ויסכרו מעיינות תהום, this is not really the logical place where we would have expected to find this verse. Rather, we would have expected it after 7,17, before continuing with that the waters continued to rise further. The reason it was inserted here is that the Torah wished to mention together all the causes that contributed to the termination of the deluge.
+
+Verse 3
+
+ויחסרו המים, “the waters diminished;” according to Rashi, this process began 150 days after the outbreak of the deluge, on the first day of the month of Sivan. Rashi arrives at this calculation from the Torah’s report that the deluge (rains) began on the 17th day of the second month (Cheshvan) the rains which lasted for 40 days having stopped falling on the 27th day of Kislev. It is reasonable to assume that according to Rashi’s calculation no rain fell on the 28th of Kislev, so that day was already one of the 150 days during which the water level on the earth kept rising without additional rainfall. On the other hand, when the Torah had written in verse 12 of chapter 7 that the rainfall persisted for 40 days, the impression given is that the twenty eighth day of Kislev was still a rainy day, as Rashi specifically states that the first day mentioned in the Torah did not count, as the rain had started during the daylight hours, i.e. long after the day had already commenced. The Torah describes the sky as breaking open during the daylight hours. According to this calculation the rains would only have stopped during the 28th of Kislev. We are forced therefore to understand Rashi’s words as follows: “the first day of rainfall mentioned is the Torah is not to be considered as a “day” in the same sense as all the other days, seeing that all the other “days” mentioned included the preceding night; this day did not include the preceding night.”When you follow this approach you can understand Rashi’s saying that the 17th of Cheshvan was the first day on which rain fell and continued falling for 40 days. There were 12 days left in that month, followed by 27 days in the month of Kislev, all of which included the preceding nights until daybreak on the 28th day of Kislev. This tallies with what the Torah wrote: “The rain (came down) onto the earth for 40 days and forty nights.” (7,12) When the Torah referred to 150 days, these days do not need to include the preceding nights, as the Torah itself states: “it was at the end of 150 days.”(8,3). In other words: from daybreak on the 28th of Kislev until nightfall on the first day of Sivan. If you wish to count the 150 days as whole days including the preceding nights, you would have to count from the morning of the 28th of Kislev until the morning until the morning of the first day of Sivan, giving you a total of 150 days and 150 nights. Even if you were to deduct the night of the 28th of Kislev according to Rashiג something irrelevant to the descent of rain for 40 days, the first of Sivan as the seventh month the first of Sivan, as stated in the Torah, would still be the beginning of the seventh month after the beginning of the deluge. [The significance of the number “seven” as a number signaling beneficial developments is most important in Judaism, Ed.] The reason why the manner in which the Torah reported these details is significant is because if we were to start the count of the deluge (40 days of rainfall) from Cheshvan, the ark would not have come to rest on Mount Arrarat on the seventeenth of the seventh month (Sivan) from the daylight period of the seventeenth, but on the eighteenth. Our author demonstrates how this would have contradicted other dates mentioned later in the account of the gradual abating of the waters. The most important date mentioned is that on which the ark came to rest on solid ground, the first day of the first month of the 601st year of Noach’s life, i.e. on New Year’s day according to the Jewish calendar. It signaled a new and more propitious beginning in the history of mankind. On that day the waters had dried from the surface of the earth. [as distinct from “dry” as opposed to “muddy.” Ed.]
+
+Verse 4
+
+.בחודש השביעי, “in the seventh month.” The “seventh” month mentioned here is the month of Sivan starting with Kislev, the month during which the rains had ceased. On the tenth of the first month (verse 5) the first mountain tops became visible to Noach. This was the month of Av in our calendar, which is the tenth month of the year starting with Cheshvan the month during which the rain started falling. This is how Rashi understands the text of the Torah. If you were to argue that the year of the deluge could have been a year which had 13 months, something easily computed, the whole calculation is erroneous. From the data in the Torah, 1656 years had elapsed since the creation of Adam. We observe a cycle of 19 years during which 7 years are leap years, i.e. years of 13 months. A calculation would reveal that the year of the deluge would have been the third leap year during such a cycle. The result would be that the month of Sivan would not be the seventh but the eighth month of that particular year. According to this calculation the deluge would have commenced instead of in the 1656th year, in the year following. A different interpretation of the data provided by the Torah: The calculation of the year of the deluge is based on the year of tohu, the period preceding the creation of Adam. If so the year of the deluge was not a leap year. A third possible approach to the data provided by the Torah on the timing of the deluge: the year of the deluge was not included in calendar calculations of world history, according to Rabbi Yochanan in Bereshit Rabbah 33,3, as the planets in heaven did not describe their regular orbits during that period. Rabbi Yonathan responded to that statement by Rabbi Yochanan, that while the planets did not perform their function during that year, this does not mean that the year is to be considered as not having occurred.
+ותנח התבה בחדש השביעי בשבעה עשר יום, “the ark came to rest on the seventeenth day of the seventh month.” According to Rashi, we learn from this verse that the ark was deep in the water to a depth of 11 cubits. If you were to counter that the Torah reported that the tops of the mountains had become visible on the first day of Av, and that by the first day of Tishrey nature had resumed to function as usual, as we know from verse 13, this would suggest that during the preceding 60 days the water level had dropped precipitously, and there are certainly many mountains that are higher than 15 cubits, so that the water level must have receded by a whole cubit every four days, how could the ark still have been in eleven cubits of water?We would have to answer that the (air surrounding mountains is measured by different yardsticks than the earth upon which they rise, so that all of the mountains and the waters surrounding them receded totally during those 60 days. The waters in the airspace above the level of the mountains receded at a different rate of speed. Once the waters had dropped below the mountainous regions, they retreated at the rate of one cubit per day. The proof that this interpretation is true is the fact that we do not encounter the expression חסרון, diminution, reduction, when the Torah speaks of the mountain tops having become visible again. This teaches that a minor abatement of the waters was not deemed worthy of comment. Rashi also comments: “if you were to interpret the word שביעי, “seventh month,” as referring to the month of Sivan, as referring to the period during which the waters abated, how could you understand the line: “the ark came to rest in the seventh month of the cumulative abatement of the waters as occurring on the seventeenth of the month?” At that time the waters had not yet even stopped increasing in their inundation of the surface of the earth? We had already proved that the waters inundated progressively more parts of the earth commencing with the cessation of the rain for 150 days! This day only concluded on the first day of Sivan! This was the day when the deluge reached its crest! Every day thereafter was part of the recovery from the deluge. According to Rashi, the relevant dates of the story of the deluge are as follows: “in the second month of the year. i.e. the month of Cheshvan, which according to the Talmud in Rosh Hashanah 12 is the second month of the year, the deluge commenced. According to the compilation of a well known historical text relied upon by our sages, known as seder olam, the sages accepted the view of Rabbi Eliezer concerning the Torah report of the deluge, whereas they accepted the view expressed by Rabbi Joshua, concerning the calculations of the seasons of the year. According to this view both the rains and the opening of subterranean wells commenced on the 17th day of the month of Cheshvan, on the morning of that day. Both events continued until the morning of the 28th day of Kislev. At that point both rain and waters from subterranean parts of the globe ceased, but the inundation was felt as increasing until the ark‘s bottom was 15 cubits above the top of the highest mountain. As a result the ark kept on moving. The process of waters rising continued from the morning of the 28th of Kislev until sundown on the first day of Sivan. This was followed immediately by the verse: ויזכור אלוקים את נח, that G-d remembered Noach, etc. (8,1) revealing that as from that day on the waters receded at the end of 150 days. (verse 3) The ark running aground occurred 7 days later on the 17th day of the seventh month, i.e. the 17th of Sivan.(verse 3). It was the seventh month after the rains had commenced to fall. The waters kept receding after the rains had ceased (verse 5) from the first of Sivan until the month of Av, the tenth month after the rains had commenced descending on the earth. On the first day of the tenth month the tops of the highest mountains became visible. 40 days later on the tenth day of Ellul, Noach opened the window of the ark and sent out the raven. The raven not having returned, Noach sent out the pigeon after having waited for seven days. (according to Rashi). The pigeon returned to the ark not having found a foothold outside of it. Noach waited another seven days before sending out the pigeon again. This time the pigeon returned on the evening of the same day carrying part of an olive leaf in its beak. Some commentators believe that this leaf came from Mount Olives in the land of Israel. (Rabbi Levi in Bereshit Rabbah 33,6 according to the view that the rains did not flood the soil of the Land of Israel) The Scriptural basis for this view is found in Ezekiel 22,24: לא גושמה ביום זעם, “which was not rained upon on the day of anger.” Noach then waited for another seven days before dispatching a pigeon a third time. That time the pigeon did not return to the ark. Immediately after this, the Torah reports, (8,13) that the waters on earth had dried as of the first day of the month of Tishrey in the 601st year of Noach’s life. Finally, on the 27th day of Cheshvan, (57 days later) the soil was dry enough for man and beast to walk on without sinking into mud. Some commentators wonder what forced Rashi to state that the words: “it was at the end of forty days,” in 8,6 refer to 40 days after the tops of the mountains had become visible. If correct, why would the pigeon not have found a foothold on earth then? After all, 47 days had elapsed since that time before Noach sent out the pigeon. Some commentators dismiss this argument saying that since no actual land surfaces were visible, the pigeon did not find a suitable place to rest. We may assume that Rashi accepted the report of the Torah as following events chronologically so that the date on which the pigeon finally decided to remain outside the ark was on the first of Tishrey when the surface of the earth appeared dry, [capable of supporting the weight of a little bird. Ed.] Some commentators begin the count of 150 days from the first day the rains had commenced, i.e. from the 17th day of Cheshvan. Those days accordingly would include the 40 days of incessant rainfall. They consider the seventh month, Iyar as already a month during which the waters receded, just as we consider the tenth month as the month during which the waters receded. Their interpretation of the Torah’s report, commencing with 8,18: “the waters grew more powerful,” is thus: starting with the 17th of Cheshvan the water level on earth kept rising for a continuous 150 days culminating on the 20th day of Nissan. On that day the tide was turned and the waters began to recede. The ark came to rest on Mount Arrarat in the month of Iyar, i.e. the seventh month during which the waters were receding, on the 17th of that month. The waters continued to recede until the tenth month continuously, and during the tenth month of their retreat on the on the first of that month the tops of the tallest mountains became visible. The 15 cubits of water which had covered the tallest mountains for 95 days, between the 20th of Nissan until the 1st day of Av, had retreated at the rate of 1 cubit every 6 and a half days between the 20th of Nissan and the 16th day of Iyar, whereas the 11 cubits of the ark which were beneath the water level, retreated during the 7 days between the 17th of Iyar and the 1st day of Av, at the rate of one cubit every 6 and a half days. Some commentators explain the conclusion of this section in accordance with what we have learned in Seder Olam, which addresses the meaning of the paragraph commencing with: “it was at the end of 40 days (8,6)” as referring to 40 days which commenced with the first day in Sivan and concluded on the 10th day of Tammuz. According to that calculation, Noach immediately opened the window of the ark on that day and dispatched the raven. He then waited for seven days before dispatching the pigeon. He waited another seven days before dispatching the pigeon again. The reason why the pigeon on that occasion did not return was that it had found room on a top of a mountain that had been revealed in the meantime. The day under discussion was the first day of the month of Av, as already mentioned, seeing that the Torah had written that the tops of the mountains became visible on the first of the tenth month (8,5). Av is the tenth month of the year if the month during which the deluge started is considered as the “first month.” According to this method of counting, any part of a month is considered as if it were a full month. On the other hand, the month of Elul is never considered as the tenth month following Kislev during which the rains ceased, for if so, why when Noach dispatched a bird a third time would the pigeon not have returned to the ark seeing that according the calculation the tops of the mountains had not yet reappeared until the first of the month of Elul?Do not query the verse commencing with the words: והמים הלוך וחסור, “and the waters continued to diminish,” (8,5) by asking by what yardstick Noach decided on when to dispatch another bird, this is no problem for once the process of waters receding had commenced until the ark had come to rest on Mount Arrarat, Noach could confidently expect that with the passage of another week the chances of land appearing had increased. Between the first day of Av and the until the first day of Tishrey all the waters remaining from the deluge had been absorbed by the earth, and by the 27th of the month of Cheshvan the earth had become dry enough to walk on and to build on.
+
+Verse 5
+
+
+
+Verse 6
+
+
+
+Verse 7
+
+וישלח את העורב, “he dispatched the raven;” the reason Noach chose one of the impure birds for this mission, [although he could have chosen a pigeon of which he had seven pairs, Ed.] was that since that bird feeds on carcasses, the chances that it would find something to eat were far greater than if he had sent a pigeon which is more circumspect in what it chooses as its food. Do not question how Noach could have dispatched any creature from the ark seeing that at that time it was totally dark outside? While it is true that there was no sunshine or moonlight, and the light of the stars is insufficient to know thereby whether it is day or night, there was some light, as we know from when the Torah wrote in verse 5 that the mountain tops had become visible at the beginning of the tenth month. Furthermore, there is an opinion cited in Bereshit Rabbah 33,5, according to which light of sun and moon was usable, but was not usable by Noach for astronomical calculations. Unless this was so, how would Noach have been able to tell day from night?
+ויצא יצוא ושוב, “it kept going back and forth;” Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish in Sanhedrin 108 claims that the raven accused Noach with an ironclad argument of hating it, else he would have used a bird of which there were seven species rather than endanger the species of the raven of which he had only a single pair. As a result, the raven did not fly far away from the ark to ensure it would find its way back, and could protect its mate if need be.
+
+Verse 8
+
+וישלח, “he sent it off on a one way trip;” the dot in the letter ל is the proof that this is the correct interpretation. When someone is dispatched in order to report back, that letter never appears with such a dot.
+
+Verse 9
+
+
+
+Verse 10
+
+
+
+Verse 11
+
+וידע נח כי קלו המים, “then Noach knew that the waters had subsided substantially. The fact that the pigeon stayed out all day long convinced Noach that there was what to look at other than mere water. According to the view that the deluge did not affect the land of Israel (Zevachim 113) how could Noach have known from the torn olive leaf that the waters had indeed subsided so much? He could have deduced that this leaf had originated in the Holy Land, or it had been picked up floating on the surface of the waters? The word חטף used by the Torah here, always is used in connection with something that has been plucked from a tree. If it had been picked up floating, it would have been a whole leaf, and would not have shown signs of having been picked from its branch. The translation by Yonathan ben Uzziel is further proof of this. He translates: נחית, i.e. plucked by mouth or beak. [The Hebrew equivalent of when Yaakov mourned his son Joseph as having been torn to shreds by a wild beast, טרף טרף יוסף, Genesis 37,33.]
+
+Verse 12
+
+
+
+Verse 13
+
+ויהי באחת ושש מאות שנה בראשון באחד לחודש. It was inthe 601st year (of Noach’s life) on the first day of the first month; even a single day of a new year is referred to as the year just commencing.” (Compare Talmud Rosh Hashanah 10) A different explanation of the significance of this statement: in the 600th year of Noach’s life in the month of Iyar on the 17th of the month the deluge had commenced, and the rain lasted for 40 days and 40 nights, so that the rains ceased by the 28th day of Sivan. According to this interpretation the first month of the year is the month of Nissan. All the other months follow the same patterns according to the solar calendar. Each month is considered as having thirty days.
+
+Verse 14
+
+
+
+Verse 15
+
+וידבר אלוקים אל נח לאמור, “G-d spoke to Noach for him to tell the members of his family;” this apparently repetitive statement is customary in the Torah; compare Exodus 6,10, or even more definitively, Leviticus 11,1;
+
+Verse 16
+
+צא מן התיבה אתה ואשתך, “leave the ark, you and your wife, etc;” when you check the text you will find that Noach did not follow G-d’s instructions precisely, as in verse 18 the Torah reports that Noach did not leave the ark at the same time as his wife, but he left in the company of his sons. According to an argument between Rabbi Nechemyah and Rabbi Yehudah, according to one Noach was punished for not taking advantage of living with his wife again immediately and siring more children by being debased and castrated in his wife’s tent. (Bereshit Rabbah 35,1) The other Rabbi disagrees, claiming that he was rewarded, seeing that he proved more chaste than even commanded, by not immediately indulging in sex with his wife so that G-d spoke to both him and his children in 9,1.
+
+Verse 17
+
+הוצא אתך, this word is to be read as if it had been spelled: “היצא!” “Take out!”
+
+Verse 18
+
+ויצא נח ובניו, “Noach and his sons left the ark, etc.” Some commentators claim that although marital relations between the sexes had been permitted again, the manner in which the Torah writes the males exiting from the ark as if in a group is revealing. On the other hand, the Talmud in Sanhedrin 108 states that there were three creatures which violated the prohibition of sexual relations during their stay in the ark: the dog, the raven and Noach’s son Cham. All of them were punished for their misconduct. The dog is tied by a chain or leash to its owner. The raven is forced to spit after indulging in mating, and Cham’s skin, or that of his offspring, turned black.
+
+Verse 19
+
+
+
+Verse 20
+
+ויעל עולות, “he offered burnt offerings.” He acted similar to the sailors in the story of Jonah, who after having been saved from a great storm and returned to dry land, immediately offered offerings to G-d for their deliverance. (Jonah 2,16). We learn from here that anyone who has been miraculously saved from dangers beyond his control is expected to offer tangible thanksgiving offerings.
+במזבח, “on the altar.” This is a reference to the altar on which Kayin and Hevel had presented their respective offerings.
+
+Verse 21
+
+ויאמר ה' אל לבו, “the Lord said to Himself, etc.,” Prior to the deluge (Genesis 6,6) the Lord had seen fit to feel saddened in His heart; now He felt greatly encouraged about the human species He had created.[Noach could have drawn comparisons between the chaos he faced in spite of having lived a blameless life for 600 years, with the Gan Eden into which Adam had been placed without his having done anything to merit this. Instead, he was grateful. Ed.] לא אוסיף, “I will not continue, etc;” according to the plain meaning of the text, i.e. the additional, apparently superfluous word: עוד, again, further, the first word refers to the earth, whereas the second word refers to the living creatures on it. If we needed proof of this, it can be found in Genesis 9,12).
+כי יצר לב האדם רע מנעוריו, “because the tendencies of man’s heart are evil from his youth already.” Man’s immaturity in his younger years is the reason for these evil inclinations. G-d therefore had decided not to visit punishments on man promptly as a result this consideration as He used to do.
+
+Verse 22
+
+עוד כל ימי הארץ, “as long as earth exists, etc;” our author understands these words as parallel to Isaiah 51,6: כי שמים כעשן נמלחו והארץ כבגד תבלה, “for the heavens should melt way like smoke and the earth wear out like a garment.” In other words, the covenant now concluded with mankind is not eternal, but subject to the same conditions as the duration of the material universe as we know it.
+Rashi understands the whole verse as describing the seasons of the year which will repeat regularly, [limited, of course to our northern hemisphere. Ed.] two months for each season, but they do not coincide with the beginning of the lunar months but run from the middle of the month approximately. This subject is dwelt on in Baba Metzia, 106. If you were to counter that in the Talmud Baba Metzia the Talmud does not appear to match what is written here, as the year is described as the seasons being described as contrasting each other, i.e. cold season versus hot season, etc; it is possible that the version of Rashi that we have is faulty.
+
+Chapter 9
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+
+
+Verse 2
+
+
+
+Verse 3
+
+כירק עשב, “as if it were green grass.” Such grass had been permitted for man to eat ever since his creation. Just as some grass had never been fit to eat,though not forbidden,so some living creatures as well as fish and fowl would be permitted as food, whereas others would not because they are not suitable as such.
+נתתי לכם את כל, “I have allocated it all to you in a similar manner.” The reason why G-d permitted eating living creatures after they had been killed, was that all of them had to thank man for having kept them from perishing during the deluge. As a result, all the animals were now totally at the mercy of man.
+
+Verse 4
+
+אך בשר בנפשו דמו לא תאכלו, “you must not however eat meat with its lifeblood in it.” According to Rashi, this is the prohibition of eating any part of an animal as long as the animal itself is still alive. Seeing that the Torah now permitted man to eat all manner of moving creatures, the Torah now had to forbid eating parts of animals such as ribs, which had been cut off the living animal. Seeing that Adam had never been permitted to even eat a carcass, he had not been forbidden eating live tissue.
+
+Verse 5
+
+ואך את דמכם, “yet your (human) blood”, etc; this is a warning to any animal not to kill any human being, as G-d would hold it responsible for harming humans. Rashi explains the verse as follows: the peculiar wording is to include killing, including suicide that does not involve the actual shedding of blood, such as by strangulation.
+לנפשותיכם, according to Rashi, this refers to people who strangulate themselves. The passage is intended as an answer to people who deny that G-d operates vis a vis man through a system of reward and punishment, i.e. reward after the body has died and punishment after the body has died, and who therefore see in suicide a way of avoiding being held responsible for their actions on earth. Clearly a system of reward and punishment, unless it included posthumous reward and punishment, would be meaningless, and would not act as deterrent not to sin. In Bereshit Rabbah, 34,13 the word אך in our verse is understood as including the mortally wounded King Shaul who completed dying by falling intentionally on his own sword to escape being killed by the Philistines whom he did not want to be able to claim that they had killed G-d’s anointed king. Others believe that it applies to Chananyah, Mishael and Azaryah, who had consulted with the prophet Ezekiel before submitting to being thrown to the lions by Nevuchadnezar. Some authorities do not agree that they were permitted to do so.
+מיד כל חיה אדרשנו, “I will demand an accounting from every living creature for having shed it.” This is meant to prevent man from using animals to kill his foes, claiming that he had not killed anyone. A different interpretation of this phrase: “I, G-d, will demand an accounting directly from the animal concerned. Compare Exodus 21,29 where not only the owner of the ox who gored is to be stoned but also the ox itself.
+מיד איש אחיו, “of every man of that of his fellow man;” man must not conclude that seeing that all the beasts have become permitted as food (after death of the animal) so human carcasses have also been permitted to him as food.
+אדרוש, “I will demand an accounting even of anyone killing himself, or who kills a fellow human being in the absence of witnesses who could bring him to justice before a human tribunal.” Open murder must, of course, be dealt with by human tribunals.
+
+Verse 6
+
+באדם דמו ישפך, “his blood will be spilled by a fellow human being.” Here the Torah revealed the penalty for murder. Where had it issued the warning not to commit murder? This is found in Exodus 20,13: לא תרצח, “do not commit murder!”
+כי בצלם אלוקים, the meaning of the word: elohim here is the same as the meaning of that word in Exodus 22,27, where it means that one must not curse a judge.
+עשה את האדם, He appointed man on earth to be judge so that fellow man would be deterred from committing sins and crimes.
+
+Verse 7
+
+ואתם פרו ורבו, “as for you, be fruitful and multiply!” I G-d, do not wish that you diminish in numbers but that you increase in numbers. An alternate interpretation: if you follow My instructions to deal sternly with murderers, I will in turn insure that you will increase in numbers, [although you might have to execute the odd murderer in your midst. Ed.] A third possible interpretation: This blessing appears here twice, once (verse 1) for the human race and once for the animal kingdom.
+
+Verse 8
+
+
+
+Verse 9
+
+ואני הנני, “and as far as I am concerned, etc;” according to Rashi, this is G-d’s way of saying that He agreed with Noach who had not wanted to resume normal marital relations until specifically encouraged by G-d to do so. He waited for G-d’s promise not ever again to bring on the kind of destruction of the human race that he had just been a witness to.
+
+Verse 10
+
+
+
+Verse 11
+
+והקימותי את בריתי, “I shall maintain My covenant as applicable, etc.” The reason why G-d’s promise not to bring on another deluge is repeated in the same verse, is to underline that even if the human race would again be guilty of similar conduct to that which had brought about the deluge, this covenant would not be considered by G-d as null and void.
+
+Verse 12
+
+
+
+Verse 13
+
+את קשתי, My rainbow, etc;” the rainbow is considered as a very significant visible sign directly from the celestial regions. If we needed proof for this, the reader isreferred to Ezekiel 1,28: 'כן מראה דמות כבוד ה.........כמראה הקשת,“just as the appearance of the rainbow.....so is theappearance of the semblance of the glory of Hashem.”If it were My intention to destroy you when the rains intensified in quality and quantity, I would not first show you a semblance of My glory, just as it is not the custom of a mortal king to show himself amongst his subjects when he is angry at them. A different approach to this subject of the rainbow: just as the rainbow does not change its consistency although it reflects both water and fire and provides a greater variety of light than any other phenomenon at the same time, and water and fire do not act as mutually destructive as they do in nature normally, so its very appearance is a reassurance that rain will never again be the precursor to the destruction of the human race. A third interpretation: normally a hunter when aiming the bow (and arrow) aims it inclined upwards, or at least horizontally; the fact that this bow is inclined downwards is proof that it is not the bow used by an antagonist bent on destroying his foe. [For a further study on the significance of the rainbow, and the changes it reflects in cosmic conditions after the deluge, the reader is referred to the commentary byRabbi Elie Munk, in his “The call of the Torah,” Feldheim Publishing. Ed.]
+
+Verse 14
+
+ונראתה הקשת, “when the rainbow becomes visible;” the fact that the bow appears without arrows appearing at the same time, is to serve as reassurance to the beholder.
+
+Verse 15
+
+
+
+Verse 16
+
+
+
+Verse 17
+
+
+
+Verse 18
+
+וחם הוא אבי כנען “and Cham is the one who is Canaan’s father.” He is singled out for mention as he was conceived while his parents were still in the ark. He was born immediately after his parents left the ark.
+
+Verse 19
+
+
+
+Verse 20
+
+איש האדמה, a man to whom (and to his children) the earth had been given after the deluge, after the curse that had rested upon it had been removed.
+ויטע כרם, “he planted a vineyard.” According to Rashi, Noach had taken branches of the fig tree and the grapevine with him into the ark. (based on Bereshit Rabbah 36,3) These plants are especially sensitive to water and need protecting more than other trees. Alternate interpretation: both of these seeds need especial attention in order to be planted successfully.
+
+Verse 21
+
+, ויתגל בתוך אהלה, “he had disrobed inside his tent.” According to Rashi, basing himself on a Midrash, (Tanchuma, edition Buber) the correct interpretation, seeing that the last letter in the word אהלה is the letter ה instead of ו this is a hint of the exile of the Tent Tribes, who, according to some prophets, were guilty of too much wine drinking. (Amos 6,1)
+
+Verse 22
+
+ויגד לשני אחיו, “he told his two brothers of this.” Since the Torah did not use the word: ויאמר, for Cham telling his brothers, but ויגד, “he elaborated on this,” it is clear that he emphasised that his father had embarrassed himself. According to Rabbi Yaakov bar Zivdi in Bereshit Rabbah 36,5 the reason why a Canaanite slave is released immediately when his owner has ruined a tooth of his or an eye of his (Exodus 21,26), is because the eye is used to see things that should not be seen, and the tooth (mouth) is used to tell what should not be told. [Once the limb of a Canaanite’s slave whose forefather had abused it has been ruined, that curse has been removed from him . Ed]
+
+Verse 23
+
+ויקח שם ויפת, “Shem and Yephet took the bedcloth, etc;“ according to Rashi, Shem’s initiative in this instance resulted in the Jewish people, a nation descended from him, being rewarded with the commandment to wear fringes, ציציות on four cornered garments. (Numbers 15,37) According to the statement in the Talmud Sotah 17, the origin of that commandment had been when Avraham refused to accept as much as a thread or shoelace from the loot of the war against Kedorloomer, (Genesis 15,23) this refers to the specific kind of “threads” used in the tzitzit.
+
+Verse 24
+
+אשר עשה לו בנו הקטן , “what his youngest son had done for him;” a reference to the kind deed done by Shem and his brother Yephet. This is why he gave Shem a greater blessing than the one he gave to Yephet his older brother. [a totally different interpretation from the commonly accepted one, including Rashi. Ed.]
+
+Verse 25
+
+ויאמר ארור כנען, He said: “cursed be Canaan, etc.” Concerning Canaan, the prophet Yoel said (Yoel, 4,8) “and they will sell them to the people of Sh’va, to a far distant nation.” The slaves will in turn sell the Canaanites to an even more degrading status.
+ארור כנען, Cham sinned and his son Canaan was punished. Why? Seeing that G-d had already blessed Noach and all of his sons, Noach’s cursing Cham would have been totally ineffective. [Compare what G-d said to Bileam when He told him that seeing that the Jewish people had already been blessed by Him, he, Bileam, could not undo this by cursing them. (Numbers 22,12) Ed.] Some commentators say that actually Cham had not done anything; he had only viewed the exposed body of his father, and had failed to cover him as did his brothers subsequently. However, he had told others about it without intending to cover his father. Had he intended to cover his father, why did he tell his brothers about what he had seen without at least first having covered his father’s shame? This is why Noach cursed him when he found out. These commentators cite the line: “what his younger son had done to him,” as proof for their interpretation. (Since the son’s name had already been mentioned at the beginning of the paragraph, there was no need to repeat it.) The word: הקטן does not refer to the youngest son of Noach seeing that Cham was not Noach’s youngest son, the eldest being Yephet and the youngest being Shem, as already pointed out earlier. Noach blessed the two sons who had treated him as was proper, whereas he remained silent concerning Cham. Canaan who had shamed him, he cursed.
+ארור כנען, “cursed be Canaan,” he cursed him by referring to his name, meaning that his very name which indicated something negative, suppressed, downtrodden, should become his curse. He would become subservient to his brothers. Whenever a servant does not carry out the wishes of his master he attracts a curse to himself.
+עבד עבדים יהיה, “he will become a slave to slaves.” His fate will not be determined by warfare, but when the Jewish people would conquer the land of Canaan, they would be instructed not to let any Canaanite survive on that land. (Deuteronomy 20,16)
+
+Verse 26
+
+ברוך ה' אלוקי שם, “Blessed be the Lord, G-d of Shem;” Noach blessed his G-d Who had also proven to be the G-d of his son Shem who served no other deity; being a servant of the Lord is being truly free, as opposed to Canaan, who was cursed to be truly subservient even to slaves.
+ויהי כנען עבד למו, “whereas Canaan will be a slave to them.” He will be a slave both to Shem and to His G-d. He will be a slave to the Lord by having to carry water and kindling for the altar when the descendants of Shem would offer sacrifices to their Lord. [This is a reference to the Gibeonites, a Canaanite tribe who had duped Joshua into accepting them as converts. (Joshua chapter 9) Ed.]
+
+Verse 27
+
+יפת, “May He expand;” Noach did not use the name of the Lord additionally when blessing Yephet as he had done in connection with Shem’s blessing, as the latter was a righteous person.
+
+Verse 28
+
+
+
+Verse 29
+
+ויהי כל ימי נח תשע מאות שנה וחמישים שנה וימת, “When Noach had reached the age of 950 years, he died.” You might ask that seeing we already know that Noach lived to become 950 years old, as the Torah had told us this in 7,11 and in the verse immediately preceding this one, so why did the Torah have to write this verse? The fact is that we might have added 7,11 and 9,28, and have arrived at the erroneous conclusion that Noach had lived 951 years. The Torah wished to inform us that the year in the ark was not considered as one of the years that Noach had “lived;” The author had already referred to that fact in chapter 9, verse 4.
+
+Chapter 10
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+
+
+Verse 2
+
+ובני גומר וגו, “and the descendants of Gomer, etc;” the reason why the Torah does not mention by name the sons of Magog, Modai, Tuval Kayin, etc., is because none of them became founders of nations, so that only a single one of them became a founder of a nation. The same pattern is applied by the Torah when describing the offspring of Put son of Cham.
+
+Verse 3
+
+
+
+Verse 4
+
+כתים ודודנים; elsewhere the דדנים are called רודנים. (Compare Chronicles I 1,7) This is to teach us that at times in history when the fortunes of the Jewish people as r ascending, these people treat us a “cousins,” in order to benefit from this biological relationship. When the fortunes of the Jewish people’s fortunes are on the decline, these “cousins,” are the first to join those who persecute us.
+
+Verse 5
+
+
+
+Verse 6
+
+
+
+Verse 7
+
+
+
+Verse 8
+
+וכוש ילד את נמרוד, “and Cush sired Nimrod.” The reason why Nimrod has not been enumerated together with his other brothers is to draw attention to his accomplishments.
+,הוא החל להיות גבור “he began to be outstanding amongst the people who had survived the deluge."
+
+Verse 9
+
+גבור ציד לפני ה, “a great hunter before the Lord, i.e. throughout the earth. “ We find a similar use of the expression when in the Book of Jonah (Jonah 3,3) the city of Nineveh is described as עיר גדולה לאלוקים, “a great city before G-d,” where the expression means that on the whole globe there was no city comparable in size of population. A different interpretation of the expression: 'לפני ה“as predicted in the name of the Lord.” Compare: Joshua 6,26 where Joshua predicts that anyone who would dare to rebuild the city of Jericho would pay the price in the eyes of G-d by losing his oldest son when commencing that enterprise, and that he would wind up by losing his last son by the time he would affix the gates to the city wall. His prediction came true in the time of the prophet Elijah when a man by the name of Chiel son of Eli, did exactly this, and wound up by losing all his sons in that order. (Kings I 16,34.) The Torah tells us that G-d decreed that a person of the type of Nimrod had to arise in order for Avraham to demonstrate that one could prevail even against such mighty warriors who defied the Lord.
+על כן יאמר כנמרוד, “this is why people would use Nimrod as an example, saying: ‘just like Nimrod, a mighty hunter by the grace of the Lord.’” According to tradition no ferocious beast ever escaped alive in an encounter with Nimrod. He was aided by G-d in attaining such a reputation so that G-d could demonstrate in due course that such apparently invincible warriors could not prevail against Him.
+
+Verse 10
+
+ותהי ראשית ממלכתו וגו, “at the beginning his kingdom extended only to Babylonia and Accadia, extending eventually throughout the whole region of Shinor. Eventually he even conquered the region of Ashur. (northeast) Ashur had emigrated as he could not stand Nimrod’s antiG-d attitude.
+
+Verse 11
+
+אשור, as if the Torah had written: לאשור, “to Ashur.” [According to this interpretation Ashur here was not the name of a person but of the city he had founded. Ed.]
+
+Verse 12
+
+ואת רסן בין נינוה , “and the great city of Nineveh situated between Ressen and Kolach”. He linked all three cities into one great metropolis. This is the reason why subsequently we find Nineveh referred to as: “the great city.”A different interpretation of the phrase: “and from this land Ashur emigrated.” The word Ashur is the name of a man, as suggested by Rashi, who described Ashur as being disgusted with his own children acclaiming Nimrod as deity, so much so that he decided to move far north east. In a Midrash, the source of which our author does not quote, the question is raised why G-d appointed a special prophet to warn the city of Nineveh of impending destruction if its people did not mend its ways. The answer given is that that this was in recognition of the courageous conduct of its founder Ashur, who had dissociated himself from Nimrod’s pantheistic kingdom. That Midrash cites our verse as the source for G-d’s special consideration for Nineveh’s people. The Midrash interprets the words: מן הארץ ההיא יצא אשור, as if the Torah had written: ‘the plan that prompted Ashur to move far away from the domain of Ni rod, eventually paid dividends by the inhabitants of their capital being given 40 days during which to reform heir lifestyle.” In Psalms 83,9, we are told that eventually also the Kingdom of Ashur turned anti Israel, as when they conquered the territories of the northern kingdom of the ten tribes and exiled its inhabitants in 722 B. C and that is why the Babylonians not long afterwards conquered the Kingdom of Ashur that had been predominant in that region. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish explains that the error made by the people of Ashur was that they thought the family of Put (verse 7) had become extinct, until we find in the Book of Ezekiel 30,5 that “both Put, Lud, and a mixed multitude of non pure ancestry,” is mentioned by the prophet as among the nations falling victim to conquerors together with the Egyptians whom they had supported. The reason that these details have not been spelled out in the Torah is that if you enumerate all these tribes we would think that there had been more than the 70 nations of which the Torah speaks after the fall of the Tower.
+
+Verse 13
+
+
+
+Verse 14
+
+
+
+Verse 15
+
+וכנען ילד את צידון, “Canaan sired Tzidon;” Canaan sired a total of 11 sons. After having listed all their names, the Torah continues with describing how they dispersed over different regions, and that one of them split into two nations, thus making a total of 12 Canaanite tribes. This is comparable in Jewish history to the tribe of Joseph being made up of Menashe and Ephrayim, who on most occasions appear independently whenever the tribe of Levi is not included in the count of the Jewish tribes. Moses refers only to seven Canaanite tribes; the six which were historically significant he names separately, attributing their genealogy to their founding father Canaan. The reason why they deserved this honorable mention is that when the brotherstook their father Yaakov to be buried in the cave of Machpelah, these Canaanite kings all paid honour to Yaakov the descendant of Avraham. (Genesis 50,11)
+
+Verse 16
+
+
+
+Verse 17
+
+
+
+Verse 18
+
+
+
+Verse 19
+
+ויהי גבול הכנעני וגו, “and the boundaries of the territory ruled over by the Canaanite were, etc.” The details by the Torah provided here are exceptional, and are listed only because in the future the Israelites would inherit the lands owned by the Canaanites.
+
+Verse 20
+
+
+
+Verse 21
+
+ולשם יולד וגו, “and for Shem were born, etc.” In these verses (221) the three sons are listed in the order of their ages. As to the reference to Yephet as the הגדול, “the big one,” this adjective was used here to ensure that we realise that he was the oldest. If his other brothers were sometimes mentioned ahead of Yephet, this was only in order to underline an important act performed by the one concerned.
+
+Verse 22
+
+
+
+Verse 23
+
+
+
+Verse 24
+
+
+
+Verse 25
+
+פלג, כי בימיו נפלגה הארץ, “Peleg,” so called as during his lifetime the population of the earth was split up. According to Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel, Bereshit Rabbah 37,7, states that former generations who had been endowed with holy spirit were able to name their children in a manner that reflected important acts that they would perform in the future, whereas we who have not been enabled to “make use of holy spirit” and who did not know i.e. we did not witness the deeds which made our forefathers famous, (as the lifespan had been so drastically curtailed) must name our children after our ancestors in order to keep alive at least some knowledge of their importance during their lifetime. [This is how this editor understands the commentary by maharzu on this passage of the Midrash. Ed.]
+נפלגה הארץ, literally: “the earth was divided;” a reference to people’s lifespans having been halved. Careful analysis of the text will show that up until the birth of Peleg, people appear to have lived for 400 years, whereas starting with him they did not live to be much more than 200 year old.
+
+Verse 26
+
+
+
+Verse 27
+
+
+
+Verse 28
+
+
+
+Verse 29
+
+
+
+Verse 30
+
+
+
+Verse 31
+
+
+
+Verse 32
+
+אלה משפחות בני נח, “these are the families of Noach’s sons;” in this paragraph we find 70 descendants; 14 descendants of Yephet; 30 of Cham, and 26 of Shem. These are the founding fathers of the famous “70 nations” of the earth. All the nations that stem from them bear the names of these founding fathers. For instance: We read already in Genesis 4,17 when the first city was built by Kayin for his son, that he named the city after his son. Compare Psalms: 49,12 בשמותם עלי אדמות, “after the names of those who had been famous on earth.”
+
+Chapter 11
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+
+
+Verse 2
+
+
+
+Verse 3
+
+לאבן, “as stone.” The letter ל is vocalised with a semi vowel, sh’va, not with a kametz.
+והחמר היה להם לחומר, “and the bitumen served them as mortar.” They mixed it with pitch in order to make it waterproof. The pitch here is called chemor.
+
+Verse 4
+
+וראשו בשמים, “with its top in the sky.” This is obviously an exaggeration, a figure of speech. The Torah uses such exaggerations when describing Canaanite cities as “fortified into the sky,” (Deuteronomy 1,28) We must not forget that the term: שמים, sometimes refers to spiritual concepts, as in “celestial spheres, whereas on other occasions it refers to the horizon, or outer space. Birds are sometimes described as flying, בשמים, obviously not “in the heavens,” but “in the air.”
+ונעשה לנו שם, “and let us make a name for ourselves.” They referred to establishing a reputation of grandeur vis a vis any other creatures. [I do not understand with which other creatures they wanted to compete, as man was the supreme creature on earth. Ed.]
+פן נפוץ, “lest we scatter.” They were afraid that war might break out among them, assuming there were competing nations or human beings in distant areas unknown to them. At any rate, they realised that strength lay in numbers and in visibility over vast distances, such as the top of a tower that can be seen from afar. Basically, they felt that if they were to obey G-d’s command “to fill the earth,” this would contribute to their becoming ineffective in competition with G-d.
+
+Verse 5
+
+
+
+Verse 6
+
+וזה התלם לעשות, “and this is what they have begun to do.” The letter ה in the word hachilom has the vowel patach under it.
+ועתה לא יבצר, “and now that they all know seventy tongues, unless they will be scattered they cannot be prevented from translating their evil design into action.” [By dispersing them, they will forget the other tongues, and this will make unity harder for them to maintain. [This interpretation is first found in B’chor shor, one of the Tossaphists, Rabbi Yoseph. Ed.]
+
+Verse 7
+
+ונבלה, “let us confuse, etc.” the word is closely related to בלולה, “thoroughly mixed.”
+אשר לא ישמעו איש את שפת רעהו, so that they will not understand one another’s language.” They will forget any tongue other than the one they are in the habit of using. The seventy tongues will remain their collective property, but not everyone will be able to speak all these tongues. No new tongues came into existence at this time.
+
+Verse 8
+
+
+
+Verse 9
+
+
+
+Verse 10
+
+אלה תולדות שם, “These are the descendants of Shem;” whenever a paragraph commences with the word: אלה, this is to alert us that it is not a continuation of what had preceded it. In this instance, the Torah wishes to distinguish between the evil people featured in the previous paragraph and the good people, whose descendants followed their illustrious ancestors.
+
+Verse 11
+
+ ויחי שם אחרי הולידו את ארפכשד, “After having sired Arpachshad, Shem lived for another 500 years.” The formula preceding the death of the members of the earlier generations familiar to us as: ויהיו כל ימיו, “all of the years of his life were, etc.,” is absent now seeing that the life-spans of the antediluvian generations had closely approached 1000 years, something no longer the case after the deluge. (Compare Psalms 90,5 זרמתם שנה, “You let their years flow past as if they had only slept.” According to David, normal life spans in his time amounted to 70, maximum 80 years; verse 10 in the same chapter) There was therefore no need for the Torah to add the words: “all their days.”
+ויולד בנים ובנות, “he sired sons and daughters.” The earth filled up with human beings after the deluge, According to an opinion quoted in Bereshit Rabbah as well as in Sanhedrin 69, it was not unusual for eight year olds to be able to ejaculate semen which produced fetuses. When people who had left behind adult children died, their death is often described as שכיבה, “lying down,” whereas when they did not leave behind adult children they are described as “having died,” i.e. וימת. An example of the former is King David, (Kings I 2,10), whereas an example of the latter is his uncle Yoav, or, according to a different manuscript, Job, who did not leave behind adult sons.
+
+Verse 12
+
+
+
+Verse 13
+
+
+
+Verse 14
+
+
+
+Verse 15
+
+
+
+Verse 16
+
+
+
+Verse 17
+
+
+
+Verse 18
+
+
+
+Verse 19
+
+
+
+Verse 20
+
+
+
+Verse 21
+
+
+
+Verse 22
+
+
+
+Verse 23
+
+
+
+Verse 24
+
+
+
+Verse 25
+
+
+
+Verse 26
+
+
+
+Verse 27
+
+
+
+Verse 28
+
+
+
+Verse 29
+
+יסכה, according to Rash,i this is another name for Sarah. If So, Haran must have sired her when he was only 6 years old, according to the list of the names of Terach’s children. Avraham was supposed to have been a year older than Nachor, whereas Nachor was a year older than Haran, which means that Avraham was two years older than Haran. When we allow a year until Milkah and her sister Yiskah each were born, and we know that Avraham was 10 years older than Sarah from the Torah’s own report, it follows that Haran could not have been older than 8 years when Sarah was born. Allowing for the pregnancies preceding the birth of Milkah and Yiskah, Haran could not have been older than 6 years when he slept with his wife. (Bereshit Rabbah 38,14) Other examples of products of such early unions are Betzalel and Bat Sheva, as well as Er and Onan, sons of Yehudah, son of Yaakov. (Compare Sanhedrin 69)
+
+Verse 30
+
+עקרה, אין לה ולד, whereas originally she had not even had a womb, by the time she became pregnant with Yitzchok she had grown a womb.
+
+Verse 31
+
+ויקח תרח את אברם בנו, Terach took his son Avram, etc;” he intended to take him all the way to the land of Canaan, seeing that he was descended from Shem and that land had been given by G-d to the descendants of Shem as we know from Genesis 9,27. Lot and Sarai went with Terach, seeing they were the survivors of Haran’s family.
+ויצאו אתם מאור כשדים, “they emigrated with them from Ur of the Chaldeans at the command of G-d.” The basis for this interpretation is found in Genesis 15,7, where G-d is quoted as telling Avraham: “I am the Lord Who has taken you out of Ur Casdim;” (not Terach). According to this interpretation, we do not know precisely where G-d had told Avram to leave Ur Casdim. The author of this interpretation is Ibn Ezra.
+ויב��ו עד הרן, “they came as far as Charan.” Terach was not able to complete the journey all the way to the land of Canaan, and died in Charan.
+
+Verse 32
+
+
+
+Chapter 12
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+ויאמר ה' אל אברם לך לך, The Lord said to Avram: “go for yourself, etc;” While Terach and Avram were still in Ur Casdim, G-d told Avram to leave his homeland. He did not specify his ultimate destination. A different interpretation of the words: מארצך, “from your homeland.” “Leave the land in which you are currently residing.”
+וממולדך, “G-d added this to prevent Avram from returning to his birthplace, Ur Casdim. ומבית אביך, “and from the house of your father.” G-d did not want Avram to ever return to his father’s house in order to receive his share of the inheritance. He promised to reward him far beyond anything he could expect as his share of his father’s estate. Rashi here adds a peculiar comment, writing that here the meaning of בית אביך is that where Avram had resided thus far he would not be able to become a father of children. Apparently, he bases himself on our sages in the Jerusalem Talmud, Taanit: 2,1: that there are three things which are apt to cancel a decree against someone siring children: changing the place of one’s residence, changing one’s name, and observing a fast, praying for children. (Compare also Bereshit Rabbah 44,11)
+אל הארץ, “to the land;” the definitive article ה, is to remind Avraham that seeing he was descended from Shem, he had a legal claim to this land. This conforms to how Rashi (Verse 6) explains why he was instructed to walk throughout this land (Genesis 13,17) in order to claim it through having set foot in it. G-d Himself guided him.
+
+Verse 2
+
+ואעשך לגוי גדול, “I am going to make you into a great nation, etc.” G-d, being aware that Avram’s wife is presently barren, tells him that notwithstanding this fact he will become the founding father of a great nation. We had been told in Genesis 11,30, of Sarah’s inability to have children. A different interpretation of this verse: The Torah does not write: ואשימך לגוי גדול, “I will make you to be a great nation, which could have been misinterpreted.” G-d stressed that He would perform an act that would neutralise any negative decree from which Avram suffered, i.e. changing both his and his wife’s name. People called: Avraham, and: Sarah, had never been decreed to remain childless. According to the Midrash, originally Avram lacked 5 important organs: eyes, ears, as well as the glans. The glans is called “the head of the body,” as sacrificing, i.e. circumcising it is equivalent to offering one’s entire body as an offering to G-d. (Compare Talmud, Nedarim 32.) When G-d added the letter ה to his name, He supplied these missing 5 organs of his body. This is meant when G-d invited him to become תמים, “whole, a perfect specimen. (Genesis 17,1)
+ואגדלה שמך, “I will make your name great.” This was accomplished by adding a single letter to his name. Through this addition the numerical value of the letters in his name amounted to 248, the total number of limbs in a perfectly formed human (male) specimen. [Incidentally, this is also the total number of positive commandments in the Torah. Ed.] Avraham then had a perfect body and a perfect, whole name.
+והיה ברכה, “as a result you will become a source of blessing.” We find a parallel to this expression in Isaiah 19,24: ביום ההוא אשים את ישראל ברכה בקרב הארץ, “on that day I will set up Israel as a blessing in the midst of the earth.”
+
+Verse 3
+
+ואברכה מברכיך, “I will bless those who bless you.” You must never think that there are no people on earth that are psychologically close to you and are potential saviours of you, for I love those who love you and I hate the people who hate you. [in other words I know that there are people who love you. Ed.]
+ואברכה מברכיך ומקללך אאור, “I will bless those who bless you, and curse those who curse you;” you may question why elsewhere G-d uses the reverse order, i.e. “he who curses you, and I will bless him who blesses you” (Genesis 27,29). The reason for that formulation is that as a general rule, the righteous first experience trials and tribulations in their lives, whereas their relative serenity does not occur until they are well advanced in age.[When Yaakov was well advanced in years and thought the time had come for him to “retire,” according to Rashi in his commentary on Bereshit Rabbah 84,3, he attributes his problem with Joseph to Yaakov expecting worry free life in this world also. Ed.] The answer to the above question is that we must distinguish between who does the blessing and cursing. When the subject is a human being, a righteous person who bestows a blessing, he will commence by mentioning the negative first and the positive as the conclusion (as did Yitzchok when he blessed Yaakov, thinking that Esau was righteous, as in Genesis 27,29) When the subject is G-d Himself, as when G-d blessed Avraham, here, it is more appropriate that He should commence by mentioning the positive aspects first. Furthermore, as generally speaking there are likely to be more people who bless a man such as Avraham, seeing that they are the majority, they are mentioned first, whereas the Torah speaks of מקללך, “he who curses you,” in the singular mode, not “they who curse you,” in the plural mode.ונברכו, a weak conjugation, according to Rash’bam, in the sense of refining through mixing. Through mixing with your descendants many nations will become spiritually uplifted. This is also why the Torah refers here to: משפחות האדמה, “the families on earth.”
+
+Verse 4
+
+וילך אתו לוט, “Lot (his nephew) went with him.” Seeing that the death of Lot’s father Haran was indirectly due to Avraham who had been saved from Nimrod’s furnace a deed Haran emulated, but only after having seen Avraham being saved Avraham did not feel he could reject him at this stage. He adopted him as if he had been his own son.
+ואברם בן חמש ושבעים שנה, “and Avram was 75 years old;” the Torah told us how old Avram was at the time in order to show that he followed G-d’s instructions and abandoned the house of his father, an aged man still alive.
+בצאתו מחרן, “when he left Charan.” The Torah repeats this, as already pointed out in Seder Olam, an ancient historical text deemed reliable by the sages. According to that text, Avram had first returned to Charan and five years later departed from there once more.
+
+Verse 5
+
+ואת לוט בן אחיו, “and Lot, the son of his brother.” Lot was a brother of Sarai, as we had been told in Genesis 11,31. The Torah had also stated that Haran was the father of Milkah and Yiskah in verse 29 there. Our sages in Megillah 14 state that “Yiskah” is identical with “Sarah.”
+ואת הנפש עשו בחרן “and the proselyte (to monotheism) they had made in Charan.” Our sages Avodah Zarah 9, claim that this is the first stage of Matan Torah, the giving (revealing) of the Torah. The manner in which Targum Onkelos renders this phrase is further evidence of this. [He speaks of Avraham communicating, i.e. converting to Torah. Ed.]
+
+Verse 6
+
+.עד מקום שכם, as far as the location of Sh’chem (in Moses’ time). During Avraham’s time the city of Sh’chem did not exist yet
+עד אלון מורה, “as far as the terebinth at Moreh;” according to Rashi, this is a reference to the mountains of Gerizim and Eyvol, which G-d showed Avraham on this occasion as a location where the Israelites would confirm their loyalty to the Torah. The Torah refers to this location again in Deuteronomy 11,30. According to our author, Elon Moreh and Elon mamre are the same location.
+והכנעני אז בארץ, “and the Canaanite was at that time in the process of conquering the Holy Land from the descendants of Shem. (according to Rashi) The justification appears to have been that Cham his father was senior to his brother Shem by two years. Rashi explains further that originally that land had been bequeathed by Noach to his son Shem. This is why G-d told Avraham that in due course, He would give that land back to Avraham’s descendants, as he was a descendant of Shem. In Numbers 13,22 as well as in Deuteronomy 11,10 Rashi states that Cham had built the city of Chevron for his son Canaan. According to this it would appear that the land of Canaan (Holy Land) had been given by Noach to his son Cham. We must therefore understand what Rashi wrote here as referring not to Shem personally, but as to one of Shem’s descendants. Perhaps he referred only to part, the northern section of Eretz Yisrael. His section included Jerusalem. The major section of the land of Canaan spread southwards in the direction of Egypt. Chevron was already part of the southern section. However, if we look at the wording in the Talmud in Ketuvot 112, where the Talmud challenges the underlying assumption that Cham built a city for his younger son Canaan before he built a city for his older son Mitzrayim, this sounds peculiar. According to the Torah in Numbers 13,22 Chevron was built seven years before Tzoan of Egypt. Clearly then the Torah had not spoken of Cham having built these cities, but of Noach. We may assume that the interpretation of the passage we quoted from the Talmud is to be understood as a question, i.e. “surely this is unbelievable?” [This is the way it appears in our versions of the Talmud. Ed.] Noach built Chevron for his younger son Shem, and subsequently he built Tzoan for his son who was 2 years older than Shem. The Torah, according to the Talmud, wished to state that the city of Chevron was seven times more successful than the city Tzoan. [The word שנים, usually meaning “years,” may also be used instead of פעמים, “repeated times.” Ed.] If we accept this interpretation, the line that the Canaanites were at that time trying to wrest the land of Shem from him, i.e. to conquer Chevron and Jerusalem, makes much better sense.
+והכנעני אז בארץ, the word: אז, “then,” (in the past) indicates that the Torah did not speak about the political situation at the time when the Jewish people were in possession, but about the political situation at the time when Avraham first wandered through that land.
+
+Verse 7
+
+
+
+Verse 8
+
+ויעתק משם, “he moved on from there;” we find the same expression having a similar meaning in Job 9,5, i.e. המעתיק הרים, “He Who moves mountains.”
+מקדם לבית אל, “from the eastern side of Bet El, westward.”
+
+Verse 9
+
+
+
+Verse 10
+
+
+
+Verse 11
+
+כאשר הקריב, “as he brought his camp closer.” We find a sample of a similar construction, [instead of כאשר קרב “as he approached,” as we would have expected. Ed.] in Exodus 14,10: ופרעה הקריב, “and Pharaoh brought his army closer to the camp of the Israelites.”
+הנה נא ידעתי, see Rashi’s commentary on this formulation, and similar examples of it in Genesis 19,2, where Lot greets the angels. [Our author refers to the part ofRashi’s commentary in which Avraham states that Sarai’s physical beauty has for the first time become something critically important. [Similarly, he compares it to Lot, who at this juncture realised for the first time how critically important an offer of hospitality to these angels may become. Ed.] He also understands the word נא in this context not as a plea, but as a reference to time being of the essence in making a decision.
+כי אשה יפת מראה את, “for you are an extraordinarily beautiful woman.” This comment is an introduction to the verse following in which Avram suggests how to neutralise the danger to him that Sarai’s beauty now poses.
+
+Verse 12
+
+והיה כי יראו אותך המצרים והרגו אותי ואותך יחיו, “assoon as they will see me (your husband), they will kill me and let you live;” The Egyptian laws respected the inviolability of a man’s wife. If they wanted to get hold of his wife, their only legal way was to kill the husband on some charge. [One of the perverted concepts of Egyptian morality was that sleeping with another man’s wife is a sin which they are guilty of each time they do so, whereas killing her former husband is a sin that they would commit only a single time. Source: one of the Tossaphists. Ed.] An alternate explanation: Avram feared that he would be killed before he had a chance to appeal to the Egyptian king for justice.
+
+Verse 13
+
+אמרי נא אחותי את, “please say that you are my sister.” Avraham reasoned that if the Egyptians were to ask him if Sarai was a married woman, he would respond by claiming that her husband had abandoned her. The Egyptians would therefore have no reason to kill him on account of her absent husband, and they would leave her alone.
+
+Verse 14
+
+ויהי כבוא אברם מצרימה, As soon as Avram came to Egypt, etc.;” according to the plain meaning of the text, it sounds as if all the people in the entourage are considered as merely as an appendage to Avram, his fate dominating what would happen to all the people who had traveled to Egypt with him. Further confirmation of this approach to the text is what we read in verse 10 where Avram is described as descending to Egypt in the singular, i.e. וירד אברם מצרימה, which sounds as if he alone had traveled to Egypt, although we know that Lot was with him.
+
+Verse 15
+
+
+
+Verse 16
+
+ולאבדם היטיב בעבורה, “and he had done Avram favours on her account.” Rashi quotes the verse without offering any commentary on it.
+
+Verse 17
+
+וינגע ה' את פרעה, “Hashem afflicted Pharaoh with a painful plague;” the reason why the Torah offers no further details about the nature of this plague, as opposed to when Avimelech was struck with impotence and the women in his country were afflicted in their birth canals, is because shortly after the episode with Avimelech the Torah reported that Sarah conceived and became pregnant (Genesis 21,1). Had the Torah not spelled out that Avimelech had become totally impotent, people might have attributed Sarah’s pregnancy to her having stayed in Avimelech’s Palace. The episode with Pharaoh had occurred perhaps a s long as 20 years earlier, so that no one could have fabricated such a story. To the question why Pharaoh was punished, seeing that Avram had deceived him by saying that she was his sister, as we know from the Torah quoting him, Sarai had described herself as Avram’s wife even if he had not said so. This is the meaning of the words: על דבר שרי אשת ברם “on account of what Sarai, Avram’s wife had said.” Pharaoh had ignored her. Gentiles do not have to be warned not to violate the commandments they have accepted to observe, as we pointed out in connection with Genesis 20,5. (The second Avimelech and Rivkah)
+וינגע ה׳ את פרעה, “Hashem afflicted Pharaoh.” According to Rashi, He afflicted him with a kind of gonorrhea, thus making the punishment fit the crime. The same occurred with Sarai and Avimelech. G-d interfered with all the women in the land of the Philistines being unable to give birth to fetuses that were ready to be born. (Bereshit Rabbah end of chapter 52.) According to a dissenting view, Pharaoh had become afflicted with tzoraat, a skin eczema resulting in the afflicted persons being ostracized.
+
+Verse 18
+
+
+
+Verse 19
+
+למה אמרת אחותי היא, “why did you say: “she is my sister,” whereas she never said that you are her brother. This is distinctly different from when Sarah had been kidnapped by Avimelech, and the latter had subsequently accused her in his dream of having said that Avraham was her brother. (Genesis 20,5) [It was part of his plea that he was totally innocent. Ed. Our author ascribes Sarah’s conduct vis a vis Pharaoh as due to her relative youth and naivety, whereas by the time she was kidnapped by Avimelech she had become more familiar with the real world.
+
+Verse 20
+
+
+
+Chapter 13
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+ולוט עמו הנגבה, “and Lot with him, southward.” In the same direction as they had been journeying ever since they had left Charan.
+
+Verse 2
+
+
+
+Verse 3
+
+
+
+Verse 4
+
+
+
+Verse 5
+
+
+
+Verse 6
+
+ולא נשא אותם, “the land did not offer sufficient virgin land to support their combined flocks and herds.” The Bible using the term ארץ, as if it were masculine here, is not a unique example. It also occurs in the masculine mode in Zachariah 14,10, as well as in Isaiah 9,18, and in Isaiah 33,9.
+כי היה רכושם רב, “for their possessions were so vast.” The point the Torah is making is that, contrary to what could be expected, poverty leads to strife about sharing the little one owns, in this instance excessive wealth led to strife.
+
+Verse 7
+
+בין רועי מקנה אברם ובין רועי מקנה לוט, “between Avram’s shepherds and Lot’s shepherds.” Neither of them could locate additional grazing land which was not privately owned. The reason was that the Canaanites had claimed all that land as theirs.
+
+Verse 8
+
+
+
+Verse 9
+
+
+
+Verse 10
+
+כי כלה משקה, “for all of it was well irrigated.” Some commentators understand the verse: וירא את כל ככר הירדן, to mean that the river Jordan irrigated the entire region bountifully.
+כגן ה, “as if it were a garden planted by Hashem Himself, not unlike Egypt which was also irrigated by the river Nile. (Compare Genesis 2,10)
+
+Verse 11
+
+ויפרדו איש מעל אחיו, “they separated totally from one another.” This separation lasted historically throughout the generations so that descendants (male) of Lot were never allowed to convert to Judaism. (Deuteronomy 23,4)
+
+Verse 12
+
+ויאהל עד סדום, “he erected his tents as far as Sodom.” He did not take up residence inside the city of Sodom, because he knew that those people were evil and wicked. This is also why later on the Torah described Lot as sitting in the gateway to Sodom. (19,1) His house, though part of the wall of Sodom, had its entrance outside that wall.
+
+Verse 13
+
+ואנשי סדום רעים, “the people of Sodom behaved wickedly toward fellow human beings.” This is spelled out in greater detail in Ezekiel, 17,49,) ויד עני ואביון לא החזיקה; “It did not support the poor or the destitute.”
+
+Verse 14
+
+וה' אמר אחרי הפרד לוט מעמו, “and Hashem had said after Lot had separated from him, etc.” G-d had told Avram that he made a mistake when he thought that Lot having moved to Sodom, or the valley near it was enough, as that was also part of the territories that He had in mind to give to Avram’s descendants as their ancestral territory.
+אחרי הפרט לוט מעמו, “the need for this separation was to forestall Lot from ever claiming that his descendants were entitled to part of the land of Israel.” The relevant words concerning this interpretation are: כי את כל הארץ אשר אתה רואה, “for the whole land that you can see;” [Lot had also decided on the basis of what he could see. (13,10) Ed.] G-d emphasised that Lot should never have any claim to any part of the Holy Land.
+
+Verse 15
+
+כי את כל הארץ אשר אתה רואה, “for the whole land that you can see;” [Lot had also decided on the basis of what he could see. (13,10) Ed.] G-d emphasised that Lot should never have any claim to any part of the Holy Land.
+
+Verse 16
+
+
+
+Verse 17
+
+קום התהלך בארץ, “arise and walk throughout the land;” in order to establish claim to it.
+
+Verse 18
+
+ויאהל אברם ויבא וישב, “Avram pitched his tent and arrived and settled;” actually, we would have expected the Torah to write the following sequence: ויבא אברם ויאהל וישב, “Avram arrived, pitched his tent, and settled;” we learn from the inverted sequence that the meaning of the word: ויאהל, here cannot be the usual meaning, i.e. “he pitched his tent;” here it means that “he folded his tent.” There are many words in the holy Tongue that have two different meanings depending the context in which they appear. The second meaning may be the opposite of the usual one. The best known example of this is the word דשן, which in Leviticus 6,3 means ash, residue, whereas in Exodus 27,3 is used as something being collected in special containers instead of something to be scattered removed. At any rate, Avram moved his tent from noman’s land in the land of Canaan to inhabited regions, i.e. elon moreh.
+
+Chapter 14
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+
+
+Verse 2
+
+מלך צביים, although the word: צביים is spelled as shown, it is read as if it had been spelled: .צבוים
+ומלך בלע היא, the pronoun היא (feminine), shows that the word בלע refers to the name of the city, not the name of the king, (who is masculine).
+
+Verse 3
+
+
+הוא ים המלך, the word ים, “sea,” is masculine.
+
+Verse 4
+
+
+
+Verse 5
+
+
+
+Verse 6
+
+בהררם, the ending is similar to Exodus 6,7 בדברם, so that the meaning of our phrase is: “when they were ascending Mount Seir.”
+עד איל פארן אשר על המדבר, the word על in this verse does not mean: “on, or above,” but: “beside,” as it does in Exodus 40,3, and in Genesis 24,30. The desert in question is the one the Israelites marched through for most of 40 years.
+
+Verse 7
+
+
+
+Verse 8
+
+
+
+Verse 9
+
+כדרלעמר, he is mentioned first at this point as he was the cause of the entire war.
+
+Verse 10
+
+ועמק השדים בארות, according to an aggadic commentary quoted by Rash,i the miracle that the king of Sodom escaped from this valley filled with bitumen wells which burns people, convinced the people now that Avram had indeed escaped from Nimrod’s furnace. According to a different interpretation, the word שדים is to be read with the dot on the left side of the letter ש, so that the meaning would be the same as the word שיד in Deuteronomy 27,2 the whitewash with which the stones taken out of the Jordan river were to be smeared as a base for writing on.
+בארות בארות חמר, “pits full of sticky loam.” The letter ב has a vowel segol under it and the letter א the vowel chatoph segol, (shortened version.)
+ויפלו שמה, They fell into them. They did not “fall” into them, as they were familiar with them, but they used them to hide in while trying to escape the pursuers. The construction is similar to Genesis 25,18 where Yishmael is described as על פני כל אחיו נפל. The loam was not wet, but could be used to help make bricks.
+
+Verse 11
+
+
+
+Verse 12
+
+והוא יושב בסדום, “and he dwelled in Sodom;” note the singular mode; none of his relatives lived in Sodom. This accounted for his being taken captive alone. Alternate explanation: he entered the city now that he was afraid of being solitary against the warring nations.
+
+Verse 13
+
+ויבא הפליט, “the one who had escapedKedorleomer’s army arrived;” according to Rashi’scommentary this was the man who later on became Og, King of Bashan who had made a name for himself by having survived the deluge, hence the prefix ה before the word: פליט, escapee. He lived so long that eventually Moses killed him (Numbers 21,35) He was not interested in saving Avram, but intended to marry Sarah after Avram would have been killed in war. G-d retaliated by paying him back in kind. He granted him long life for warning Avram on the one hand, but He foiled his design, Avram becoming victorious, and Sarah predeceasing Avram. He was chagrined to live long enough to see millions of Avram’s descendants, before himself being killed by one of them. [None of these midrashim account for the Torah’s failure to report his having survived the deluge. Ed.] Granted, if this was a fact, Moses had reason to fear him and that is why G-d told him not to be afraid of him. (Numbers 21,34). The Talmud Zevachim, 113, raises the question of how Og managed to escape the deluge and suggests that though the waters were boiling hot, in the immediate vicinity of the ark they were cool miraculously so,so as not to destroy the ark and its inhabitants. Og took advantage of this and survived. [This means that he went without food and water for 365 days. Ed.] The expression: הפליט occurs also in Ezekiel 33,21, where it refers to someone who had escaped and survived the battle of Jerusalem who reported the fall of the city and the Temple to the prophet. The verse which omits identifying who this escapee was is not so unusual that we need to look for far fetched explanations. Our author cites similar “abbreviated” constructions in Genesis 48,1; Genesis 48,2; he claims that there are numerous others.
+והוא שוכן באלוני ממרא, “and he lived at the time in Elon Mamre.” The tree so called stood in the town of Chevron, as we know from Genesis 13,18. An alternate exegesis: the words: “and he lived in Elon Mamre which is in Chevron,” refer to the home of the person described as הפליט, “the escapee.” This would explain why he came to tell Avram whose home was also in Elon Mamre all about what he had escaped from.
+והם בעלי ברית אברם, “and they (Oner, Eshkol, and Mamre) being allies of Avram went with him [in this mission impossible, 318 against four armies! Ed.] Compare verse 24.
+
+Verse 14
+
+וירק את חניכיו, “the men who had been trained in warfare.”
+עד דן, as far as Dan, the place was named such (the original “Dan” not having been born yet until at least 100 years later, Ed.] The place called “Dan” in the Book of Judges was called Leshem at the time of this battle (Compare Joshua 19,47).
+
+Verse 15
+
+ויכם וירדפם, “He defeated (killed) them and pursued them;” Rabbi Tanchum poses the rhetorical question how someone can pursue corpses? [Since the Torah first reports that these people had been smitten. Ed.] He answers that Avram killed the men whom G-d had pursued. G-d put the men to flight so that Avram could easily kill them.
+אשר משמאל לדמשק, “which is located to the left of Damascus,” where Eliezer and his family hailed from. Onkelos translates the word דמשק as Eliezer; he meant that Eliezer’s family in that town assisted him and Avram in that task.
+
+Verse 16
+
+
+
+Verse 17
+
+ויצא מלך סדום, the King of Sodom now emerged from the pits in which he had hidden. He is mentioned by name, as the whole war had revolved around him, he having been the one who had refused to pay taxes to Kedorleomer. (Genesis 14,15) He had been the ringleader of the five rebellious kings.
+
+Verse 18
+
+הוציא לחם ויין, “he produced (from his satchel) bread and wine;” the rules of syntax would have demanded that the verses 1718 should have been written in the following sequence: “The king of Sodom came out of hiding to meet Avram after he had defeated the 4 most powerful kings, and he said to Avram: “hand me over the human beings and keep the chattels for yourself.” (verse 22). Instead, the Torah interrupted with the arrival of Malki Tzedek and his blessing Avram. The reason that the Torah interrupted with verses 1821 was that it wanted to put Avraham’s refusing any offer from the King of Sodom into proper context. If the Torah had inserted the words of Avram, saying that he would not even accept a shoelace so that the King of Sodom could not say that he had personally contributed to Avram’s material wealth, the world would have wondered how Avram could have paid the wages of his soldiers. After reading that Avram had first given ten per cent of all the loot to Malki Tzedek who represented the only G-d, they would not ask such questions. They had also learned that Avram did not mind accepting bread and wine from Malki Tzedek who had acquired all which he possessed by morally acceptable means. They realised that Avram shied away not from material possessions as such, but only from material possessions not acquired by morally and ethically acceptable means. An alternate exegesis: Malki Tzedek produced bread and wine which had not been tithed in order to give Avram an opportunity to perform that commandment, as we will explain on verse 20.
+
+Verse 19
+
+ברוך אברם, “blessed be Avram;” he blessed Avram before blessing the Lord because Avram had gone to such length to imperil his life in order to rescue his nephew, Lot. Subsequently he blessed the Lord, Who had assisted Avram in his rescue mission and delivered his enemies into his hands.
+קונה שמים וארץ, “(the Lord) Who owns heaven as well a earth.” Malki Tzedek (Shem,son of Noach) used this formulation as he had witnessed in his own lifetime how a world which had been a going concern had been destroyed and rebuilt.
+
+Verse 20
+
+ייתן לו, “he gave him;” Malki Tzedek gave Avram a tithe of everything. Our sages in Nedarim 32, interpret this verse as an allusion by the Torah to Malki Tzedek having forfeited his status of being G-d’s priest, and it being transferred to Avram, as he had committed the error of blessing a mortal human being, Avram, before blessing the immortal Lord. Avram himself had criticised Malki Tzedek for having mentioned him first in blessing both G-d and him. The latter accepted the reproof and treated Avram as the priest by tithing to him all that belonged to him. The Talmud cites a verse from Psalms: 110,4, as its source; there we read: נשבע ה' ולא ינחם אתה כהן לעולם על דברתי מלכי צדק, “The Lord has sworn and will not relent, You are a priest forever a rightful king by My decree.” [Rabbi Moshe Alshich explains there that G-d actually killed all the people Avram fought, as a priest who has killed does no longer qualify for priestly duties. Ed.]
+
+Verse 21
+
+
+
+Verse 22
+
+
+הרימותי ידי, “I have raised my hand (in a solemn oath)” Avram states in reply to the King of Sodom’s offer [of what was not even his to offer Ed.] that he has already set aside his share for the Lord, as is stated when the Torah wrote: “he gave him a tithe from all of it.” He meant that beyond this he did not mean to keep anything. (as per Rashi).
+
+Verse 23
+
+אם מחוט, “if as much as a thread;” the “thread” mentioned here is a thread used as jewelry on one’s head, as stated by our sages in Shabbat 65, the “threads worn by the young girls on their heads were made of silk, and are used to tie their hair with them.”
+שרוך נעל, similar threads or laces to act as decoration when closing one’s shoes. Avram meant, I will not accept expensive or even inexpensive items.
+ואם אקח מכל אשר לך, “neither will I keep anything which (once) belonged to you.” Avram, in order not to offend,explained to the King of Sodom that when he left his father’s home G-d had assured him that He would make him wealthy. It is therefore no more than good manners for me to decline anything which would appear as if G-d’s promise had not been sufficient for me. When he would become wealthy, he wished to give the credit for this to G-d.
+
+Verse 24
+
+בלעדי, the letter י in this word is unnecessary, just as the letter י in the word: זולתי in Deuteronomy 1,36 is unnecessary. The verse means that Avram will take only as much of the loot as belongs to the troops whom he had hired to fight.
+
+Chapter 15
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+אחר הדברים האלה, after these events,” i.e. after Avram had successfully waged war against the armies under the leadership of Kedorleomer. He had suddenly become very worried that other nations would feel called upon to avenge this defeat of the pagans; we encounter a similar reaction by Yaakov, after his sons Shimon and Levi had killed the males of the city of Sh’chem, and his other sons had looted that town. (Genesis 34,30). G-d had reassured him telling him that not only would He protect him against any other attacks by kings for having saved Lot, but that he would also qualify for additional rewards. You are entitled to this because you demonstrated that you placed more faith in My promises than in those of the King of Sodom, plus in the fact that you went to such length to rescue your relatives.
+
+Verse 2
+
+ויאמר אברם, אלוקים וגו, “Avram then said: “G-d,!” [the name of G-d here is spelled as אדני, ] etc; “what are You going to give me, seeing that I am without biological heir;” [i.e. what good will these rewards do me if I cannot pass them on to biological heirs? Ed.] The reader is reminded that Avram had been promised biological heirs by this G-d in Genesis 12,7 when He had told him that He would give the land of the Canaanites to his biological descendants. At that time he had not questioned this promise because he had believed that with the help of prayer he would earn the merit of siring biological heirs. When he realised that in spite of this, many years had passed without this promise having been fulfilled, he had begun to feel that perhaps he had committed some sin that had prevented G-d from fulfilling this promise. This is why he pointed out that he was still without such heirs.
+הוא דמשק אליעזר, “the heir apparent at this stage is only the servant Eliezer who was born in Damascus.” He was a grandson of the great pagan Nimrod.
+
+Verse 3
+
+
+והנה בן ביתי יורש אותי, “and here a member of my household is going to be my heir.” Avram points to the apparent contradiction to G-d having assured him that he would sire biological heirs. He implies that seeing that he is already aging, even if and when he would have son, the son would be too young to take over from him when he would die, so that he would have to leave his affairs in the hands of his servant. This servant would possess power of attorney for all practical purposes to do what he liked. G-d reassured him on that score saying that not only would he have a biological heir, but that son would be fully of age before Avram would die.
+
+Verse 4
+
+
+
+Verse 5
+
+ויוצא אותו, it appeared to Avram in his dream as if G-d were now taking him out of his house to look at the sky.
+
+Verse 6
+
+ויחשבה, the letter ח in this word is vocalised by the semi vowel sh’va na, which has a dot above it. (not in our editions) [This indicates that the subject of this word is Avram, not G-d. Ed.]
+ויחשבה לו צדקה, “Avram did not consider this promise by G-d as something that he was entitled to, but as something beyond what he had a right to expect.
+
+Verse 7
+
+ויאמר אליו אני ה, :He said to him: “I am the Lord;” everything from the opening line of the chapter, “it was after these events” had been said to Avram at night, in a dream. This is clear from the word: במחזה, “in a vision,” (verse 1). In verse five Avram is told: “and count the stars;” from that point on we have the paragraph known popularly as ברית בין הבתרים, “the covenant between the cut up pieces.”From then on we have a revelation Avram experienced in daylight, as the paragraph concludes with the words: “it was when the sun was about to set;” (verse 12) This revelation by daylight had preceded the passagecommencing with chapter 15,1 by five years. This is clear from when G-d told Avram that “your descendants will be strangers and slaves for 400 years in a land that is not their own.” In Exodus12,41 the Torah reports that the Israelites had dwelled in Egypt for 430 years, i.e. that the prophecy made to Avraham had now been fulfilled. According to this,Avraham did not have any child by Sarah (i.e. Yitzchok) until 30 years after this first revelation. The Torah had stated specifically that Avraham was 100 years old when his son Yitzchok was born (Genesis 20,5). In other words, Avram was 70 years old when he left Charan for the first time and when G-d first told him about the future including his descendants until they would be freed from slavery. When G-d addressed Avram for the second time and told him to sever his relationship with home and hearth and birthplace in Genesis 12,1, he was 75 years old. According to the well known historic record known as seder olam, Avram was 48 years old at the time of the Tower and the dispersal of mankind. This was followed by the 13 years that the region known as the land of Canaan served and subsequently rebelled against Kedorleomer, a rebellion which lasted 13 years. (Not the 13th year as usually assumed). According to this calculation 26 years had elapsed at that time from when the Tower had been destroyed. If you add these years to the 48 years Avram had lived before that traumatic event was 74 or 75 years old. This is referred to when the Torah stated that Avram was 75 years old when he left Charan permanently. Immediately after Avram had defeated the kings mentioned in chapter 14, G-d appeared to him and ordered him to leave Charan and to proceed towards the Land of Canaan, his father’s original destination when he had left Ur Casdim. The reason why the two paragraphs here were inserted in the Torah as if they had occurred almost simultaneously was so that the promise that Avraham would have biological offspring would appear in direct connection with the promise that Avraham’s descendants would inherit the land of Canaan as their ancestral heritage when the time would be ripe for that. The Talmud in B’rachot 7, states specifically that these two visions referred to distinctly different subjects. The newsworthy development in Avram’s personality in the intervening between G-d having spoken to him five years earlier at the covenant between the “pieces,”is that for the first time a human being addressed the Almighty with the title adonav. My Master (Verse 8). If you were to think that all that is written here in this chapter is part of a single revelation, and a single subject, up to verse 1 in chapter 16, why did the Talmud not consider verse 2 in chapter 15 in which Avram addressed him by the same title, as the first time in history that this had ever occurred? Clearly what Avram said in verse 8 had preceded what is quoted as having said in verse 2. Furthermore, if these paragraphs had been written in chronological order, how could Avram have dared ask G-d for a sign that His promise would come true without his being accused as having been lacking in faith? G-d, after all, had already clearly stated that his heir would be his biological heir (verse 4). It is therefore clear beyond doubt that in this chapter we are dealing with two different revelations, each one dealing with a different subject. Having said all this, it is easy to understand that G-d referred to the fact that it was He Who had taken him out of Ur Casdim in order to give to his descendants (equated with him) this land that he is to proceed to. Avraham’s question that seeing that he had no heir as yet, surely he by himself could not “inherit” this land, (verse 7) was quite logical. After all he had no assurance that he would not die before G-d’s promise having a chance at being fulfilled. It also explains why G-d, in verse 15, tells him not to worry, but that he would die at a ripe old age. [The only person ever having been given such a promise by G-d, I believe. Ed.] This promise by G-d is evidence of what had prompted his question, certainly was not lack of faith. Some people accept Rashi’s interpretation that Avram, while certainly not doubting G-d’s promise or ability to deliver on His promise, was concerned that seeing that all of G-d’s promises are based on certain underlying conditions, and he was afraid that some of these might not be met so that G-d would not be bound by His promise. We have evidence of fulfillment of G-d’s promises being delayed after the sin of the spies, when G-d swore an oath that all the adults involved in that sin would not set foot in the Holy Land. (Numbers 32,1011) According to the exegetes claiming that Avram did not doubt G-d’s promise, but wished to know by what merit it would be fulfilled, why would he have been punished for having asked such a question? We would have to answer that the words: ידוע תדע, understood by some as the punishment, i.e. the delay in the fulfillment of G-d’s promise, was not a punishment at all, but a direct answer, meaning that until the time came when in the desert the Israelites would regularly offer up sacrifices, they would indeed not yet have earned that merit. This merit coupled with the suffering during exile in Egypt combined, would suffice to make G-d replace the Canaanites and give the land to the Israelites.
+
+Verse 8
+
+
+
+Verse 9
+
+קחה לי עגלה, “please take for Me a female calf;” the purpose of this revelation was to inform Avram what type of animal sacrifice would be appropriate to atone for which kind of unintentionally committed sins, so that the descendants of Avram would continue to exist. This interpretation is based on Bereshit Rabbah 44,14.
+עגלה משולשת, “a healthy and fat calf.” Compare Jeremiah 48,34 where the expression עגלה שלישיה occurs in the same sense. Compare also Talmud Gittin 56, עגלא תלתא. An alternate explanation for the word משולשת is: “three years old.” (Compare Ibn Ezra and Nachmanides)
+
+Verse 10
+
+ויקח לו את כל אלה, “He took all these animals for Him;” our sages in Bereshit Rabbah claim that G-d showed Avram even what the measurement of a tenth of an eyfah looked like, (part of meal offerings). This is based on Bereshit Rabbah 34,14 where similar expressions are quoted as occurring here and in Leviticus 2,8: והבאת...מאלה where that meal offering is discussed.
+ויבתר אותם, Avram cut these animals in half. Some exegetes feel that all animal sacrifices were to be cut up in a similar manner. (no source mentioned) This opinion is based on the Torah writing in Leviticus 1,6: ונתח אותה לנתחיה, “the priest is to cut it up according to its components.” [The animal being offered as a burnt offering. Ed.]
+ואת הצפור לא בתר, “but he did not cut up the bird.” Later on, after the Torah was given, bird offerings were also not cut up but the priest tore parts apart with his bare hands. (Levitcus 1,17.) [The Torah there adds that the tearing must not result in complete separation of one part from another. Ed.] Our author feels that the reason is that they would then seem as too small to be fit as gifts to the Lord.
+A different explanation: The words ויבתר אותם בתוך, mean that he had cut them in half, i.e. in the middle. He had to allocate half of each animal to each party of the covenant, seeing that there were three of each of the mammals. He did not have to cut up the birds as there were only two, so that a whole bird could be allocated (symbolically) to each of the two parties of the covenant.
+
+Verse 11
+
+וישב אותם אברם, Avram chased the vultures away. This verse has been inserted in the Torah only in order to draw our attention to the great sensitivity of Avram. After all, the vultures were only doing what vultures were supposed to do. Avram chased them away temporarily, until the presence of the Lord had taken leave of him, and the covenant had been concluded.
+
+Verse 12
+
+ויהי השמש לבא, “when the sun was about to set;” in other words, it was still full daylight, not yet time to lie down and sleep.
+
+Verse 13
+
+ידוע תדע, G-d used the same words when punishing Avram that Avram had used when asking a question which was sinful. His descendants were ordained to endure exile as an example of matching the punishment to the crime. (Compare Tanchuma Kedoshim, 13) [only according to the exegetes who interpreted Avram’s question as demonstrating doubt in G-d’s promise. Ed.]
+ועבדום, “they will serve the rulers of that and other lands.” The subject is Avram’s descendants. וענו אותם, They (the nations), will oppress them during that period.
+
+Verse 14
+
+את הגוי, the subject is the exile in Egypt. 
+The word: וגם, “and also,” is a hint of other exiles in the history of the Jewish people.
+ואחרי כן יצאו ברכוש גדול, “as a reward for having endured all this they will leave for freedom with many possessions as compensation.”
+
+Verse 15
+
+
+
+Verse 16
+
+ודור רביעי, “and the fourth generation;” Rashi makes the following calculation concerning this ambiguous statement: the generations mentioned commence with Yehudah, son of Yaakov, (Avraham’s greatgrandson), Peretz, Chetzron, Calev, son of Chetzron already entered and lived in the holy Land. If someone were to raise the point that already Chetzron had taken part in the Exodus from Egypt, i.e. he had been liberated from exile, Yaakov cannot be included as the fist generation, as he had already lived for 130 of his 147 years before taking up residence in Egypt. A different way of making the calculation meant in the above prophecy: “the fourth generation” of which G-d spoke does not refer to the fourth generation of Israelites, but to the fourth generation of the Emorites, [whose sin, as G-d had explained, had not yet reached the point that gave G-d justification to expel them from their homeland, Ed.] The length of a generation of Emorites is considered as being 100 years. Therefore it would take 400 years until G-d’s promise to Avraham could be fulfilled. The Torah, however, did not add the word דור, except for the fact that G-d, when meting out judgment, one does not do so in terms of multiples of hundreds of years, but in terms of generations. [We have examples of this in Exodus 20,5 as well as in Exodus 34,7. Ed.] We also find examples of this in Kings II 10,30. G-d had promised Yehu that even the son of the fourth generation would sit on the throne of the Kingdom of Israel. [The last one, Zecharyah, only ruled for 6 months. Ed.] [The “Kingdom of Israel,” is distinct from the kingdom of Yehudah. Ed.]
+כי לא שלם עון האמורי, “for the cup of sin of the Emorite is not full;” if you were to ask why I cannot give the land of the Canaanites to the Israelites as soon as they have become a nation, the answer is that I am bound by judicial considerations of My own, namely to allow each nation an opportunity to become penitents.
+עון האמורי, “the guilt of the Emorite;” the reason why this tribe is mentioned repeatedly as compared to other similarly sinful nations, is simply because Avraham lived on soil owned by the Emorites.
+
+Verse 17
+
+והנה תנור עשן ולפיד אש, “and suddenly Avram experienced as vision of a furnace and a fire, stroke of lightning;” the construction of this verse is somewhat lopsided, as the correct syntax should have been: ואש לפיד, “and fire in the form of a bolt of lightning.”
+אשר עבר, “after G-d had informed Avram about the experiences of Avram’s descendants during the next 400 years or so,” G-d’s ”agents,” the fire and furnace, consumed the parts of the sacrifices that Avram had prepared.
+
+Verse 18
+
+
+
+Verse 19
+
+את הקיני, ואת הקניזי, ואת הקדמוני, “the Kenite, the Kenizite, and the Kadmoni; according to Rashi, these tribes are identical to the Edomites, the Moabites and the Ammonites. The territories of these nations would become part of “greater Israel” at some time in the future, not in the time of Joshua. A scriptural reference to this can be found in Isaiah 11,14. According to our author, this is also hinted at in Numbers 24,21. The reason why the territory of Edom is included is because Amalek, Israel’s (G-d’s) arch enemy, is descended from Edom (Esau). Bileam in the passage referred to in Numbers 24, has called Amalek: “the first of the nations.” Since this was certainly not the original human society to develop into nationhood, and Bileam had been aware of this, Rabbi Chelbo in the name of Rabbi Yochanan, in Bereshit Rabbah 44,23, claimed that originally G-d had already meant to let Israel inherit the territories of ten nations. However, He would not translate the intention of handing them the territories of these last mentioned three nations into reality until the messianic era. Nonetheless, due to aggressive conduct by their inhabitants, they lost some portion of it already during the period when Moses conquered the territories of Sichon and Og.
+
+Verse 20
+
+ואת הרפאים, another word for the tribe known as Chivvi, mentioned as one of the seven Canaanite tribes.
+
+Verse 21
+
+
+
+Chapter 16
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+ושרי אשת אברם לא ילדה, “meanwhile, Sarai, Avram’s wife had failed to give birth;” this verse is intended to inform us that the covenant just concluded between G-d and Avram preceded the time when Avram was blessed with biological offspring. We should not assume that here too the principle that the Torah need not report events in their chronological sequence could be applied. As a reminder of this, the Torah reports that up until now Sarai had not conceived or given birth. “ולה שפחה מצרית,” and she had an Egyptian maidservant; she was a usufruct maidservant which he was obligated to provide her sustenance and could not sell her.
+ושמה הגר, “whose name was Hagar;” when Pharaoh handed over his daughter to Sarai (when the latter was a captive in his Palace) he had said to her: “my daughter is your compensation for my having wronged you. ”Here is your reward.” (Based on Matnot kehunah in Br’eshit Rabbah) As a result she was renamed: Hagar.
+
+Verse 2
+
+
+
+Verse 3
+
+
+
+Verse 4
+
+
+
+Verse 5
+
+חמסי, “look at what reward I get that my own maidservant refuses to obey my commands, and acts rebelliously.
+עליך, “this is all on your account;” if you had protested her disrespecting me it would not have happened. I do not feel like punishing her as she has becoming your concubine.
+ישפוט ה' ביני וביניך, “may the Lord judge which one of us is right.” I am concerned with your dignity, whereas you have not respected my dignity.
+וביניך, Rashi claims there is an extra “dot” on this word. What he means is that everywhere else the word ביניך is spelled with only one letter י, whereas here it is also spelled with a י before the last letter. It therefore ought to be read as ובניך. The Talmud reports that words which have dots placed there by Ezra who after the return of the exiled Jews had to decide from differing Torah scrolls which had the correct spelling, used these dots to remind readers that some doubt had existed concerning this spelling. (Avot וביניך, Rashi de Rabbi Nathan, chapter 34.) If he had found such dots in some scrolls he did not want to take the responsibility for removing them, (according to a Tossaphot in Rosh Hashanah 15.) At any rate, we have a rule that if someone calls upon G-d to determine if concerning an accusation leveled against a fellow human being he or she had been correct, the first thing the heavenly tribunal does is to examine if the accuser has led a blameless life himself or herself. If faults are found in the accuser’s life, he is judged, i.e. punished first, before the accusation is examined in greater detail. In the event, Avraham had to bury Sarah, i.e. on the one hand she died earlier than he, though younger than he, and on the other hand he lost her. According to Rashi, the substance of Sarai’s complaint was that if Avram had prayed not only to have children himself but had included her in his prayer, the whole subject of offering Hagar to him as a concubine would never have arisen. Her accusation is considered as “an evil eye” (Compare Mizrachi, super commentary on Rashi) concerning the fetus in Hagar’s womb.)
+
+Verse 6
+
+
+
+Verse 7
+
+במדבר, על העין בדרך שור, “in the desert, by a well, on the way to Shur.” This location is one that the Israelites traversed as mentioned in Exodus 15,22.
+
+Verse 8
+
+הגר שפחת שרי, “Hagar, Sarai’s servant maid!” The angel reminds her that her status as Sarai’s servant maid had not changed. She acknowledged this when she replied that she was fleeing from her mistress Sarai.
+
+Verse 9
+
+
+
+Verse 10
+
+
+
+Verse 11
+
+
+
+Verse 12
+
+פרא אדם, an anonymous trader who travels to distant places where he is not known; compare Genesis 37,25 where the Torah describes such a caravan of Ishmael’s descendants to whom Joseph was sold. The word פרא also occurs as the definition of a person in Job 11,12. ועיר פרא יולד, i.e. an infant born and not yet named is a פרא. A person who lacks the intelligence and senses of ordinary people is called there: עיר פרא, “a wild ass;”[I am not sure about the difference between פרא אדם and אדם פרא. What seems clear is that the adjective פרא appears to diminish the degree of צלם אלוקים, Divine image that ordinary people have been equipped with from birth. It may be noteworthy that both Kayin and Hevel when born, the first human beings to have been born by woman, were not described as possessing this Divine image as opposed to Sheth, Chavah’s third son. This may explain a great deal about both of these sons experiencing either premature death, or ongoing tragedy in their lives. Ed.]
+ידו בכל, “involved in all manner of wheeling and dealing;”
+ויד כל בו, “through interacting socially and commercially with all kinds of people;”
+ועל פני כל אחיו ישכון, “and his wealth will extend so far that he will be in contact with all kinds of people. A totally different exegesis: the expression פרא אדם describes an uncouth person, someone devoid of culture and what we call: דרך ארץ; initially, as a result of this, he will be victorious in all his violent encounters, ידו בכל, whereas eventually, when groups of people will make common cause against him, ויד כל בו, “he will be subdued and killed.”
+
+Verse 13
+
+
+
+Verse 14
+
+
+
+Verse 15
+
+
+
+Verse 16
+
+
+
+Chapter 17
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+.התהלך לפני, an invitation to perform the rite of circumcision, as a result of which his body would become more “perfect.”
+והיה תמים, “as a result of which you will become perfect.”
+
+Verse 2
+
+
+
+Verse 3
+
+ויפול אברם על פניו, “Avram prostrated himself” from joy over this welcome message [that finally he qualified for performing this commandment. Ed.]
+
+Verse 4
+
+
+
+Verse 5
+
+ולא יקרא עוד את שמך אברם, “henceforth your name will no longer be called Avram;” anyone still referring to Avraham as Avram will be violating a positive commandment. (Talmud, B’rachot 13)[The underlying reason for this may be that by depriving him of his full name, the caller implies that he was still partially a gentile. This is loosely translated by me for the words לפי שנתלוה עמו גיות, used by the author. Ed.] Nechemyah 9,7 where reference to this name change is made, is no contradiction to what is stated in the Talmud, as it also records what has been written here. The Talmud refers to the difference from Yaakov who was given the additional name Israel, without the name Yaakov having been erased. Seeing that he had been a descendant of Avraham and Yitzchok, the name Yaakov never had a connotation of something connected to paganism which had to be erased. Already Yitzchok’s name never required to be changed.
+והיה שמך אברהם, “henceforth your name will always be: Avraham.” It is an ancient custom to change someone’s name as a sign that he had received a promotion. We find this with Sarah, Yaakov, Joshua, as well as with Chananyah, Mishael, and Azaryah. (Daniel 1,7)
+
+Verse 6
+
+
+
+Verse 7
+
+
+
+Verse 8
+
+
+
+Verse 9
+
+
+
+Verse 10
+
+
+
+Verse 11
+
+ונמלתם, “you shall circumcise yourselves;” all those who had not been circumcised on the eighth day after birth.
+והיה לאות ברית, “it will be the enduring symbol of the covenant.” The act of circumcision will make you known as my servants.
+
+Verse 12
+
+
+
+Verse 13
+
+המול ימול, “the first word refers to the removal of the foreskin, the second to the removal of the thin membrane covering the head of the penis below it, known as פריעה
+
+Verse 14
+
+
+
+Verse 15
+
+שרי, כי שרה שמה, Sarai, (“my princess) for Sarah, “princess,” of many nations, is her name. Rabbi Yoshua ben Korach, commenting on the name changes of both Avraham and Sarah, points out that there was no change in the total numerical value of the letters in their combined names, seeing that G-d had reduced the value of the letter 10=י, by substituting the letter 5=ה, in Sarah’s name, but had added the letter 5=ה to Avraham’s name.
+
+Verse 16
+
+
+
+Verse 17
+
+ויאמר בלבו, “He said to himself:” the expression ויאמר בלבו, as in Genesis 27,41 about Esau, or in Esther 6,6 where it is used about Haman, is typical for wicked people; on the other hand, when a similar expression is used in connection with righteous people the formulation is: ויאמר על לבו, as in Samuel I 27,1 in connection with David, or in Daniel 1,8 in connection with Daniel. The reason for this change in formulation is that the righteous are allowed to carry out their plans, i.e. what is in their hearts, as they are in charge of their hearts, whereas the wicked only think that they will be able to carry out their plans. The reason that in connection with Avraham the former formulation is used, is because the reader of these words is apt to think that even Avraham doubted G-d’s promise.
+
+Verse 18
+
+
+
+Verse 19
+
+והקימותי את בריתי אתו, “I will maintain My covenant (the promise contained therein) with him.” G-d means that Yitzchok will be the first person to be circumcised on the eighth day of his life.
+
+Verse 20
+
+ולישמעאל שמעתיך, “and concerning Yishmael, I have heard your request, etc.” I am going to bless him, but I will not include him in My covenant with you which I will maintain with Yitzchok, the covenant that I concluded with you between the “pieces” as detailed in chapter 15. In the interpretation of the [covenant of] circumcision, the covenant is mentioned 13 times to teach you it symbolizes a man who is 13 years old and had not had circumcision in his youth, and he intentionally does not circumcises himself - he is liable for extirpation. 
+
+Verse 21
+
+למועד הזו לשנה האחרת "at this season next year;" Rav Huna said in the name of Rav Idi: that year was a leap year [in which an additional month of Adar was added before Nisan], meaning "מועד" and "מועד" was one year apart from each other, and he calls it "next year" because of the additional month it has in it.
+
+Verse 22
+
+
+
+Verse 23
+
+
+
+Verse 24
+
+
+
+Verse 25
+
+וישמעאל בנו בן שלש עשרה שנה וגו , “and Ishmael his son who was 13 years old at the time, etc;” the details provided in this verse are meant to teach us that Avraham as well as his son were circumcised on the same day. We derive this from the expression: בעצם היום הזה, as elsewhere the Torah had told us that Avraham had been ninety nine and the Torah records that Avraham was eighty six years old on the day when Hagar gave birth to Ishmael, and that he was ninety nine years old when he circumcised himself. The only possible reason why the Torah had to be so precise about both data was to teach us that just as Avraham had not delayed with carrying out G-d’s commandment, so also Ishmael submitted to the same commandment without delay.
+את בשר ערלתו, the flesh of his foreskin; according to Rashi, Ishmael, although still a child, had to proceed and perform the circumcision on himself. He adds that this was more painful for him than for his father, whose member had become softened through frequent use in sleeping with his wife. The additional word את, used by the Torah when describing Ishmael’s circumcision, is supposed to draw our attention to this distinction. According to the Talmud in Yevamot 72, even though the additional commandment for Jews to also remove the membrane mentioned earlier had not yet been given, Avraham understood that it would be given in the future, and he performed the circumcision precisely as we do nowadays. According to our sages in Yuma 28, Avraham even performed the rites known as eyruv tavshilim, preparing some food for the Sabbath following a festival when the festival occurred on the Friday, so that cooking on the festival would not look as if one had used the festival as merely a day to prepare for the Sabbath.
+
+Verse 26
+
+בעצם היום הזה, on the very same daywhen G-d had issued the command;
+נמול אברהם, the day which later on would correspond in our calendar to the Day of Atonement was the day when Avraham performed the circumcision on himself. (Compare Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer chapter 29). If Avraham had divinedthe laws of the Torah through use of his intelligence, why had he not performed such an important commandment much earlier? It may have been in order not to discourage potential proselytes in the future. If people contemplating conversion to Judaism would have thought that the very first step in such a conversion was to be the painful rite of circumcision, they might have developed second thoughts. As to the question of why G-d had delayed the commandment until after He had concluded the covenant between the pieces with him, the reason was so that when he would sire Yitzchok, this son would have been the son of a fully fledged Jew already before developing in Sarah’s womb.
+
+Verse 27
+
+וכל אנשי ביתו, “and all the males of his household;” where the previous verse had spoken only of Avraham, this one speaks of all the members of his household. This included slaves purchased by him, not born to members of his household, as well as anyone belonging to Yishmael.
+נמולו אתו, it does not say: מלו אתו, which would have implied that they were circumcised against their will, but they were all willing participants in this procedure.
+
+Chapter 18
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+וירא אליו, “He appeared to him;” Rabbi Chama son of Rabbi Chanina, claims that this appearance occurred on the third day after Avraham had circumcised himself. (Talmud Babba Metzia 86, and quoted by Rashi.) G-d “visited” him as one visits a sick person. The interpretation by that Rabbi is plausible as we do not find anywhere else that the word: וירא is used without the purpose or message of that appearance being spelled out by the Torah. Other commentators believe that G-d’s appearance to Avraham was necessary in connection with revealing to him what He intended to do to the inhabitants of Sodom and the cities associated with it. The angels’ appearance to Avraham interrupted what G-d had planned to tell him at that point, seeing that one of them at least was charged with saving Lot. A third interpretation: The substance of the word וירא was the visit paid to Avraham by the three angels. It is not unusual for angels to be referred to as “G-d, Divine beings;”the author cites some examples of this being: Exodus 23,21, where G-d explains to Moses that His name his integral to the angel He plans to send ahead of the marching Israelites, and that this is a reason the people must be especially cautious not to offend him. The angel has the authority to react without first obtaining specific permission from G-d to do so. At the burning bush we find another such occasion where G-d and the angels are referred to interchangeably; we also find it at the binding of Yitzchok, when “G-d” is portrayed as commanding Avraham to offer his beloved son as an offering, whereas an “angel” orders him not to harm his son.
+באלוני ממרא, according to Rashi that location was named after Mamre, who had been the only one of Avraham’s three allies who had advised him to go through with the command to circumcise himself. As a reward, Avraham experienced a revelation in the property belonging to Mamre. Mamre’s argument had been that seeing that G-d had saved Avraham miraculously from Nimrod’s furnace, surely He had only Avraham’s best interests at heart all the time. Proof lay in the fact that He had even enabled Avraham with only 318 soldiers to defeat four mighty armies. Some commentators are of the opinion that all the three allies of Avraham also circumcised themselves. There is even an opinion that those three died as a result of circumcising themselves. (Our author does not reveal his sources for these latter statements.). Yet another opinion holds that Mamre advised Avraham on how to heal the wound that he had inflicted upon himself. והוא יושב פתח האהל, “and Avraham was seated at the entrance to the tent.” Close to noon, close to the hour when most learned people consumed their main meal of the day. He was looking in all directions if he would find someone to share his meal with. If so he would invite him indoors.
+כחום היום, “during the hottest part of the day.” This detail has been added in honour of Avraham who, at a time when the chance of potential guests being out in the sun was extremely slim, nonetheless positioned himself in that heat in such a way that he could not fail to notice anyone being out in the sun. This is why after begging the angels, (whom he thought to be weary travelers) he added that as soon as they had refreshed themselves he would not detain them any longer. After all, it was midday; when these angels came to Lot he offered them lodging for the night as it was too late to continue their journey on the same evening. (Compare 19,1.)
+
+Verse 2
+
+והנה שלשה אנשים, according to Rashi, these “three men,” were in fact three angels with different tasks to perform. One was Rafael, whose task it was to heal Avraham from the wounds of the circumcision. (this is based on Talmud Baba Metzia 86. He then went on to save Lot.) Of the two angels who proceeded on to Sodom, one was Michael. If it had been so this would contradict the statement of our sages that an angel is assigned only one task at a time. Some Rabbis consider saving Lot as similar in principle to healing Avraham, so that there would be no contradiction.
+נצבים, interrupting their walk by assuming a position which invited enquiries by anyone seeing them. Our author quotes Exodus 34,2 ונצבת לי, as a similar use of this verse; i.e. Moses is invited by G-d to stop climbing the mountain and wait until He gives him the inscribed set of the second Tablets. וירץ לקראתם, “he ran toward them, having understood that this was the reason why these men had suddenly halted for a purpose.
+
+Verse 3
+
+ויאמר: אדוני, “the vowel under the letter ד is a kametz, to indicate that the word is used by someone who was aware that he addressed a messenger from G-d, not just a plural ending; (Minchat Shay) [For practical purposes this means that the word must not be erased as it is one of the holy names of G-d. Ed.]
+אל נא תעבור מעל עבדך, “please do not continue without stopping by at your servant.” Avraham addressed the most important one of them. To the question how he knew which one was the most important one, the answer is that the other two appeared to walk alongside him on either side in the manner that students do when they accompany their Rabbi. We know this from the Talmud, Yuma 37. The text there reads as follows: when the three angels appeared to Avraham, Michael walked in the center and Gavriel and Rafael on either side of him. (Our sages supplied us with the order of the hierarchy of the angels. (Compare an interesting edition called malachey elyon, by Rabbi Reuven Margolit, published by Mossad Harav Kook.) Rashi adds; “even though the Torah reports Avraham as running to meet them after he had already addressed them, the Torah did not report this in the chronological sequence. He had run to meet them before, as otherwise he would have had to shout at them. You might disagree by quoting the Talmud in Pessachim 6, according to which the principle of the Torah not being bound to report in chronological sequence only applies when two or more different occurrences are discussed, and here we are dealing with a single occurrence; but according to Rashi, the system used by the Torah here, is the one known as מקרא מסורס, “a truncated verse.”
+
+Verse 4
+
+ורחצו רגליכם, “and wash your feet.” This all occurred during the season of the desert winds, known as sharaf, as explained by Rashi. According to Rashi, G-d had made the day especially hot, so that the feet of travelers would be soaked in sand and sweat.
+
+Verse 5
+
+כי על כן עברתם על עבדכם, “for surely that is the reason that you passed by your servant;” Avraham indicated that it was not the habit of travelers to skip the main meal which is normally consumed at noon. He indicated that he realised that they were modest and bashful, and had not asked for any food or drink.
+כן תעשה כאשר דברת, “yes, you may do as you have proposed to do.” They agreed to accept the absolute minimum as suggested by Avraham. Nonetheless, he did not deny himself the opportunity to prepare a sumptuous meal for these guests. It was the custom for guests of distinction to invite their host to share the meal with them. An alternate interpretation of the words: כן תעשה. The expression is a wish that the party addressed may continue to conduct himself in the manner just demonstrated; in other words: “may you have frequent opportunities to play host to guests.”
+
+Verse 6
+
+מהרי “hurry!” seeing that the men still had a distance to walk in order to reach Sodom before nightfall, they did not have much time to spend at Avraham’s tent. [Did Avraham know that Sodom was their next destination from the direction in which they were headed? Ed.]
+שלש סאים קמח, “three measures of flour;” this was the amount of average quality flour from which it was possible to distil the amount of superior flour (1 tenth of the tree measures known as saah) to bake cakes for three adults such as these. קמח, according to Rashi, Avraham instructed Sarah to use the kind of flour used for covering the pots, an expression known in the Talmud Pessachim 37 as “bread baked from ground flour.”Other commentators understand Avraham’s instruction to Sarah here to mean that she should bake the entire amount of flour, all three measures. He did so as this was the maximum capacity of the ovens they used. Our sages add that the quality of bread baked in a full oven is superior to that which was baked when the oven was half empty.
+לושי, when the angels arrived at Lot, (Genesis 19,3) he is described as having baked the unleavened bread. From this it is deduced that the women made the dough, kneaded it, whereas the man did the actual baking.
+ועשי עוגות, “and make it into cakes;” something that does not take long to bake. He was conscious that these “men” were in a hurry to get going.
+
+Verse 7
+
+בן בקר רך, “a calf which is soft and can be cooked quickly.” Rashi here comments that the reason why he insisted on slaughtering three calves, [surely more than they could consume even if they had not been in hurry, Ed.] was because he wanted to serve them only the best part of animal, i.e. the tongue (seasoned with mustard). (Based on Talmud Eyruvin 28) In earlier eras tongue was not served with pepper, as pepper was not universally available.
+
+Verse 8
+
+ויקח חמאה וחלב, (meanwhile) “he took butter and milk;” our Rabbis (in Bereshit Rabbah 48,9) state that it is understood that Avraham also served them bread, seeing that he served them things he had not even promised. Although we have no proof for the fact, as one does not usually eat cheese when expecting to be served meat shortly thereafter, and not in the reverse order, the order in which the Torah lists the menu makes this a plausible assumption.
+ובן הבקר, “and the calf;” according to Rashi, the Torah should have written “and the calves;” (pl) some commentators justify the use of the singular by pointing out that Avraham started serving as soon as the first calf was ready to be served. The three lads whom Avraham had charged with these tasks did not all work at the same speed.
+ויאכלו, “they ate;” according to the Talmud, which says the angels had been told by G-d to behave on earth as do the earthlings, we may understand this literally. According to the aggadah, they pretended to eat in order to make Avraham feel that he had fulfilled the virtue of being hospitable. Concerning the first interpretation, G-d is supposed to have criticised the angels that even babies are more discriminating than they, as babies who have been circumcised refrain from eating meat (cooked) with milk. (Based on Pessikta rabbati at the end of this Parshah.)
+
+Verse 9
+
+ויאמרו אליו, according to Rashi, when the dots above the three letters איו, as well as elsewhere in the Torah when the complete word is longer than the number of letters having dots, we are to look for an interpretation for the letters that have no such dot. If you were to ask why the letter ל in this word does not have a dot? This fact prompts us to assume that the angels had first asked Sarah where Avraham was before they asked him where Sarah was. This cannot be correct, as clearly they had not even seen Sarah until after they had eaten. Now that the word has only three dots, it is clear beyond argument that they had first seen Avraham. Subsequently, they asked Sarah where Avraham was. This would also conform to Rashi’s commentary in Deuteronomy 29,28 where he says that the dots teach us that this verse was not written in its proper place, i.e. that the law promulgated there did not become effective until after the Israelites had stood at Mount Gerizim and Mount Eyvol. [It appears that Rashi’s point here is that it is good manners for a guest to enquire after the wellbeing of both one’s host and one’s hostess. This sentence has been omitted in our author’s quotation of Rashi’s commentary on this verse. [Seeing that I do not have the author’s Italian original, I prefer to assume that the Hebrew translator omitted it. Rashi’s commentary is based on the first opinion offered in Bereshit Rabbah 48,15 Ed.]
+
+Verse 10
+
+שוב אשוב אליך, “I will definitely come back to you to visit);” the angel speaks about two separate occasions when he will return; one in Tishrey, the other in Nissan. [According to Rabbi Chavell’s annotation, these words need to be understood in conjunction with verse 12; the prediction of the angels was made in Nissan, and when by the time of the month of Tishrey, Sarah had not experienced signs of pregnancy she despaired. At that point G-d [when the angel returned the first time. Ed.] challenged her attitude asking Avraham why she made fun of the prediction. The prediction was repeated, confirmed, and by Nissan of the year Sarah had become a mother. כעת חיה, [usually translated as “at this time next year,” Ed.]. The expression is so unusual that we must revert to the fact that angels live forever. Were it not for that fact, how did they know that it was in their power to return again, maybe they would have died in the interval? This must be contrasted with a similar statement by the prophet Elisha who was a mortal human being and who promised only “at this time next year,” without mentioning that he would return to witness this fact. (Compare Kings II 4,17 and mentioned by Rashi there.)
+כעת חיה, according to Rashi, seeing that the letter in the word כעת, does not have the vowel sheva under it but the vowel kametz, the prediction does not refer to “at the same season.”
+והוא אחריו, according to the Jerusalem Targum this means that Ishmael was standing (unseen) behind the angel and overheard all this. Another explanation - the angel was standing there to ensure that Sarah would not be alone with what she presumed were male strangers.
+
+Verse 11
+
+ואברהם ושרה זקנים, “and both Avraham and Sarah were old;” seeing that the Torah tells us in Genesis 24,1 that Avraham was old and advanced in years, what is the point of the Torah telling us here that Avraham was old? The answer must be that in the interval G-d had restored a degree of youthfulness to Avraham, so that in chapter 24 we are told that by then he had become “old” again. (Compare Bereshit Rabbah 48,16.
+זקנים באים בימים, “old advanced in years.” We do not find a single reference to old age in the Torah anywhere before this point. Avraham was the first human being described as having “aged.” The Midrash attributes the fact that the Torah here refers to Avraham’s age as due to his having said to G-d: “with all respect, G-d, when father and son walk together and come to a town where neither of them is known, how will they know to honour the father, seeing that they both appear as equally youthful? If You were to “crown” elderly people with a visible sign of their being old, they will know to whom to pay their respects first.” G-d answered Avraham that he had presented a valid argument and that therefore he would be the first human being upon whom this distinction would be bestowed. Along similar lines, the Midrash points out that before Yitzchok, no one was afflicted with physical handicaps, (such as Yitzchok’s blindness) Yitzchok was afflicted with such a handicap at his own request, having said to G-d: “if a human being dies without ever having endured physical handicaps and pain, the attribute of Justice will present a strong case against him by saying that he had never had to suffer any pain for any of the sins he had committed while alive. These pains would have been deemed as punishment so that upon death he could proceed to the regions of eternal bliss in the celestial regions without further delay. G-d agreed with him, and made him the first human being to be thus afflicted. We have not read about anyone falling sick before Yaakov requested that sickness become part of life on earth. Yaakov argued that unless sickness precedes death, a person would not have an opportunity to allocate his estate to his various beneficiaries. G-d agreed with him, and thus he became the first person of whom sickness preceding his death is reported in the Torah in Genesis 48,1. The two or tree days that his sickness lasted, gave him an opportunity to arrange his affairs. This is the reason why the Torah informed us that Joseph was given notice that his father was sick. Otherwise, seeing that he had 11 other sons around him in Goshen, why did special notice have to be sent to the capital where Joseph resided? To sum up: Avraham introduced the concept of old age; Yitzchok introduced the concept of people becoming afflicted with serious physical handicaps. Yaakov introduced the concept of sickness due to approaching death.
+חדל להיות לשרה אורח כנשים, the Torah emphasises that although other elderly women had stopped menstruating, Sarah had continued to experience menses, as Rashi has explained on the line; “he took butter and milk,” i.e. that he could not take bread as on that day Sarah had become niddah, had menstruated, thus causing the dough she had handled to become ritually unclean.
+
+Verse 12
+
+ותצחק שרה, “Sarah laughed;” when the month of Tishrey began, six months after the prediction of the angels, and she had not experienced signs of pregnancy, she abandoned all hope of that prophecy becoming true, as there were only six months left for it to become true. Contrary to her husband Avraham, she had lost faith in the prediction. The reason that Avraham maintained faith in the prediction was that he had heard it from G-d directly, (the angel had spoken to him in the name of the Lord), whereas Sarah, had only been an eavesdropper, and possibly she had not heard correctly. She had assumed that the angels speaking to Avraham had been ordinary human beings. She took a look at her belly and asked mockingly whether such a belly could possibly produce a fetus. As soon as she had done so, in Tishrey, G-d asked Avraham why Sarah had reacted in such a manner, adding that at the time appointed, i.e. when a year had passed at the time of Passover, in the following year, the angel would return and she would have become a mother. In practice this means that the first time she heard the prediction she had heard it from the mouth of an angel whom she had believed to be a mortal human being. The second time Avraham heard it from G-d directly, i.e. 'ויאמר ה, “the Lord said;” this was followed by G-d adding: “Is anything impossible for the Lord to do?”Support for this interpretation can be found seeing that when the angels on the same evening met Lot, Lot offered them unleavened bread, matzot for supper, a hint that the date was the date that would later on become the night of the Seder of the Jewish people.[This is not far fetched at all, as the night when Avraham had fought and secured Lot’s freedom, had been the corresponding date, and Lot therefore had good reason to observe it as an anniversary of great significance for him also. Compare the numerous commentaries on Genesis 14,15, ויחלק עליהם לילה, “He divided the night for them.” Ed.] In the Talmud Rosh Hashanah, 11 both Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yoshua are quoted as in agreement that three previously barren women, i.e. Sarah, Rachel and Chanah, all became pregnant on Rosh Hashanah.
+בקרבה, “in her heart and mind;”
+לאמור, what is the meaning of this word, which literally means: “to say;” [apparently contradicting the previous word, Ed.] According to the plain meaning we should assume that this word here is no different from elsewhere where it appears and means that certain thoughts were to be voiced by mouth. Sarah then would have prepared to voice her opinion of the prophecy which had not come true. In other words: she was ready to voice her ridicule publicly. This would account for the fact that the Torah took her to task for her disbelief more so than it had taken to task Avraham in Genesis 17,17, where he is reported to have reacted similarly to the promise by G-d that Sarah would become the mother of a son of his. However, he had not intended to go public with his doubts.
+אחרי בלותי, “after I have ceased menstruating?” Sarah is almost incredulous that nature would reverse itself in her case. She adds that even assuming that she has experienced this kind of rejuvenation, she knows from her personal experience that her husband has not experienced such symptoms. This latter thought of Sarah is the one the Torah did not reveal to Avraham, not wishing to cause friction between Sarah and her husband by revealing that she considered him impotent. If you wonder about the Torah’s choice of the expression היתה לי, “I have experienced,” in the past tense, instead of the expression תהיה לי, in the future tense, this is something we find quite often in the Holy Scriptures.
+
+Verse 13
+
+למה זה צחקה, “why is it that she ridiculed, etc.?” [the author now repeats something he had already explained, at the top of this page, offering an alternate explanation. Ed.]“If you were to ask why G-d did not rebuke Avraham when he entertained similar doubts in Genesis 17,17, the answer is that seeing that Sarah is considered as on a lower spiritual level than her husband, it is considered as clear that if even her doubts were criticised, her husband’s doubts were deserving of a rebuke even more so, without the need for the Torah to spell this out. Our author uses a parable to demonstrate this point, writing that when a wise woman wishes to rebuke her daughterinlaw for something both she and her daughter had been guilty of, she rebukes only her daughter instead, allowing her daughterinlaw to draw the necessary conclusions about her own behaviour. If G-d had rebuked Avraham in Sarah’s presence, he would have felt ashamed; He therefore did so in an indirect manner.
+ואני זקנתי, “seeing that I am too old?” According to Rashi the Torah changed what Sarah had actually said out of concern for the harmony existing between Avraham and Sarah. What Sarah had actually meant was: “what good does it do for me to have been rejuvenated as long as my husband cannot be rejuvenated also?” How can I become pregnant from his seed? Had the Torah conveyed this thought to Avraham it would have meant that it was only Avraham’s inadequacy that prevented Sarah from having a child.
+
+Verse 14
+
+היפלא מה׳ דבר, “Is there then anything that goes on in My world that I am not aware of or in charge of? G-d teaches Avraham that He can hear even laughter that has only occurred in the heart or mind, without ever having crossed one’s lips.
+למועד, the numerical value of the letters in this word when totaled amounts to the same as the numerical value of the word: בפסח, i.e. 150. (Compare what we wrote on verse 12)
+
+Verse 15
+
+ותכחש שרה לאמור, “Sarah denied the accusation, saying, etc.” this is the origin of the Rabbinic ruling that in most matters women are not acceptable as witnesses, as our matriarch Sarah had been guilty of lying to the Almighty. [How much more would women lie to judges? Their lies are not due to their using falsehood as a way of life, but they are more easily intimidated than men, so that sometimes they tell lies to escape a harsh fate. Sarah, when becoming aware that her innermost thoughts were known to G-d, was suddenly very fearful, possibly recalling other occasions when she had had unbecoming thoughts though she had not voiced them. Ed.]
+כי יראה, “for she had become afraid;” some commentators, Rashi in the Talmud Gittin folio 90 included, claim that every time the word כי occurs in the Torah it ought to be translated as ארי, meaning that just as the word כי can have four different meanings in the Hebrew language so it has the same four different meanings in the Aramaic language.[The author proceeds why this must have been the meaning of Rashi; seeing that readers who have neither command of the Hebrew or the Aramaic language will not appreciate these nuances, I have omitted translating them. Ed.]
+
+Verse 16
+
+וישקיפו על פני סדום, “they looked down at the city of Sodom facing them;” according to Rashi, every time when the expression: השקפה occurs in the Holy Scriptures it has a negative connotation with the exception of Deuteronomy 26,15: השקיפה ממעון קדשך, “look down benignly from Your holy residence in heaven.” Our author questions Rashi by quoting Song of Songs: 6,10, מי זאת הנשקפת, “who is she who shines like the dawn,” as not having a negative connotation; he also quotes: Lamentations 3,50: עד ישקיף ויראה, “until He looks down from heaven and beholds;” a third example where the word השקפה occurs in a benign mode is Psalms 85,12 וצדק משמים נשקף, “and righteousness looks down from heaven.”
+הולך עמם לשלחם, “kept walking with them to see them off.” According to Rashi, the reason that the Torah uses this formulation is that Avraham still thought that these creatures were his guests. He thought so in spite of the fact that they made a [for mortals presumptuous] statement that they guaranteed that they would return at that time in the following years, a statement that no mortal can make and be taken seriously. He assumed that though the person making this promise was mortal, he was a prophet and spoke as a messenger of G-d.
+
+Verse 17
+
+
+
+Verse 18
+
+ואברהם היה יהיה....כי ידעתיו, “seeing that Avraham is destined to become....for I have become intimate with him, etc.;” the word: ידע describes special fondness someone has. A well known example is Ruth 3,2 where Naomi tells her daughterinlaw Ruth that Boaz was a close relative of hers, מודע לאיש, and that it was fortuitous that she had collected leftovers in hjs field. G-d explains that seeing that Avraham will become the founding father of a great nation, and many branch families, it was no more than fair that He should take him into His confidence. This included first and foremost how G-d was planning to deal with the city of Sodom and its inhabitants.
+
+Verse 19
+
+למען אשר יצוה את בניו ואת ביתו, “in order that he will command his sons and the members of his household, etc.” He should point out to them that unless they followed their father’s or master’s tradition, they might wind up just as the people of Sodom would in short order. [Note that here as well as at the time of the deluge, G-d was not punishing these people for their paganism but for not dealing fairly with one another. Ed.]
+
+Verse 20
+
+
+
+Verse 21
+
+.הכצעקתה הבאה אלי עשו, If they really have acted as wickedly as the complaints that have reached Me;” while it is true that everything is an open book for Me, nonetheless the attribute of Mercy has requested that I exercise My power of Mercy for them;
+ואם לא אדעה, but it not, i.e. if some excuse can be found for their behaviour, I will take note of it, “and will have mercy on them at this time.” The formulation here is parallel to Exodus 2,25, when G-d took pity on His people.
+
+Verse 22
+
+
+
+Verse 23
+
+
+
+Verse 24
+
+בתוך העיר, “within the city;” a reference to the city of Sodom itself. The King of Sodom was chief over satellite towns also, even though these satellite towns had nominally “kings” of their own.
+
+Verse 25
+
+!חלילה לך, “far be it from You!” Rashi’s comment on these words [their repetition, Ed.] based on Tanchuma, is: לעולם הבא, “even in future generations.”
+לך, seeing that this word was also repeated by Avraham we may assume that the first time he addressed the masculine attributes of the Lord, and the second time he addressed the feminine attributes. [Avraham does not imply that G-d could judge unfairly; he like Moses after himreminds G-d of how He will be perceived by His subjects, i.e. as subjecting them to collective punishment. The fact that the first time the letter ל is vocalised with a semi vowel under the letter, and the second time that letter is vocalised with a full vowel kametz, was the nuance leading to this interpretation.
+
+Verse 26
+
+
+
+Verse 27
+
+
+
+Verse 28
+
+אם אמצא שם ארבעים וחמשה, “If I find there 45 just men,” if you were to ask why Avraham, who apparently was haggling, lowered the ante by five, whereas after going down to 40, he lowered it by ten each time? We must remember that his requests were not the same each time. He had never intended to ask for any town to be saved if it did not contain at least ten just men. How was this to work? First Avraham asked for the 5 towns to be saved on the understanding that each town had at least 10 just men. He then asked that if in each of these towns there were only nine such just men that G-d Himself would consider Himself as the tenth. He then tried to save the maximum number of people by asking that the towns not be considered collectively but individually, i.e. that a total of 40 just men evenly divided between four of the town should save these four towns. This is why he stopped when assured by G-d that even only ten men, as long as they were all part of one town, would be enough to save the inhabitants of that town. He thought that Lot, his wife, his four daughters and four sonsinlaw, would make up this quorum of ten people. A different version of what Avraham had in mind: when Avraham saw that G-d agreed to his first two requests, he realised that a total of 45 just people would suffice to save the inhabitants of aJi these five towns and their respective inhabitants could be treated as five separate units. He proceeded to treat each town as a fifth of his total request. This is why he explored what the minimum number of just people had to be to secure the survival of the inhabitants of at least one of these towns. In practice, Avraham at first asked for very little, making a greater demand on G-d’s mercy every time he continued to reduce the total number needed to save part of these communities.
+
+Verse 29
+
+
+
+Verse 30
+
+אל נא יחר לאדני ואדברה, “may my Lord not become angry if I continue to bargain;” in the verses 30,31,and 32, the word אדון is to be treated as one of the names of G-d, i.e. the attributes which must not be erased in a Torah scroll.
+
+Verse 31
+
+
+
+Verse 32
+
+
+
+Verse 33
+
+
+
+Chapter 19
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+ויבאו שני המלאכים, “the two angels arrived, etc.;” Rashi points out that when these two individuals arrived in Eloney Mamre in front of Avraham’s tent, the Torah had referred to them as אנשים, men, mortal human beings, whereas now they are described as angels. If you were to counter that in the ensuing argument between the townspeople and Lot they are also described as אנשים, (verses 5,8,12) this sentence has to be understood as follows: “the ones whom the men of the city called אנשים, “men of substance, etc;” the whole dialogue must be understood thus:Alternately; Lot is saying to his fellow citizens: “do not do any harm to the guests in my house to whom you refer as אנשים. He realised that whereas he had recognised these individuals as angels, his fellow citizens obviously had not. This explanation is also applicable to verse 16, ויחזיקו האנשים, “the men” took hold of, etc.”
+ולוט יושב בשער סדום, while Lot was seated (as a judge) in the public square of Sodom;” this was at the time when the quarrel about his guests broke out and he returned home, which was close to the gate of the city. This is why he could be so insistent when inviting the angels (verse 3) as the area was narrow and not exposed to the influence of the evil eye. [No one was familiar with the layout of his house.]
+
+Verse 2
+
+ולינו, “and spend the night (in my house);” he brought them into his house without delay before the people of Sodom could see them, and subsequently could identify them.
+ורחצו רגליכם, “and wash your feet.” This was an additional precaution, as he reasoned if any of the townspeople will see their dusty feet they will realise that they recently arrived from beyond the city gates. This will cause the townspeople to investigate these men further.
+ולינו ורחצו, “spend the night and wash;” an unusual request, as most people wash (their feet) before going to bed at night. Besides we have it on the authority of Avraham who had asked the same men to first wash the dust off their feet before having lunch with him. (18,4) We therefore must understand Lot as follows: “if the men enter the house after having washed their feet, and they are seen as having clean feet, the townspeople will be suspicious believing that Lot had harboured guests secretly for several days already without their knowledge. He reasoned that the lesser evil is having these men sleep with dirty feet for one night than to provoke an altercation with the townspeople. Knowing of this danger, Lot added that the men (angels) should rise early and leave before they could be detected as guests of his.
+כי ברחוב נלין, “for we will spend the night outdoors.” When the angels realised how scared Lot was to give them shelter for even one night, they declined his invitation, suggesting that they would take care of themselves even when remaining in the street, visible to all. They considered it appropriate to be seen by the people whom they had been sent to destroy together with their miserable city. If they would begin to realise this, perhaps they would become penitents.
+
+Verse 3
+
+
+
+Verse 4
+
+מנער ועד זקן, “both young and old.” Seeing that all of them were wicked, Avraham had not received an assurance beyond a minimum of ten.
+
+Verse 5
+
+ונדעה אותם, “so that we may engage in homosexual relations with them;” the word ידע is familiar to us from Genesis 4,1 where it described Adam in engaging in carnal relations with Chavah. Besides, it is clear from Lot’s offer of his two virgin daughters as an alternative to satisfy the carnal desires of the men of Sodom (19,8), that these men were planning a criminal activity.
+
+Verse 6
+
+
+
+Verse 7
+
+
+
+Verse 8
+
+אשר לא ידעו איש, “who have not had carnal relations with any man.” According to proper grammar, Lot should have said: אשר לא ידען איש, “with whom no man had had carnal relations;” seeing that it is usually the male who seduces the female; however the daughters of Lot were not chaste and did not shy away from engaging in seducing men, as we know from later when they initiated carnal relations with their own father. (20,33) Their descendants, the daughters of Midian, kept up the tradition when they seduced the Israelite males in the desert (Numbers 31,17) As a result all the female Midianite prisoners who had lost their virginity were not allowed to live.
+כי על כן, “for on account of” (their not wishing to be disturbed, they came to my house for shelter).
+
+Verse 9
+
+עתה נרע לך מהם, “You are a guest here like they are, yet you conduct yourself like a native (citizen).”
+
+Verse 10
+
+
+
+Verse 11
+
+
+
+Verse 12
+
+
+
+Verse 13
+
+כי משחיתים אנחנו, “for we are about to destroy, etc.” Throughout the mission of the angels they are referred to in the singular mode. (Compare 18,10; 19,17, 19,22) Here the Torah used the plural mode. Why? Seeing that the Torah had used the plural mode (verse 21) it used the same mode here also when the subject is the destruction.
+וישלחנו, “He has sent us;” this word is in the piel conjugation with a dot in the letter ל, although the word normally is used in the conjugation kal and without the dot, when the mission on which the messenger has been sent is a two way mission, i.e. he has to come back with an answer or something tangible before the mission is considered as complete, in this instance we find that the conjugation piel a “strong” conjugation has been used as the mission was one of destruction. Another such example is found in Deuteronomy 32,24: ושן בהמות אשלח בם, “and fanged beasts will I let loose against them.” Still another such example is Psalms 78,45: ישלח בהם ערוב, He dispatched against them wild beasts.”
+
+Verse 14
+
+
+
+Verse 15
+
+וכמו השחר עלה, “and as dawn was about to rise, etc.” this verse was written as if describing an event in the future, as the Torah wished to portray for how long the angels delayed carrying out their mission involving the dual task of destroying Sodom and saving Lot, the latter not having been completed until after sunrise, as is clear from verse 23 where Lot’s arrival in Tzoar is reported. The angels delayed because of their fondness for Avraham. Rabbi Chanina is quoted as having said (Bereshit Rabbah 50,10) that the time between dawn rising and the sun rising is equivalent to the distance a normal person can walk a distance of about 1200 meters. He used verse 23 as the basis for his statement.
+
+Verse 16
+
+ויוציאה, “they took him outside;” there is a letter ו missing before letter ה, to hint that only one angel, i.e. ויוציא, singular, the angel Gavriel, had been charged with the task of saving Lot.
+
+Verse 17
+
+ויהי כהוציאם אותם החוצה, “and it was as he took them outside;” the word אותם appears superfluous, as it is included in the plural suffix ם; the reason it was added was to emphasise that the angel only took Lot, his wife and the two daughters who were still unmarried. They were not allowed to take with them any of their belongings. The spelling of the verse is to teach us that Lot was so “married” to his material possessions that he could not face having to become separated from these. We have a similarly strange sounding grammatical formulation in Numbers 14,32: ופגרכם אתם “and you who are living corpses;”An alternate exegesis for the expression: ויהי כאשר הוציאם; the word is not exclusive but inclusive, i.e. “when the angel took Lot and his family out, etc.;”
+אל תביט אחריך, “literally: “do not look behind you;” the reference is not to what one sees with one’s eyes, but to what one sees with one’s mind’s eye, i.e. leaving behind other members of one’s family. The angel warned Lot to move forward with all possible speed, not allowing any other consideration to slow him down. The reason was that the cloud containing the lethal particles had already risen and was unstoppable. It would discharge its contents all over the region.
+אל תביט, “do not look!” Although the command is issued in the singular mode, [presumably Lot’s wife and daughters did not qualify for being addressed by an angel. Ed.] the warning was meant for each of the members of Lot’s family also. We find a parallel example of such a formulation in Genesis 2,17: ומעץ הדעת טוב ורע לא תאכל ממנו, where the prohibition to eat from the tree of knowledge is addressed to Adam in the singular mode, although it was intended both for him and his wife. This is the reason why Adam’s wife was punished for eating from it. אל תביט, the letter ב has the vowel chink, (instead of tzeyre.)
+
+Verse 18
+
+אל נא אדוני, “not so my lord.” The word: adoni here is not sacred (attribute of Divinity). This is why the verse ends with this word. Subsequently, Lot turns to G-d, and prays: “seeing that Your servant has found favour in Your eyes, etc. “ (Talmud, Shavuot, 35) According to our tradition, the word אדני is sacred, according to that version, we vocalise the letter נ with a kametz.
+
+Verse 19
+
+פן תדבקני הרעה, “so that the disaster will not catch up with me.” He was afraid of the brimstone and sulphur that was beginning to spread all around him.
+
+Verse 20
+
+
+
+Verse 21
+
+גם לדבר הזה, “also to this request.” This is the angel speaking after Lot reminded him that it was his task to save him. [Lot speaking: “In addition to the mere fact that you have the task to save me, I ask you to delay destruction of Tzoar until I can reach higher ground.”]
+
+Verse 22
+
+
+
+Verse 23
+
+
+
+Verse 24
+
+המטיר על סדום, “made it rain on Sodom, etc.” according to Rashi, this occurred at an hour when both the sun and the moon were visible in the sky; according to him the reason was that some of the Sodomites worshipped the sun, others the moon. If both were visible at the time of this disaster, they would all recognise the powerlessness of their deities to protect them against such disasters emanating in the heavenly regions. The basis of this exegesis is that the Torah does not use the immediate past tense, i.e. וימטר, but uses a pluperfect, המטיר, “had made it rain.” The “Passover” had already commenced on the previous evening before the angels had reached Sodom. [Compare 18,12 on the cosmic significance of that night. Ed.]
+מאת ה, according to Bereshit Rabbah 51,3, this is to be understood as the angel Gavriel and Hashem dividing the labour; the former set these harmful substances in motion, the region it emanated from was provided by the Lord Himself. [The reason why our sages understand more than one celestial force to have been involved is the connective letter ו at the beginning of the word: 'וה. Ed.] According to an early version of Tanchuma on this verse, the first time the name Hashem is used in this verse it refers to the angel Gavriel, whereas the second time it refers to Hashem Himself.
+
+Verse 25
+
+ויהפוך את הערים, “He overturned the cities;” it is clear from this verse that the destruction of these cities preceded Sarah’s death, whereas in the Talmud Sanhedrin 109 we read the opposite. The Talmud there relates; Eliezer the servant of Avraham once passed the place where Sodom had been located. He was invited to rest on a bed. He replied that he had made a vow ever since Sarah had died not to ever rest on a bed again. From this it is clear that Sarah had already died. We therefore have to assume that Eliezer was speaking about the town of Tzoar, one of the satellite towns of Sodom which had been spared by the prayer of Lot.
+וצמח האדמה, “and the vegetation on the ground.” Rabbi Yoshua son of Levi stated that when a person takes soil from a piece of land that once was Sodom and he transplants it, it will never grow anything again.
+
+Verse 26
+
+ותהיא נציב מלח, “she was turned into a pillar of salt;” her punishment fitted her crime, as Rashi has explained. Rashi claims that when her husband asked his wife to give some salt to his guests so that their food would taste better, she absolutely refused by challenging his right to violate the laws of Sodom concerning the entertaining of any guests. (based on Bereshit Rabbah, 50,4) She was punished with the same punishment as the cities of Sodom, which were turned into salt as mentioned by Moses in Deuteronomy 29,22.
+
+Verse 27
+
+
+
+Verse 28
+
+וישקף על פני סדום, “he looked down in the direction of Sodom” to see if 10 just people had been found that were deserving of being saved.
+
+Verse 29
+
+אשר ישב בהן לוט, “in which Lot used to live;” he had not lived in all of them but in one of them. We find a similar construction in Judges 12,7, where Yiftach is reported as having been buried “in the cities of Gilead,” and it clearly does not mean that he had been cut up and been buried in different parts of the region of Gilead. [The Book of Judges merely makes the point that any of these cities would have been proud to have provided his grave. Ed.] Compare also Zachariah 9,9: ועל עיר בן אתונות, “and on a male donkey foaled by one of the sheasses.”
+
+Verse 30
+
+כי ירא לשבת בצוער, “for he was afraid of taking up residence in Tzoar.” The angel had saved Tzoar only temporarily until Lot would recover sufficiently to escape to the mountain. As soon as he would have done so, he became afraid that the angel would complete the task of destroying it.
+
+Verse 31
+
+
+
+Verse 32
+
+
+
+Verse 33
+
+ותשכב את אביה, “she had carnal relations with her father;” according to Rashi, what she did was not proper; if you were to argue that we have a statement in the Talmud Baba Kamma 38, according to which her conduct was to teach us that she was praised for being the first of the two sisters to fulfill this commandment, the meaning is that if something inadmissible (basically) has to be undertaken due to circumstances, the person who is the first to do so is given special credit. Rashi criticises the fact that objectively speaking, she committed incest. [According to the rules about incest, as stipulated in Maimonides, gentile daughters are allowed to have carnal relations with their fathers, based on Sanhedrin 58] According to the mechilta, the fact that they found wine in the cave was a sign for them that what they did had heavenly approval. Ed.]
+ובקומה, “and when she got up;” there is a dot above this word. [as opposed to the same word when the Torah describes her sister’s breaking off that intimacy with her father. That word is also spelled without the letter ו when describing the completion of the act of the younger sister. Ed.]
+
+Verse 34
+
+
+
+Verse 35
+
+
+
+Verse 36
+
+.ומהרין שתי בנות לוט, “the two daughters of Lot became pregnant;” According to Rashi, although normally virgins do not become pregnant from the first time they have carnal relations, these two girls had first removed their hymens, so as to enable them to conceive from the first intercourse with a male. [The author refers to an obscure Midrash, according to which the word ervah, used as synonym for genitals, is spelled with the letter ד instead of ר, i.e. instead of עדותן it should be ערותן as their “proof,” that they had been virgins prior to this. This is based on Deuteronomy 22,17 where the mother of a daughter whose newly wedded husband had accused her daughter of not entering marriage as a virgin by saying: “here is the proof that my daughter was a virgin when she married you.” Ed.] At any rate, Lot’s daughters, through tricks known to girls, contorted themselves in a manner that could serve them as “proof” that they had been innocent virgins up to that time.
+
+Verse 37
+
+
+
+Verse 38
+
+והצעירה גם היא, “and the younger sister did also give birth to a son;” the reason this is reported in a separate verse, is to signal that her son too would be originator of a family destined to produce kings. A distant descendant of her was Naamah who became the mother of Rechavam, son of Solomon (Talmud Baba Kamma, 38).
+
+Chapter 20
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+ויסע משם, “he moved away from there.” He moved away from Eloney Mamre.
+
+Verse 2
+
+ויאמר אברהם אל אשתו, “Avraham said to his wife:” when speaking in her presence he said that she was his sister, while she kept quiet. [the word is considered here as the same as “על,” about; Ed.]
+
+Verse 3
+
+הנך מת, “you are about to die;” G-d’s dealings with Avimelech prove that gentiles do not have to be cautioned not to commit acts which they know to be punishable.
+
+Verse 4
+
+ואבימלך לא קרב אליה, “while Avimelech had not become intimate with her.” [but he had kidnapped her, Ed.] The reason why the Torah had to emphasise this latter point, i.e. that Avimelech had not violated Sarah sexually, is the fact that her being kidnapped occurred so close to her becoming pregnant with Yitzchok.
+ויאמר א־דני, He said: ”My Lord,” i.e. this word is treated as the holy name of G-d. 
+?הגוי גם צדיק תהרוג, “Are You killing people even if they are innocent?” The verse appears as an abbreviated version of Avimelech’s thoughts. The full version would be: הגם גוי צדיק תהרוג?, “Are You also going to kill an innocent nation?” The word גם appears in the Torah quite often as part of such an abbreviated formulation. An alternate exegesis of this verse: the word, “also,” is treated as someone or something additional i.e. “if You kill me (Avimelech describes himself as if only one of the common people) then you must also kill Avraham the righteous person for having misled me. Had he not described her as his sister I would not have abducted her.
+
+Verse 5
+
+והיא גם היא, the word היא is spelled with the letter י.
+והיא גם היא, “and she also referred to Avraham as her brother not only in public but also when they were alone.
+עשיתי זאת, “have I done this.” This refers to his having kidnapped Sarah. According to a different interpretation, G-d was content with warning Avimelech because he had taken the trouble to investigate Sarah’s marital status. Pharaoh who had not bothered to do so, was struck with a plague immediately. (Compare B’chor shor on end of verse 16.)
+
+Verse 6
+
+גם אנכי ידעתי כי בתם לבבך וגו׳, “also I am aware that you have acted innocently, etc;” G-d , by saying: גם, includes that not only does He know that Avimelech had not raped Sarah in his heart but that his hands had remained clean also.
+על כן, this is why it was I Who prevented you from “getting your hands dirty;” I prevented you from touching her immodestly.
+
+Verse 7
+
+
+
+Verse 8
+
+וייראו האנשים, according to Rabbi Abba, the people of Gror still saw smoke rising from the valley where Sodom once used to be situated, and that frightened them very much. They were afraid that the angels who had wrought that havoc would show up near them at any moment.
+
+Verse 9
+
+
+
+Verse 10
+
+
+
+Verse 11
+
+רק אין יראת, “there is only no awe of the Lord, etc;” Avraham could have said that there was no fear of any retribution for criminal acts from a deity. There are three diminutives in this verse, i.e. the words: ,רק, אך and מן. We have a rule that one diminutive is designed to exclude something from the rule discussed, whereas two such diminutives are a signal that something additional is to be added. It follows that when there are tree diminutives, it again is meant to exclude something. In this instance Avraham acknowledged that there were things in the universe which the Philistines feared, but it was not judgment by an invisible G-d. Rabbi Chavell refers the reader to the comment on this verse cited in Torah Shleymah #54. by an invisible G-d.
+
+Verse 12
+
+
+
+Verse 13
+
+כאשר התעו אותי אלוקים, “When G-d caused me to wander, etc,” Avraham refers to the time after he had been saved from Nimrod’s furnace when that ruler had expelled him from his country. He had not really had a permanent residence anywhere ever since. He had only been relatively safe after having defeated Nimrod (Amrafel) and his armies as reported in Genesis chapter 14.
+
+Verse 14
+
+
+
+Verse 15
+
+
+
+Verse 16
+
+הנה נתתי אלף כסף לאחיך, “here I have given 1000 pieces of silver to your brother;” Avimelech uses the word “your brother” sarcastically, meaning that he had given this amount of money to the person whom she had described as her brother. It was customary in those days to give expensive gifts to a bride’s brother. (Rash’bam) (We find that Eliezer had done the same to Rivkah’s brother and family.)
+הנה הוא לך כסות עינים לכל אשר אתך, “this is to enable you to call your husband your brother, i.e. as a cover up, but this is to be used only as an explanation to your immediate entourage.
+ואת כל, but concerning the general population in my country you must not continue to describe your husband as your brother. Otherwise other people may become the victims of the same error I have become a victim of. The letter ו in the word: ונוכחת is superfluous, as are numerous letters, [especially when the Torah quotes human beings rather than G-d as the speaker. Ed] In the Jerusalem Targum we find the following translation/exegesis: “the money I have given to your brother as compensation that he has been deprived of your presence for a single night; even if I would give you all my wealth it would not be enough to compensate you for the embarrassment that I have caused you. Suffice it to say that your husband Avraham is a righteous man who is aware that I have not violated you.”An alternate exegesis: הנה נתתי, if I have only given 1000 pieces of silver and nothing else to the person whom you describe as your brother, this will serve as something small enough for him to hide, and you would become embarrassed because people would say that I have paid a bribe to your brother to keep him from raising a fuss, but they would still think that I have violated you. Now that I have also given you sheep and cattle, male and female slaves, openly, everyone will know that you and I have nothing to hide. You will be able to hold your head high and argue with everyone, seeing that your hands are clean and I have returned you to your husband against my will. Yet another explanation of this difficult verse: “Your brother Avraham is the one that can serve as your blindfold. It was he who had hidden from one and all that he was your husband and that you were his wife. He had commanded your entire entourage to go along with this charade, You have also played along, so that my sin must be viewed in that context and not be considered as so severe.”
+
+Verse 17
+
+וילדו, “they gave birth.” Avimelech is not included in the statement: “they gave birth.” It refers only to the females mentioned in the verse. We have proof that this is the correct interpretation from Genesis 29,39 ויחמו הצאן, when the sheep were in heat, where the Torah uses the masculine mode, although obviously it was the female sheep which were in heat, as the male do not conceive and give birth. There is further proof that the expression וילדו, “they gave birth,” cannot refer to Avimelech personally, from verse 18, where the Torah relates that while Sarah was in Avimelech’s palace, captive, all the women in his household, had been unable to give birth though highly pregnant. After Avraham prayed for Avimelech, G-d healed them so that they all gave birth simultaneously as a sign of G-d’s intervention. Another example of a similar formulation in the Torah, which at first glance appears incredible is in Genesis 30,26, where after the birth of Joseph, and completion of a total of 14 years of service to Lavan, Yaakov demands: תנה את נשי ואת ילדי אשר עבדתי אותך בהן, “Hand over my wives and my children for whom I have served you!” Yaakov had served Lavan only for his wives, not for his children.
+
+Verse 18
+
+
+
+Chapter 21
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+וה' פקד את שרה, “and after Hashem had taken due note of Sarah, etc;” whenever in the Torah the name of Hashem is introduced with the prefix ו, meaning “and,” it is a hint that G-d did not act singlehandedly but in consonance with His heavenly Tribunal. (Compare Bereshit Rabbah 51,2) In Bereshit Rabbah 53,6 this function of the Heavenly Tribunal is dealt with at greater length, especially in connection with Numbers 5,28 where the subject is the woman whose husband accused her of violating a specific command not to be alone with a certain man. This woman denied that she had committed an indiscretion, and the Torah promises that if she told the truth, and drank from the “bitter” waters, she will be rewarded with bearing a child she had been unable to conceive prior to this scandal. It is foolish to raise the question that since we know that G-d had known the truth all along, just as He does all the time, why was a miracle needed to demonstrate this truth? Her husband had not known, nor had her peers.
+את שרה, the word את here seems superfluous, as we do not hear about other barren women suddenly becoming pregnant at the same time. As a result of Avraham having prayed for the women in Avimelech’s palace to be able to give birth, even though his own wife had been unable to do so, he was rewarded in that she now became pregnant. All other barren women at the time were also now able to conceive. (Compare Torah Shleymah, 11, on this verse).
+כאשר אמר, “as He had said,” when the angel said that he would return around the same time in the following year and by then Sarah would have a baby. (Genesis 18,10)
+כאשר דבר, “as He had spoken.” A reference to a previous prophecy in Genesis 15,18, when G-d had concluded His first covenant with Avraham.
+
+Verse 2
+
+למועד אשר דבר, at the appointed time He had spoken of. According to Rashi, this refers to 18,14. According to Rashi, based on Tanchuma, Avraham scratched a line in the sundial in order to check in due course whether Yitzchok would be born at that hour of day. (or to when she would become pregnant). If so how could we have a disagreement in the Talmud as to whether Yitzchok was born in Nissan or in Tishrey? Seeing that both Nissan and Tishrey share the same equinox this is quite possible.
+
+Verse 3
+
+
+
+Verse 4
+
+
+
+Verse 5
+
+
+
+Verse 6
+
+
+
+Verse 7
+
+מי מלל, “who would have dared predict that the day would come when I would nurse children?” If someone had predicted this he would not have been believed.
+
+Verse 8
+
+ויעש אברהם משתה גדול, “Avraham prepared a great feast.” This was the custom in those days, as opposed to nowadays when the feast is prepared on the day of the circumcision compare Samuel I 1,24, when Chanah took her two year old son to the High Priest Eli after having weaned him. She took with her oxen and sheep to offer as a sacrifice in the Temple.
+
+Verse 9
+
+את בן הגר מצחק, “showing off in front of his younger brother, as older brothers are wont to do.” (Ibn Ezra) Sarah, Yitzchok’s mother, could not stand her son being belittled by Ishmael. She was deeply offended by Ishmael’s behaviour, presumably encouraged by his mother.
+
+Verse 10
+
+כי לא יירש, “for he will not have a share in the inheritance;” it appears clear from this remark of Sarah that Ishmael had claimed a double portion of his eventual inheritance based on the fact that he was his father’s firstborn son. (Compare Bereshit Rabbah 53,11)
+
+Verse 11
+
+
+
+Verse 12
+
+
+
+Verse 13
+
+
+
+Verse 14
+
+ויקח לחם וחמת מים, “he took bread and hose full of water.” Rashi points out that he did not give Hagar silver or gold, as he himself had grown to dislike Ishmael, seeing that he had become a degenerate. Besides, at this stage Avraham did not have any “inheritance” at his disposal that he could give away, seeing that he himself was only a stranger in the land, just as was his son Ishmael. We have learned in the Talmud Kidushin 17 that when a father and a son convert to Judaism they are both “strangers,” i.e. converts, but no longer legally considered as related to one another. As a result, there does not exist a “fatherson” relationship to base any inheritance claim on. (Choshen Mishpot 283) Nonetheless, it had been Avraham’s intention after Sarah’s death to give his son Ishmael “gifts,” as opposed to an inheritance, as is clear from how he treated the sons of Keturah, his concubine after Sarah’s death (and Yitzchok having married and having received his full inheritance. Genesis 25,5).
+שם על שכמה, “he placed on Hagar’s shoulder;” this refers to the bread and the hose of water. [Not as most commentators assume to Ishmael. Ed.]
+ואת הילד, “and the boy;” he made sure that she held him by her hand. According to Rashi, Ishmael had been taken ill, so that Hagar had to carry him also. If you were to argue that we have been taught that sickness did not exist until Yaakov was on his deathbed, (Baba Metzia 87) we must assume that the Talmud refers to terminal sickness, but that did not include dying from thirst, etc.
+וישלחה, “he sent her off,” into freedom since having been intimate with her he was not allowed to sell her to another owner according to Torah law. (Compare Exodus 21,11)
+
+Verse 15
+
+ויכלו המים מן החמת, “the water in the hose ran out,” before they reached an inn. Avraham had provided only enough water for them to reach the nearest settlement of human beings and she lost her way in the desert.
+ותשלך את הילד, “she abandoned the child,” (by leaving him among some bushes) she did not do so because she could no longer carry him; she did so because he was about to die from thirst; when he first took sick she had carried him for a while.
+
+Verse 16
+
+
+
+Verse 17
+
+את קול הנער, “the voice of the lad;” Rashi uses this line to state that the prayer of a sick person on his own behalf reaches heaven faster than the prayers of others on his behalf. If you were to counter that the Talmud in B’rachot 5 teaches that a prisoner cannot liberate himself from jail, [that he needs outsiders to do that for him, Ed,] what is meant is that the state of mind of the average sick person is such that he cannot pray with the required devotion. If he could, G-d will respond to him first. (Rabbeinu Ovadiah mibartenura)
+באשר הוא שם, “due to the condition he found himself in;” according to Rashi the “condition” referred to is his legal/moral condition. He had not been wicked enough as yet to deserve to die on account of that. If you were to ask that the Talmud in Sanhedrin, 72 when stating that a 13 year boy who has committed a far lesser offense is to be stoned to death to prevent him from becoming a far more guilty person, (the rebellious son) the difference there is that that son had already begun his career as a teenager by committing criminal deeds, whereas at that age Ishmael had voluntarily submitted to circumcision, something for which he deserved a great deal of credit. [I have departed from the author’s text somewhat by pointing to a great merit acquired by Ishmael. Ed.] He had not exhausted that merit at this stage. באשר הוא שם, seeing he was “there,” as opposed to “here;” Hagar had distanced herself from her dying son to avoid having to watch his death throes. A totally different interpretation: “even though He was in a desert with no chance of obtaining water.” [The emphasis is on the word הוא, a reference to G-d Who can provide everywhere.]
+
+Verse 18
+
+
+
+Verse 19
+
+
+
+Verse 20
+
+וישב במדבר, “he settled in the desert.” This is why he had been described as פרא אדם, (Genesis 16,12, where the angel predicted his birth) He was a loner, shunning civilized society.
+ויהי רבה קשת, “he became a professional hunter with bow and arrow.”
+
+Verse 21
+
+ותקח לו אמו אשה מארץ מצרים, “His mother took an Egyptian woman to become his wife.” the place where she grew up and where her family still live. Ishmael first married a Moabite woman but she was not a proper wife for him. He divorced her after his father Abraham sent a message to who had been his wife (Hagar) that this woman was bereft of all virtues. Then his mother took a woman from Egypt for his wife, According to Pirkey de Rabbi Eliezer, chapter 30, Yishmael first married a Moabite woman, and when that marriage did not work out, his mother intervened and chose a second wife for him. This is why the Torah had to report that his mother took a wife for him. His Moabite wife had lacked the Abrahamitic virtue of offering hospitality (even to his father).
+
+Verse 22
+
+ויהי בעת ההיא, “It was around that time;” the “time” described was when Sarah had given birth and the various kings in the region were now convinced and afraid that G-d would keep His promise to Avraham to give the entire region to the descendants of Avraham. As a result, Avimelech was prompted to seek an alliance with Avraham that would put off such an event for several generations, at least. He did not dare ask for a longer period as G-d had assured Avraham that the fourth generation of his descendants at the latest would see fulfillment of His promise. This is also why when the second Avimelech in Yitzchok’s time, asked for this alliance to be confirmed. He made no mention of a future generation. (Genesis 26,28)
+
+Verse 23
+
+כחסד אשר עשיתי עמך, “corresponding to the kindness with which I have treated you.” Avimelech, referring to the present situation with Avraham as the stranger and himself as the owner and King of the region, asks Avraham to return the favour both to him and to his people when I am a stranger and you are the owner of the land.
+
+Verse 24
+
+אנכי אשבע, “I am ready to swear to this.” Avraham does not acknowledge that Avimelech had done him any favours, seeing that his servants had repeatedly stolen the wells he had dug and he had done nothing about it (Compare verse 25).
+
+Verse 25
+
+
+
+Verse 26
+
+
+
+Verse 27
+
+
+
+Verse 28
+
+את שבע וגו, “the seven sheep, etc;” the Hebrew word שבע, is also the basis of the Hebrew word שבועה, “oath.”(Compare verse 25)
+
+Verse 29
+
+
+
+Verse 30
+
+כי את שבע כבשות תקח מידי, ”for the seven sheep accept from me;” because Avraham made this gift to Avimelech, G-d said to him: “because you have given him seven sheep, I will let your descendants wait seven generations during which his descendants will ruin seven locations in which the Jewish people will have their abode. They are: the Tabernacle in Gilgal, Shiloh, Nov, Giveon, and two permanent Temples. Furthermore the Holy Ark was exiled in the territory of the Philistine for a period of seven months during the period beginning with the death of the High Priest Eli. (Samuel I 6,1.) All of this is referred to in the Book of Psalms 38,20: ואויבי חיים עצמו; David meant to say: the three generations that Avraham gave away to Avimelech had to be paid for by his descendants with seven generations. There were seven generations between Avraham and Moses, and Pharaoh, a descendant of Avimelech was still alive. [The seven generations comprise Avraham, Yitzchok, Yaakov, Levi, Kehat, Amram, Moses.]
+
+Verse 31
+
+על כן קרא למקום ההוא באר שבע, “this is why he called that place Beer Sheva.” The site had been known as such but now the town that would develop from that site bore the same name also, commencing in the time of Yitzchok. To the question how Avraham could possibly have made such a concession to Avimelech, our sages comment that we learn from here that one must not enter into a business partnership with a pagan, as eventually one will be forced to swear an oath involving uttering the deity believed in by one’s partner.
+
+Verse 32
+
+
+
+Verse 33
+
+
+
+Verse 34
+
+
+
+Chapter 22
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+ויהי אחר הדברים האלה, “it was after these events;” according to Rashi, the “events” refer to the banquet arranged on the occasion of Yitzchok’s being weaned; Satan accused Avraham of not having offered a single sacrifice to G-d on that occasion. G-d replied that he would have been willing to offer even his own son as such an offering if asked. and that year [when Avraham came back from the land of Plishtim and sat in Chevron] was 12 years before the Akeda of Yitzchok. A different interpretation of the words: הדברים האלה, “these words;” Yishmael had boasted to Yitzchok that he had voluntarily undergone circumcision at an age when it was most painful, to which Yitzchok had replied that he, Yishmael, had endured pain only on one organ, whereas he, Yitzchok, would be prepared to undergo such pain on his whole body, i.e. he would even give his life for G-d. The reason why Rashi chose the first interpretation is that the word אחר normally refers to an event that had immediately preceded the subject raised, whereas here the call for the binding of Yitzchok would then have occurred many years earlier. According to a statement by Rav Hunna in Bereshit Rabbah 44,6, the word for “after” that the Torah should have used should then have been “אחרי.”A third interpretation of the words: ויהי אחר הדברים האלה is that they refer to the treaty concluded between Avraham and Avimelech, when Avraham had voluntarily postponed the fulfillment of G-d’s promise to him without having first obtained G-d’s permission to do so. [It is a historical fact that sovereignty over the land of the Philistines was achieved by the Israelites only about 100 years prior to the destruction of the first Temple, (under King Yoshiyahu), over 800 years after Joshua conquered the rest of the Holy Land. This was part of the punishment for the Israelites not having carried out G-d’s command not to allow a single soul of the then residents to remain alive (if they did not emigrate). (Deuteronomy 20,16). [In other words, although Avraham was the first to cause of the fulfillment of G-d’s promise to be delayed, he was not the last Israelite to do so. Ed.] Another interpretation, one which places the emphasis on the words נסה את אברהם, “He tested Avraham.”Avraham was not tested in order for G-d to convince Himself of his willingness to offer up his beloved son, seeing that such matters are known to Him, Who is omniscient; he was tested by the attribute of Justice which had dared question the degree of loyalty he could summon when so tested. Passing this test successfully would convince the people around him of the absolute obedience to any command G-d would issue to him. There was no way the nations of the world could challenge his faith thereafter.
+
+Verse 2
+
+אל ארץ המוריה, “to the land of Moriah;” the proper spelling should have been האמוריה; it is not unusual for the Torah to omit the consonant aleph, when it would have been silent anyways, one example being Exodus 10,21 וימש חושך instead of .ויאמש חושך [This missing letter א is not unusual, for instance it occurs in Isaiah 13.20] לא יהל ערבי instead of לא יאהל ערבי, “no Arab shall pitch his tent.”
+והעלהו שם לעולה, “and offer him up there as burnt offering.” When Avraham is supposed to have asked G-d: “how can I offer a burnt offering in the absence of the priest whose duty it is to perform such rites? G-d answered that Avraham had been appointed as a priest by Him already. (Bereshit Rabbah 55,7) This is how the sages explained Psalms 110,4: נשבע ה' ולא ינחם אתה כהן לעולם על דברתי מלכי צדק, “The Lord has sworn and will not retract that you are a priest forever as per My word to Malki Tzedek.” (compare Genesis 14,20 where the latter was deprived of that priesthood as he had blessed mortal Avraham before blessing the immortal Lord)
+
+Verse 3
+
+ויקח את שני נעריו, “he took his two attendants;” here Rashi does not interpret what he had explained in connection with a similar expression when Bileam took his two servants (Numbers 22,22). There he had explained that prominent people must always travel in the company of two attendants so that one of them has to follow a call of nature so the prominent person will not have been left alone.
+
+Verse 4
+
+וישא אברהם את עיניו, “Avraham raised his eyes;” The letter ו in the word וישא is superfluous. [I confess that I have not understood this. Ed.]
+
+Verse 5
+
+ !שבו לכם פה, “you stay here!;” Avraham was afraid that if he did not leave them behind they might attempt to stop him from slaughtering his son.
+עם החמור, “with the donkey;” he warned them not to let the donkey graze somewhere. [If he was afraid the servants might interfere with him, this was no reason to leave the donkey behind and carry the firewood themselves. Ed.]
+
+Verse 6
+
+
+
+Verse 7
+
+
+
+Verse 8
+
+יראה לו השה לעולה, “He will select the lamb that should be the one to serve as the burnt offering.” Even though G-d had told him that his descendants would become known through his son Yitzchok (21,12), he was afraid that Ytzchok would be slaughtered. He had said to himself: “perhaps Yitzchok has already been intimate with a woman without my having been aware, and that woman had already given birth to a son or a daughter for him, so that G-d’s promise will be fulfilled even if he dies here.” After all Yitzchok was already 37 years old.
+
+Verse 9
+
+ויבן אברהם מזבח Avraham built an altar;” Yitzchok did not participate in that activity; the reason that he did not do so was not that he would not have been willing to do so, but his father had hidden him so that Satan would not be able to tempt him, as he had tried to tempt Avraham not to carry out G-d’s request by hurting him so that he would be unfit to serve as an offering.
+את המזבח, the altar. The Torah did not write: “altar” without the prefix letter ה which meant that it was an altar that had previously served for such a purpose. According to our tradition, Adam, Hevel, Noach and his sons, had all offered offerings to G-d on that same altar.
+
+Verse 10
+
+
+
+Verse 11
+
+אברהם, אברהם! “Avraham, Avraham!” The repetition of Avraham’s name is to indicate that the call was of an urgent nature. This is a formulation also known in other languages.
+
+Verse 12
+
+עתה ידעתי, “now I know for a fact, etc;” did G-d not already know? Actually the meaning is: “now I am able to make My knowledge public to all.” We have a similar formulation in Exodus 32,12, where G-d said to Moses: ידעתיך בשם, “I have made your name well known.” The appropriate translation would be: “I have made you so famous that no one can dispute it.”
+
+Verse 13
+
+אחר נאחז בסבך, “subsequently he saw a ram that had become entangled in the thicket.” We find a similar construction (using the preposition אחר) in Psalms 68,26: קדמו שרים אחר נוגנים, “the singers preceded the musicians,” or in Kohelet 12,2: ושבו העבים אחר הגשם, ���and the clouds return after the rain.”According to Rashi, Avraham saw the ram as it became entangled. This is why he understood that it was not there accidentally, but that G-d had given him a hint to use it as a substitute for the offering he had been prevented by the angel to complete. If that ram had been standing there as did others, he would have thought it was privately owned by someone else and would not have touched it. A different interpretation: “he noticed it after it had become entangled by its horns.” (Ibn Ezra).
+
+Verse 14
+
+ה' יראה, Avraham said the following: “Hashem will become my witness after I have fulfilled this commandment of His.” The reason that this is necessary is some people will say that this is the mountain to which I brought my son in order to prove that I would honour Him even by offering my son as an offering and at which I had weakened at the last moment and not gone through with my intention, as proved by the fact that I returned with my son intact. They will not give me credit when told that G-d had to stop me from going through with slaughtering my son in His honour.”
+
+Verse 15
+
+
+
+Verse 16
+
+
+
+Verse 17
+
+.וכחול אשר על שפת הים, and like the sand on the beaches of the sea. This promise became fulfilled during the reign of King Solomon. (Kings 5,9)
+
+Verse 18
+
+
+
+Verse 19
+
+וישב אברהם אל נעריו, “Avraham returned to his lads;” where did Yitzchok go? According to Midrash hagadol, quoted in Torah shleymah item 204 on our verse, he was kept in gan eden for the next three years [until he married Rivkah.] A different interpretation: he proceeded to study Torah during those three years in the academy of Ever. (Bereshit Rabbah 56,11)
+
+Verse 20
+
+ויהי אחרי הדברים האלה, “It was after these events, etc.;” according to Rashi, the event that had occurred on Mount Moriah; when returning from that experience, Avraham reflected and realised that if he had indeed slaughtered his son, how could he now get married so that G-d’s promised to him could be fulfilled. If you were to point out that in Genesis 15,1, Rashi had interpreted the line: אחר הדברים האלה, by commenting that wherever we find this construction in the Torah it means that what follows followed immediately after the events recorded previously, whereas here three years elapsed until Avraham sent Eliezer to get his son a wife, we have to make a distinction between the use by the Torah of the word: אחר and אחרי. When the latter word is used it means that the events now described did not necessarily occur immediately following those described previously.
+
+Verse 21
+
+
+
+Verse 22
+
+
+
+Verse 23
+
+
+
+Verse 24
+
+
+
+Chapter 23
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+ויהיו חיי שרה, “The years of Sarah’s life amounted to etc.” People fond of dabbling in the allusions found through the numerical value of words or whole sentences, will note that the numerical value of the word ויהיו equals the “life of Sarah,” in other words, Sarah’s real life commenced with the birth of Yitzchok, at which time she was 90 years old, whereas she died on the day of the binding of Yitzchok 37 years later. This is the numerical value of the word: ויהיו. As long as a person has no child he or she is considered as dead. (Talmud Nedarim, 64)
+מאה שנה, “one hundred years;” Rashi comments on the reason why the word: שנה, “year,” is repeated here three times, when the Torah could have simply written: מאה עשרים ושבע שנה, “one hundred and twenty seven years.” He suggests that the Torah wished us to know that Sarah was as free from sin at a hundred as she had been at twenty, and that she was as beautiful at twenty as she had been at seven. This, of course, raises the question why the Torah, in reporting the death of Yishmael at 137 years (Genesis, 25,32) used exactly the same formulation? We can answer this by pointing out that when reporting Sarah’s age, each group of years is reported separately, as an individual unit, whereas when reporting Yishmael’s age at death, the groups of years are introduced in the construct mode, i.e. מאת, not מאה, i.e. all the years had the same common factor. Not only that, but the Torah sums up her years once more with the words: שני חיי שרה, “the years of Sarah’s life,” i.e. all her years were earmarked by a common denominator. If, when Avraham’s death is reported our sages have seen fit to read something into the way his years are reported, although there too just as at the death of Yishmael we find the word מאת in the construct form, this can be accounted for by the word: ימי, “days of,” which are superfluous and therefore available for interpretation. (Genesis 25,7) Rashi also adds that Sarah was free from sin at twenty as if this was something exceptional; this sounds strange as at that time everyone was free from sin, i.e. not held accountable until the age of twenty? We must understand Rashi as if he had written: ”just as she was free from sin at 20, she remained free from sin until the end of her life. Accountability for sins at the age of 12 or 13 for females and males respectively, commenced only after the Torah had been given. [Our midrashim describe Yishmael as “innocent” when expelled by Sarah, as he was below 20 years of age. Ed.] Sarah had not required cosmetics at twenty anymore than she had required it at the age of seven. We know from Rivkah, who accepted jewelry at the age of three in order to enhance her appearance, that girls in those days felt the need to enhance their natural charms at an early age. (Compare Genesis 24,22) There is a Midrash in pessikta zutrata according to which the reference to her being one hundred as meaning that she was as beautiful at a hundred as she had been at twenty, whereas she was as free from sin at twenty as she had been at seven.
+שני חיי שרה, “the years of the life of Sarah.” According to Rashi, the apparently superfluous words: “the years of,” mean that she retained all her virtues in equal measure throughout her life. The wording used by the Torah when reporting Yishmael’s life does not lend itself to such an interpretation, seeing that up until his death we had never heard anything about his age, as distinct from Sarah. It is clear therefore that the words underlined earlier were meant to relay an additional message to the reader.
+
+Verse 2
+
+ותמת שרה, “Sarah died;” it is most unusual for the Torah to report the fact that a woman died. (Miriam, Moses’ sister’s death are exceptions, Numbers 20,1 as are Rachel’s premature death in Genesis 35,18, and Deborah, Rivkah’s nursemaid in Genesis 35,8.) When such a death is reported it is not only a compliment to the virtuous lives these women had lived, but is always associated with a remarkable event. Sarah’s death is associated with the enormous amount of money paid by her husband for acquiring the land for burying her. Rachel’s premature death is reported so that we should know where she has been buried. Deborah’s death is reported so that we should know why the place where this occurred became known subsequently as אלון בכות, “oak of mourning.” [Also in order to draw our attention to the fact that her mistress, Rivkah’s death has not been reported. Ed.] Miriam’s death was the reason that the well that had accompanied the Israelites throughout their long march in the desert ceased flowing.
+בקרית ארבע, in Kiryat Arba; there is an opinion that the reason why the location where she died is mentioned, while the locations where the other matriarchs died were not mentioned is that Avraham had sent her there before taking Yitzchok with him to be offered as a sacrifice on Mount Moriah. He did not want her to have any knowledge of this. Avraham and Sarah at that time had been residents of B’er Sheva. Another commentator claims that Sarah had moved from B’er Sheva for health reasons as the climate in Chevron (mountainous instead of desert) was more likely to cure her. When she heard why Avraham had taken Yitzchok to Mount Moriah she died. This is why Avraham had to come all the way from B’er Sheva to mourn and bury her. Had she died in B’er Sheva, Avraham could have buried her there without problems as he was at home there.
+בקרית ארבע, this was a town that had been built already by Adam, as we know from Joshua 14,15: קרית ארבע שם חברון לפנים, האדם הגדול בענקים, “the name of Chevron in former times was Kiryat Arba, the greatest of all the giants.”A different version found in midrashim, is that the name of that town is due to it changing ownership four times one after another. First it belonged to the tribe of Yehudah; then it became the private property of Calev of that tribe; subsequently it became a city of priests, and eventually one of the cities of refuge. (Compare Bereshit Rabbah 58,4) This is why only its outskirts were given to Calev as is apparent from the wording in Joshua 21,12. Compare also in Baba Batra 122. ויבא אברהם, “Avraham arrived.” Some scholars claim that the term: ויבא, need not imply that the subject came from afar, even if he only came from the outside of the house this term is used as we know from Joseph’s entering Potiphar’s house where the Torah wrote: ויבא הביתה לעשות מלאכתו, “he entered the house in order to perform his tasks.” (Genesis 39,11)
+לספוד לשרה ולבכותה, “to eulogize Sarah and to weep over her loss.” He had not secured a suitable plot where to bury her.
+
+Verse 3
+
+
+
+Verse 4
+
+גר ותושב אנכי עמכם, “I am a stranger as well as a resident amongst you.” A stranger because I came from a foreign land – and a resident because I intend to settle amongst you. Rashi suggests that Avraham also implied that if he were to be denied his request he would insist on his legal rights in the matter (by simply becoming a permanent resident). If you were to point out that according to what Rashi had explained on Genesis 13,7 where the Canaanites are described as the then residents of that land, that had been before he had become a father of children. (Such people cannot claim permanent resident status.) After all, G-d had not promised Avraham that he would inherit this land. He had only promised it to Avraham’s descendants. Now that Yitzchok had been born, he was entitled to inherit part of the Land.
+תנו לי אחוזת קבר, “give me a burial plot that will have the status of ancestral ownership.” Avraham meant that it would not be satisfactory to bury Sarah in a piece of land that was privately owned at that time, as the present owner or his heir could demand at any time in the future to plough over her remains and scatter her bones. However, if he would let me acquire a plot of land for a burial site I would not worry that he would plough it.
+
+Verse 5
+
+
+
+Verse 6
+
+נשיא אלוהים, “a prince of G-d;” they answered his first statement first when he had described his status as either that of a stranger or resident, by saying that he was much more than that. They considered him as if G-d Himself had sent him. As far as his second request was concerned that he needed to acquire ancestral rights to any burial plot so as to safeguard it to being ploughed over in the future by its previous owner, every one of them would be willing to deed to him the plot that he had already chosen for himself his own future burial plot. He should meanwhile proceed to bury his dead and they would it consider an honour to have Sarah buried in a plot that had once belonged to one of them. איש את קברו, even if Avraham, by chance would select a plot that one of them had already earmarked as his own future burial ground.
+
+Verse 7
+
+ויקם אברהם, “Avraham stood up and prostrated himself;” Avraham was dependent on the goodwill of everyone in that town; even if Efron had been willing to sell his field or plot Avraham would have needed the townspeople permission to convert it into a mausoleum. Knowing this, Avraham had to first arise in order to prostrate himself in the appropriate manner to all of them, even to the one sitting behind him. On the other hand, he did not need to do so before a single individual such as Efron; this is why the Torah emphasises here repeatedly that Avraham prostrated himself before the common people. (verse 7 and verse 12). In verse 12 he prostrated himself before Efron in the presence of the townsfolk.
+
+Verse 8
+
+ופגעו לי בעפרון, “and entreat Efron on my behalf;” if you were to ask why all this was necessary after he had been offered the choice of many grave sites by the assembled people, the reason could be that Efron was himself not a member of the Hittites, as were the townspeople, so that they could not have spoken in his name also. He had come from afar and settled in Kiryat Arba and after having dwelled there they elected him as their president.
+
+Verse 9
+
+ויתן לי, “so that he will give me, etc.” Avraham never suggested that he wanted the cave of Machpelah as a gift; on the contrary, he considered that even after having paid a substantial amount of money for it, he would still view this as a gift bestowed upon him by Efron.
+בקצה שדהו, “at the edge of his field;” in other words, using of that corner as a burial ground will not interfere with his having continued full use of his field for agricultural purposes.
+
+Verse 10
+
+ועפרון יושב בתוך בני חת, “Efron was sitting among the Hittites (as if he were also a Hittite), like the Shunammite in II Kings 4.13.”
+
+Verse 11
+
+השדה נתתי לך, “I have given you the field;” Efron pointed out that unless he gave Avraham not only the cave of Machpelah but also his adjoining field, Avraham would have no access to the cave. (without asking permission to visit there each time).
+
+Verse 12
+
+
+
+Verse 13
+
+נתתי כסף השדה קח ממני, “I have already set aside the money for the field, just accept it from me.” The word: נתתי, really belongs to an earlier part of the dialogue which the Torah did not quote in full. Avraham responded to the “generous” offer with the question: “did I hear you right that you are also willing to “give” me the field?” There is no need for this as I have already have set aside the money for the field, i.e. that money is already legally yours if you fulfill the bargain. He made it clear that he would not accept a gift. The sages who were the authors of the cantillation marks already drew our attention to this nuance by placing the tonesign gershayim, a disjunctive tone sign, on the word: נתתי, to indicate that Avraham considered this part of the transaction as having been completed.
+
+Verse 14
+
+
+
+Verse 15
+
+
+
+Verse 16
+
+וישמע אברהם אל עפרון, “Avraham listened to Efron (accepted his conditions), i.e. he accepted Efron’s evaluation of the value of the field, i.e. that to him it was worth 400 shekel of pure silver;
+וישקול אברהם לעפרן, “Avraham weighed the amount of silver;” you will note that in this verse the name “Efron” is spelled without the letter ו. The reason the sages spelled it thus is so that the numerical value of the letters in his name should add up to 400, i.e. the amount of silver pieces he had charged Avraham for burying Sarah in that cave.(Compare Baal Haturim)
+כסף עובר לסוחר, “silver,” i.e. pure silver acceptable by any merchant. The word: עובר means “passable;”
+
+Verse 17
+
+ויקם, literally: “it stood up;” the subject is the field, and the Torah means that by becoming the property of Avraham this field now had “risen” in spiritual value. שדה עפרון, one side of that field extended along the whole length of that town. Here it is described in precise detail, i.e. ממרא היא חברון, whereas previously it had been described as קרית ארבע, “the city of the four;” later on during the lifetime of Yaakov it has been described as ממרא קרית הארבע היא חברון, (Genesis 35,27) a location where both Avraham and Yitzchok had been residents at one time or another. Earlier. in connection with Avraham, (12,18) he had been described as having settled in Kiryat Arba which is described there as “part of Chevron.” This was meant to tell us that Mamre was the original founder who had built himself a town adjacent to Chevron which had previously been inhabited by Hittites. He called that new town “Mamre,” thus memorializing himself. The “groves” of Mamre, i.e. אלוני ממרא, were situated at the entrance to that town. The cave of Machpelah, in another direction, at that time had belonged to the Hittites. After Mamre’s death, a giant by the name of Arba became very powerful and claimed the entire area, naming it Arba after himself. Several centuries later, when the Israelites had defeated most of Canaanite tribes they called that town Chevron.
+
+Verse 18
+
+
+
+Verse 19
+
+אל מערת המכפלה, “literally: “to” the cave of Machpelah; actually the word: אל here appears in lieu of the prefix ב. We find similar instances of the word אל being used in lieu of the prefix ב, in Exodus 25,16, and Numbers 19,6, as well as in Numbers 19,17.
+
+Verse 20
+
+ויקם השדה, “this formulation uses the verb קום in the sense of being stable, remaining firmly established. Examples are Numbers 30,10 where it refers to the validity until honoured, of a vow made by a woman of age and not married. In this instance, the Torah records that the transfer of the cave and field adjoining Machpelah from Efron to Avraham remains valid forever. Avraham himself, of course, also acquired the legal right to be buried alongside his beloved wife Sarah.
+מאת בני חת “from the Hittites.” Avraham had taken the town seal and attached it to the document registering this sale. He did so in order to prevent the townspeople claiming in the future that Efron had not had the legal right to sell the property to be used as a burial site. [It occurs to this editor that if Yaakov, Avraham’s grandson, had not relied on Lavan’s word when he agreed to work seven years for the hand of Rachel in marriage, but had insisted on a written document, he might have saved himself an untold amount of grief.]
+
+Chapter 24
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+ואברהם זקן, “and by now Avraham had visibly aged;” he could no longer move around easily, and that is why he sent his servant (to select a bride for Yitzchok).
+
+Verse 2
+
+זקן ביתו, “the senior servant of his household;” Eliezer was old enough so that Avraham did not have to worry that he would take advantage of his position to indulge in incestuous conduct.
+תחת ירכי, according to the plain meaning of the word it has nothing to do with the place where Avraham had circumcised himself, although it was the most sacred symbol of his body. If it had, why did Avraham not make him swear an oath by using it as the focus instead of using Hashem as his focus? It simply was the custom in those days that any person who was subservient to another person would place his had under the thigh of his master as a symbol that he acknowledged him as such. Having done this was equivalent to a promise to carry out his master’s wishes. This custom was still in use in India in our author’s time.
+
+Verse 3
+
+מבנות הכנעני, “from among the daughters of the Canaanite nation.” Avraham did not want that in the future anyone could claim that his claim on the Holy Land was based on intermarriage with the previous owners of that land. It had to be established beyond any shadow of a doubt that the Israelites’ claim to the land was based on G-d having firmly promised it to me.
+
+Verse 4
+
+אל ארצי, “to my homeland;” i.e. to Charan.
+ואל מולדתי, “to my birthplace;” i.e. Ur Casdim. Avraham told Eliezer that he did not want any gentile woman to have a share in his ancestral portion.
+
+Verse 5
+
+ההשיב אשיב את בנך, “shall I really take back your son there? This is a peculiar question by Eliezer, as Yitzchok had never been out of the land of Canaan. Seeing that Eliezer had been sent back there on behalf of Yitzchok, his question was perfectly in order. We find a similar verse in Ruth 1,22 where Naomi is described as “returning” to the land of Israel with her daughterinlaw , although the daughter inlaw, Ruth, had never set foot in that land.
+
+Verse 6
+
+
+
+Verse 7
+
+ה' אלוקי השמים, “the Lord, the G-d of heaven;” Rashi comments that Avraham did not add that this “G-d” was also the “G-d” of the earth. The reason was that the time frame Avraham spoke about was before he had preached monotheism to his peers, none of whom had until then recognised Him as their G-d. If that approach to G-d’s stature were correct, we would have to ask how G-d could have been referred to as the G-d of heaven in Genesis 1,1, when, according to tradition the heaven as we understand it was created only on the second day of the six days of creation? [In our daily prayers, אדון עולם, we commence by stating that that the Master of the universe was “king” before any creature had been created? In other words, the title “King” is not dependent on this King already having subjects over whom to rule. Ed.] The same point has been made by Isaiah 43,10: “before Me no god was formed and after Me none shall exist.” The point that the prophet makes is that G-d’s existence is dependent on His having loyal subjects. Only He is eternal. This is also the reason why the first blessing in our thrice daily amidah, שמונה עשרה, does not contain a reference to G-d as “king,” as do other blessings. It would be inappropriate to commence with the sequence: מלך העולם אלוקי אברהם וגו', “the King of the universe, the G-d of Avraham, etc.” seeing that in the chapter of the Torah whereAvraham is introduced He could not truthfully have been described as the “King” of the whole universe. When Avraham in our verse credited G-d with having taken him out of his father’s house, etc., he thereby “crowned” G-d as “king” also on earth, he being His first subject. Nonetheless this was a far cry from being recognised as king of mankind.
+אשר לקחני מבית אבי, “Who has taken me out of my father’s house;” He removed me from my relatives in order to give me this land, and He certainly would not want me to return my descendants to the land which He had taken me out of. This is why I am so certain that He will send His angel before you to make your mission successful. Why else would He have brought me to this country, if not in order to be able to fulfill His promise to give this country to my descendants.
+ולקחת אשה לבני, “you will take a wife for my son.” This is not a commandment or a prayer, but a prophecy. We find confirmation for this interpretation in the words: 'כאשר דבר ה “as the Lord has said,” in verse 51 of this chapter.
+
+Verse 8
+
+רק את בני, “only my son etc.;” according to Rashi the restriction applied only to Avraham’s son Yitzchok, as he had been a offered as an Elevation Offering on G-d’s altar on the Holy Mountain of Moriah. It is therefore not appropriate for him to leave the Holy Land for any purpose.
+לא תשב שמה, “do not cause to go back there.” Avraham says that he does not want his son to leave the ancestral earth G-d had promised him.
+
+Verse 9
+
+תחת ירך אברהם, “under the thigh of Avraham.” Joseph, when asked by his father to swear that he would not bury him in Egypt but with his father and grandfather in Machpelah, did not do so, as he considered such behavior not respectful toward his father, even though he had requested him to swear. (Compare Genesis 47,2931)
+
+Verse 10
+
+ ויקח העבד, “the servant took, etc;” Eliezer was able to do so, as the Torah tells us that Avraham had entrusted all his most treasured possessions to his care, וכל .טוב אדוניו בידו
+עשרה גמלים, “ten camels” to be ridden by ten men who would form the necessary quorum at the engagement and (marriage ceremony). [The bracket is to tell the reader that different manuscripts either have or do not have that word. Ed.]
+מגמלי אדוניו, “from the camels owned by his master;” from the choicest, raised in his own home.
+וכל טוב אדוניו בידו, “there are opinions according to whom the letter מ as a prefix to the word מגמלי should be placed in front of the letter כ in the word: וכל, so that that word is read as ומכל, “and samples of all,“ etc. These “samples” are what the Torah speaks about in reporting Eliezer as sharing out all kinds of goodies in verse 53 of our chapter.
+
+Verse 11
+
+ויברך הגמלים, “he made the camels kneel down.” Camels have two sets of knees. They therefore have to perform two acts of kneeling, before being able to drink. We have learned more details in the Talmud Chulin 76.
+
+Verse 12
+
+
+
+Verse 13
+
+הנה אנכי נצב, “I am standing;” Eliezer meant that he had come to a critical juncture in his journey, and had to make some decisions.
+על עין המים, “at the town’s water fountain.” This is where I can test a potentially eligible girl on her suitability as Yitzchok’s wife to be. When such a girl is away from her home, whatever she decides to do has not been what she had been told to do by her mother or father, but reflects her true personality.
+
+Verse 14
+
+והיה הנערה, Eliezer now refers to how he will test a girl who at first glance appears to him as a suitable prospect, seeing that he cannot ask all the girls to draw water his camels; The use by Eliezer of the masculine mode in connection with the word נערה, is most puzzling. The word therefore must refer to some word or subject the Torah has omitted. This is not as unusual as it sounds, as we have another example of something like this in Deuteronomy 22,23: כי יהיה נער בתולה מאורשה לאיש, “when there will be a young girl who is a virgin betrothed to a man, etc;” in that line also the word יהיה, which is in the masculine mode, cannot refer to the girl in question but to the subject matter. In our verse here, Eliezer addresses a subject matter he has not spelled out, such as such, his examination of the girl’s character.
+ואמרה שתה, and she says: “go ahead and drink!” Eliezer is not engaging in ניחוש, divination, but he was looking for an omen, something permitted by Jewish law. He did not rely on this as a reason to give Rivkah the jewelry as he had first enquired about her immediate family history and it had turned out that she was a member of Avraham’s family. He had only made the jewelry ready in the event that it turned out that the girl offering him water to drink should turn out to be a member of Avraham’s family.
+
+Verse 15
+
+
+
+Verse 16
+
+בתולה, “a virgin;” according to the view that Rivkah was only three years old, why the Torah needed to add that she was “a virgin”? since the Talmud (Niddah 44) says that any three years old girl that had been violated by someone, her hymen will grow again! (something that was known to people in those days).
+
+Verse 17
+
+
+
+Verse 18
+
+
+
+Verse 19
+
+
+
+Verse 20
+
+ותער כדה אל השוקת, “she poured the water in her jug into the trough (for the animals).” She observed the rule of not wasting water by pouring surplus water that Eliezer had not drunk into the trough meant for the camels to drink from, instead of pouring it back into the well.
+
+Verse 21
+
+משתאה לה, although literally “at her,” the word לה here is to be understood as if the Torah had written: עליה, “about her.” We find a similar formulation in Numbers 23,23: כעת יאמר ליעקב ולישראל, “at that time it is reported about Israel, etc.”
+
+Verse 22
+
+ויקח האיש, literally: “the man took;” the reason why the Torah did not write simply: “the man gave, etc,” is that he searched among the jewelry he had with him the kind which was the appropriate size for someone her age. He would give it to her in the event she met the conditions Eliezer had made as the Torah had previously outlined.
+בקע משקלו, the word בקע means “split,” as we know from Exodus 14,16 ובקעהו, “and he split it;” (the waters of the sea of reeds) a half shekel each (for each arm).
+
+Verse 23
+
+ויאמר, בת מי את, he said: “whose daughter are you?” He had asked this question before giving her anything, as is clear from when he repeats what took place before sharing any food with her family in verse 47 of this chapter. An alternate interpretation: the line: “the man took out a golden nose ring,” is to be understood literally; he did something completely appropriate as a reward for the girl’s having let him and his camels to drink, a task which had consumed time and effort. He also meant to show that he was a servant of a wealthy man. When telling her family at the dinner table what had transpired at the well, he added that he had first enquired from her about her family status; he did so in order to flatter the family, suggesting that he would not have given her such gifts before knowing that she was a member of Avraham’s family. נזם זהב, the translation of this word by the Targum here is different from the same word in Exodus 35,22. This word sometimes means a ring worn in the ear, other times a ring worn in the nose.
+ושני צמידים על ידיה, “and two bracelets on her hands.” The word: שם , “he placed,” has been omitted in this verse.
+ללין, this is a noun meaning: “a place that serves as shelter for the night.” He asked whether there was nearby an inn for travelers. (He did not ask for accommodation for his ten men and camels as a favour). The formulation ללין is parallel to the formulation לדין, and the noun ריב “quarrel,” from the root רוב, “to fight.” When used as a verb we find the formulation: וילן, “he stayed overnight.”
+
+Verse 24
+
+בת בתואל אנכי בן מלכה אשר ילדה לנחור, “I am adaughter of Betuel, who is a son of Milkah whom the latter bore for Nachor (Avraham’s brother). The reason she gave him all these details was that she did not want Eliezer to think that Betuel had been born by a concubine, but that he was the son of Milkah.
+
+Verse 25
+
+גם תבן גם מספוא רב עמנו, “we also have plenty of straw and fodder.” She volunteered additional information that Eliezer had not enquired about, so as to indicate that his entourage would also be welcome as guests in her father’s house.
+ללון, “for you all as well as your beasts to spend the night.” The formulation is parallel to: לדון, to judge, or לשוב, to come back. She implied that there was no inn for travelers nearby but that there was no need for this.
+
+Verse 26
+
+
+
+Verse 27
+
+ברוך ה, “blessed be the Lord, etc.;” wherever we encounter the formula: 'ברוך ה in connection with G-d, be it in the Holy Scriptures, the oral Torah, Mishnah, or in our prayers, or in connection with nature’s products, it is to be understood as either a greeting or praise.
+
+Verse 28
+
+
+
+Verse 29
+
+
+
+Verse 30
+
+
+
+Verse 31
+
+ברוך ה, according to our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 60,7, Eliezer thanked the Lord, who had removed the curse that had lain on him together with all the descendants of Canaan. He no longer suffered from that taint as he had faithfully carried out the mission his master had assigned to him.
+
+Verse 32
+
+לרחוץ רגליו ורגלי האנשים, “to wash his feet as well as the feet of the men accompanying him;” even though Rivkah’s brother was an idolater he knew about the customs in Avraham’s house. When he said that he had “cleaned the house already,” he referred to the removal of idolatrous images. At any rate, he respected other people’s religious convictions and did not wish to offend their sensitivities.
+
+Verse 33
+
+ויישם, “it was placed before him;” although this word is spelled here with two letters י, it is meant to be read and understood as if it had been written: ויושם. (Compare also Rashi).
+
+Verse 34
+
+
+
+Verse 35
+
+ועבדם, “and menservants.” The letter י indicating the plural mode before the final letter ם is missing here; it suggests that Avraham had only a single manservant, i.e. himself. Eliezer performed so many tasks for Avraham that it seemed as if he had numerous menservants [If so, it is not clear who the ten men were who had accompanied Eliezer. Perhaps those other assistants, especially the 318 men who accompanied him went he went to liberate Lot from captivity. (Genesis 14,14) Perhaps he gave them their freedom after they had become circumcised? Ed.]
+
+Verse 36
+
+אחרי זקנתה, “after she had become old;” so that he could not expect to have any more sons from her.
+
+Verse 37
+
+
+
+Verse 38
+
+
+
+Verse 39
+
+אלי, “perhaps;” the word is spelled defective with the letter ו missing after the first letter. It suggests that Eliezer was using a certain amount of flattery for his hosts, indicating that if he had wanted to he could have prevented this union and his master might have chosen his own daughter as his daughterinlaw.
+
+Verse 40
+
+
+
+Verse 41
+
+
+
+Verse 42
+
+“when I arrived today;” on these words Rashi comments that Eliezer’s story has been repeated twice, whereas many other stories have not even been spelled out completely once but have only been hinted at. It is the Torah’s compliment for Eliezer by G-d Himself. According to the plain meaning the reason for the repetition is that the Torah wished to describe Eliezer’s oath to Avraham as one part of the story and his prayer to G-d to help him find a girl such as Rivkah as his own initiative, for how else would he meet a blood relation of his master as the very first girl that came out to draw water. His hosts were suitably impressed, so that they agreed that this match must reflect the will of G-d. (verse 50)
+
+Verse 43
+
+והיה העלמה, earlier (in verse 16) Eliezer had referred to the as yet unknown to him girl as הנער. He had thought previously that the inhabitants of Aram Naharayim only spoke and understood the local language, Aramaic. However, it turned out that they also understood Hebrew, as we know from when they said: תשב הנערה, “let the girl remain for a while.” (verse 55)
+
+Verse 44
+
+
+
+Verse 45
+
+
+
+Verse 46
+
+
+
+Verse 47
+
+
+
+Verse 48
+
+את בת אחי אדוני לבנו, “the daughter of my master’s brother for his son”. In verse 27 Eliezer had referred to the family of Betuel as “the house of my master’s brothers,”(plural) whereas here he speaks of my master’s brother (singular mode. Why the sudden change? It was a hint that he was to take only one of his master’s relatives as a bride for Yitzchok.
+
+Verse 49
+
+
+
+Verse 50
+
+
+
+Verse 51
+
+
+
+Verse 52
+
+
+
+Verse 53
+
+
+ויוצא העבד כלי כסף, “the servant brought out silver trinkets, etc.” The trinkets mentioned here were intended as gifts accompanying the betrothal, whereas the ones mentioned earlier were gifts for his hosts. Betrothal is viewed as the first step of the wedding. (Kidushin 50) According to the plain meaning of the verse, Eliezer gave the valuable gifts to Rivkah, seeing that he was certain she would take them with her to her new home, whereas he gave relatively inexpensive gifts to various members of her family. Rivkah’s father, Betuel, did not require to be “bribed” by gifts; he was happy that his daughter had been chosen to become the wife of Yitzchok, his cousin. This is reflected in the text when the Torah wrote: “ ויאמר אחיה ואמה וגו', “her brother and her mother said, etc.; (used delaying tactics) Betuel was not in favour of any delay, as he was overjoyed that she married within the family. According to the plain meaning of the text, he allowed his son and wife to speak first, seeing that they had been the recipients of gifts, or because in that household it was Lavan who was the “senior” voice seeing that he was very astute. We have read in an aggadic text that Betuel tried to poison Eliezer’s food in order to prevent the marriage and that due to an angel’s switching plates he ate the poisoned food himself and died. This is supposedly why his name no longer appears in the rest of the story. A third version. The reason that Betuel, בתואל, was known by that name was that seeing that he was the nominal chief in Aram, he had reserved the right for himself to sleep with every virgin before she became married. His peers therefore demanded that he also sleep with Rivkah before she became married, otherwise they threatened to kill him. He agreed, and that it why the angel Gavriel killed him before he could carry out his intention.
+
+Verse 54
+
+
+
+Verse 55
+
+תשב הנערה אתנו, “let the girl stay with us, etc.;” if you were to ask how they could have asked for a delay after having already agreed to the match and having declared the match as having been made in heaven? They had even said: “take Rivkah and be on your way!” (verse 51) At the beginning they had thought that Eliezer had been authorized only to arrange for the betrothal which would take place in Yitzchok’s hometown. The matter therefore had appeared as very urgent. Now that they saw that Eliezer had already performed (through the gifts) the rites of betrothal, they no longer saw any reason for the hurry. They therefore asked that an engaged girl be given the customary 12 months to prepare herself for her nuptials. (Compare Talmud, Ketuvot 57)י
+ימים או עשור, the word: ימים does not refer to a few days, but to the days making up 12 months, i.e. a year. (Compare Esther 2,12)
+
+Verse 56
+
+
+
+Verse 57
+
+
+
+Verse 58
+
+
+
+Verse 59
+
+ואת מנקתה, “and her nursemaid.” She was used to her as she was still so young. The reason that the Torah mentions this is that otherwise we would not have understood why her death, while Yaakov was on the way back to the land of Canaan, had been mentioned [on that occasion with her name. (Genesis 35,8) Ed.])
+
+Verse 60
+
+
+
+Verse 61
+
+
+
+Verse 62
+
+בא מבא באר לחי רואי, “he had returned from visiting b’eerlachay roi;” he did not literally return from that well but from the region’s outer boundary. The formulation in our verse is similar to Kings I 8,65: מלבא חמת, or from Genesis 25,18: בואכה אשורה, “all the way to Ashur.” It is as if the Torah had written: מן בא. The word בא is used here in the same sense as in Judges 1,24: הראנו נא את מבא כניסת העיר, “please show us the way to the entrance of the city.” The letter מ in the word: מבא is to be understood like the letter מ in Psalms 38,5: מתום which means תום, from תמים, pure, unadulterated, (in the spiritual sense. Ed.]
+
+Verse 63
+
+ויצא יצחק, “Yitzchok went forth;” (he left his house) seeing that the Torah does not specify from where “Yitzchok went out,” our sages have understood it to mean that he left Gan Eden, where he had spent the last three years after undergoing the akeydah on Mount Moriah. (Compare our comments page 164 on Genesis 22,19)
+לשוח בשדה, “to the shrubs in the field.” The word is familiar to us from Genesis 2,5: שיח השדה, “vegetation of the field,” it is also familiar to us from Genesis 21,15: תחת אחת השיחים, “under one of the bushes” where Hagar abandoned her son Yishmael who was about to die. An alternate exegesis: it is related to the word: שיחה, “conversation;” it then means that Yitzchok went into the field to converse with G-d (pray).
+
+Verse 64
+
+ותרא את יצחק ותפול מעל הגמל, “when she saw Yitzchok she fell from the camel.” When she had her first glance of a handsome tall man walking across a field that had not been trampled by previous pedestrians crossing it, she, being a mere three year old, became frightened because she thought that he was a rapist or an armed robber. She fell from fear. Another exegesis of this line: the sequence here has been distorted. After seeing a figure approaching, she asked about the identity of that person. When told by Eliezer that “this is my master,” (actually his master’s son) she hastily descended from the camel and covered her face with a veil, as a sign of her chastity. Her descent from the camel was totally voluntary, just as when someone prostrates himself in prayer, it is described as ויפול על פניו, meaning: “he deliberately bowed his face to the ground.”
+
+Verse 65
+
+
+
+Verse 66
+
+
+
+Verse 67
+
+ויביאה האהלה שרה אמו, “he brought her to the tent of Sarah, his mother” Every word which normally requires the letter ל as a prefix, can instead be spelled with the letter ה as suffix. In other words: the word האהלה in our verse means: “to her tent, i.e. the tent that used to be Sarah’s tent.”
+שרה אמו, Rashi presumably because we all know that Sarah had been Yitzchok’s mother explains here that as long as Sarah had been alive, a light was burning in her tent on a 24/7 basis, and her doughs were always blessed, and a cloud was overhead at the entrance to her tent. These phenomena had stopped with her death. As soon as Rivkah entered the tent the light began to burn again. This was taken by Yitzchok as a sign that Rivkah would replace the mother had held dear in his heart as long as she had been alive. (Rashi’s source is Bereshit Rabbah 60,16)
+וינחם יצחק אחרי אמו, Now Yitzchok became comforted, (came to terms with) the death of his mother when he saw that his wife possessed the virtues his mother had been famous for.
+
+Chapter 25
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+ויוסף אברהם ויקח אשה, “Avraham continued life as usual by taking a wife;” this is a reference to Hagar who now had a another name, Keturah. We find a similar formulation to the above in Isaiah 8,5: ויוסף ה' דבר אלי עוד, “the Lord continued by speaking to me again;” the Torah wished to teach us civilised norms by reporting this, i.e. that when widower’s sons have grown up but have not married yet, he should wait with remarrying until his children are married. (According to matnot kehunah in Breshit Rabbah the apparently superfluous word ויוסף, “he continued,” is to teach us that it was the same woman to whom he had been married once before, i.e. Hagar.) In order to make the point that a widower under the right conditions is to marry again is why the above line has been written immediately after the Torah had reported the marriage of Yitzchok to Rivkah.
+ושמה קטורה, “whose name was Keturah; Rashi comments on this that her name now was קטורה as her good deeds were comparable to the incense, קטורת later on offered twice daily in the Holy Temple. To your question that this appears to contradict what we have read in Rashi’s own commentary on Genesis 21,14 ותלך ותתע, that Hagar had returned to the idolatrous practices she had learned in her father’s house, you will have to say that in the many years since then (over 40 years) she had become a penitent, and on account of that her name had been changed by the Torah. According to the plain meaning of the text, Keturah is not identical with Hagar. (Rash’bam).
+
+Verse 2
+
+
+
+Verse 3
+
+אשורים, the name given to tent-dwelling nomads. לטושים, people who live scattered, and do not form a cohesive civilisation. The meaning is similar to the word נטושים people who have been abandoned on the fields, the letter נ having been exchanged by the letter ל.
+
+Verse 4
+
+
+
+Verse 5
+
+
+
+Verse 6
+
+ולבני הפילגשים, “and to the sons of the concubines;” according to Rashi this word has been spelled defectively, the letter י before the final letter ם which would indicate the plural mode, being absent, in order to teach us that there was only one concubine. Concubines refers to Hagar and Ketura. [The fact is that in our Torah scrolls nowadays that letter is not missing. Concubines did not enjoy the financial protection offered by a ketuvah. Ed]
+נתן אברהם מתנות, “Avraham gave substantial gifts;” [in lieu of a share in his estate. Ed.] Our sages (in Sanhedrin 91 understand the word מתנות as referring to the names of different types of pagan deities, i.e. he taught them how to protect themselves against curses uttered in the name of such “deities.” Our author, quoting another source believes that we must understand this as what is taught in Sanhedrin 65, הלן בבית הקברות כדי שתשרה עליו רוח טומאה, “if someone spends the night in a cemetery in order to endear himself to the demon whose domain this is, he is guilty of violating the commandment no to seek advice from the dead.” (Deuteronomy 18,1) The fact that the word מתנות is spelled defectively, (without the letter ו before the final letter) lends support to this interpretation, as the way it is written the numerical value of the word 890) מתנת) is equal to the numerical value of the combined words למדם להשביע השדים, “he taught them how to swear by the demons in order to neutralise their power.”[According to this editor’s arithmetic the numerical value of למדם להשביע השדים totals only 854. The whole subject is wrapped in mystery. The interested reader is referred to the Torah Shleymah by Rabbi Menachem Kasher of blessed memory, who on page 996 of his commentary on this parshah has a great deal more to say about it. Ed.]
+וישלחם מעל יצחק בנו בעודנו חי, “he sent them far away from his son Yitzchok while he was still alive. He wanted to prevent them from staking a claim to part of Yitzchok’s inheritance.
+אל ארץ קדם, to a country further east to which he had ancestral claims dating back to his father Terach. The region of Aram is east of the land of Canaan. These were the “gifts” he bestowed upon the sons of the concubine(s). (Compare Isaiah 9,11) We have also read in Genesis 22,21 about Utz being one of the sons of Milkah; Job is also known to have originated in the land of Utz, presumably the same land inhabited by Nachor, Avraham’s brother. Job is described there as the most outstanding personality in the whole ארץ קדם, the land given (in part) to the sons of Avraham’s concubine(s). We are entitled therefore to consider the land of Utz as identical with the region of Aram.
+
+Verse 7
+
+
+
+Verse 8
+
+ויגוע, “he expired; according to Rashi thisexpression denoting someone’s passing is reserved for use with the righteous. [This Rashi is not found in our editions of Rashi at this point at all. Ed.] This raises the question of why this term has been applied to the death of almost all of mankind during the deluge, the people who had perished there having been clearly described as everything but “righteous.” (Compare Genesis 7,21) [There the Rashi is not found either. Ed.] The answer is that what Rashi meant was the combination of the term גויעה and אסיפה, “i.e.simultaneous death and transfer of the soul to the domain where the ancestors enjoy the benign radiance of G-d’s spirit.” [afterlife, in plain English.] Even though the combination of these two terms also occurs where the Torah records the death of Yishmael (25,17), our sages see in this proof that the latter had become a penitent prior to his death.
+
+Verse 9
+
+יצחק וישמעאל , “both Yitzchok and Yishmael;” even though Yishmael was the senior son of Avraham, in fact his firstborn, Yitzchok is mentioned first as he was born by Avraham’s principal wife. Yishmael, after all was the son of a slavewoman.
+
+Verse 10
+
+
+
+Verse 11
+
+ויהי אחרי מות אברהם, “it came to pass after the death of Avraham that G-d blessed Yitzchok.” Rashi explains that although G-d had bestowed the power to bestow blessings on Avraham, in fact had given him a free hand on whom to bestow his blessing, he had not made use of the power to bless Yitzchok. Rabbi Nechemyah claims that although Avraham had passed on that power to distribute blessings to Yitzchok, he himself had not conferred a blessing on his son, so that G-d had now made up for this omission on the part of Avraham. (According to some sources he had not done so as he foresaw the birth of Esau; according to others, he did not want to provoke the anger of Yishmael his first born.)
+
+Verse 12
+
+
+
+Verse 13
+
+
+
+Verse 14
+
+
+
+Verse 15
+
+
+
+Verse 16
+
+
+
+Verse 17
+
+
+
+Verse 18
+
+
+
+Verse 19
+
+ואלה תולדות יצחק, “and these were the descendants of Yitzchok;” previously the Torah had listed the descendants of Yishmael after the descendants of Keturah; now the Torah goes into details of Yitzchok’s descendants.
+אברהם הוליד את יצחק, “Avraham sired Yitzchok.” The Torah appears to repeat itself here because it did not refer again to Yitzchok’s mother as opposed to 25,12 where it stressed that Yishmael’s mother was Hagar, stressing that she was of Egyptian origin. Were it not for this detail, I might have said that the reason why the Torah repeated the line that Avraham was Yitzchok’s father was another way of saying that Yitzchok was raised in his father’s house, similar to Moses, of whom the Torah reported that as soon as Pharaoh’s daughter had brought him to Pharaoh’s palace he was raised as if he had been her son. (Exodus 2,10) The repetition is meant to stress that of all the (eight) sons that Avraham fathered, Yitzchok was by far the most important one (for the Jewish people) An alternate explanation: Yitzchok’s father was not Avram but Avraham. As long as Avram’s name had not been changed he had not been able to sire Yitzchok. A third explanation: if you were to ask why the Torah repeated this information, as if Avraham had numerous sons? The Torah wished to stress that ultimately Avraham’s historical stature was assured only by his son Yitzchok. The Torah hints at a famous line by King Solomon in Proverbs 17,6: עטרת זקנים בני בנים, “the crown of the elders are their grandchildren, but the glory of their children are their parents.”
+
+Verse 20
+
+ויהי יצחק בן ארבעים שנה, Rashi’s comment on this apparently historically irrelevant detail, is that the Torah informed us that Yitzchok, after marrying Rivkah, waited for three years until she was old enough to engage in intercourse and become pregnant. (14 years old) [In his commentary on Genesis 24,16, item 91 Rabbi Kasher in his Torah Shleymah, deals at length with the conflicting opinions about Rivkah’s age at marriage. Sifri on Deuteronomy 34,7 claims that Rivkah lived to the age of 133 years, same age as that of Kehat, son of Levi. Our author calculates that if Rivkah had only been 3 years at the time when she was married that calculation would be wrong by eleven years. He proceeds to give details tracing the various ages of our patriarchs and matriarchs down to the birth of Kehat. He also understands the Midrash according to which Avraham heard about the fact that Betuel had fathered Rivkah as not meaning that this had occurred at the same time as the akeydah, but that Avraham had belatedly heard about this. As proof that Rivkah could not have been only 3 years old when Eliezrer met her, he cites the fact that her brother and mother refer to her as a נערה, a term never applied to someone younger than 12 and a half years of age. The well known traditional historic text known as seder olam in its first chapter, also writes that when Avraham returned from the Akeydah he was told that Rivkah had been born. The meaning of that Midrash was that she had been born some time ago. Another proof that she was of age is that we have an iron clad rule that parents must not marry off a girl who has already reached puberty unless she has been asked and given her consent.] The fact that in our chapter Rivkah’s family proceeds to ask for her consent proves that without it the parents could not have married her off.
+מפדן ארם, according to Rashi, this is identical with the region elsewhere described as שדה ארם, (Hoseah 12,13 also sometimes described as שדה פדן. In Arabic it appears as פדן שדה. Yaakov is described in Hoseah 12,13 has having fled from .שדה ארם
+אחות לבן הארמי, the sister of Lavan from Aram. It is the custom of the Torah to describe the elder brother of a girl/woman as someone’s ancestry. Compare: מרים אחות אהרן, “Miriam, Aaron’s sister” (Exodus 15,12) or מחלת אחות נביות, “Machalat, Nevayot’s sister.” (Genesis 28,15)
+
+Verse 21
+
+ויעתר יצחק, “Yitzchok prayed;” Rashi continues with: this word when used for prayer always describes an intense prayer, one reflecting the urgent need of the petitioner. He describes this as the meaning wherever we encounter this root in this mode. He proceeds to quote three verses from Scripture as proof. Then he adds that this rule applies to this word generally.
+לנוכח אשתו, “in order to enable his wife to conceive;” the expression נכח occurs in a similar sense in Judges 18,6 'נכח ה דרככם, “which the Targum renders as: “G-d will ensure that your mission will be successful,” i.e. אתקין ה' ארחכין. He did not pray on his own behalf as he was aware that he was not sterile. The reason that he knew this was so was that G-d had told Avraham his father that his name would be carried on through his son Yitzchok. (Genesis 21,12)
+כי עקרה היא, ‘for she was barren;” what was the reason why Rivkah up to that point had been barren? G-d did not want the gentiles to be able to credit her fertility to the blessings that her family had bestowed on her when they said: “may you become the mother of thousands and tens of thousands.”(Genesis 24,60). She therefore could not conceive until G-d responded to her husband’s prayer on her behalf.
+
+Verse 22
+
+ויתרוצצו, “they quarreled;” the word means that something is about to be broken. Compare Chronicles II16,10.
+אם כן, “if there is so much pain involved in pregnancy, why do I have to remain alive?” I prefer to die immediately and avoid suffering the pains of pregnancy and birth.
+ותלך לדרוש את ה, “she went to obtain an answer to her problem from one of the prophets in her time.” (Rash’bam) The answer she sought was why the fetuses inside her were engaged in a fight. She was well aware that her term of pregnancy had not yet been completed. She was afraid that after all these pains she might miscarry.
+
+Verse 23
+
+ויאמר ה' לה, “the Lord said to her:” by using a prophet to inform her; some commentators say that seeing that Avraham was still alive. [She had turned to him and that he answered her; others say that the reason she had not told her husband about her problem was that she did not want to cause him pain when hearing about her problem, and about the fact that G-d had not revealed the answer to him.] The reason why Avraham answered her instead of her husband was why Yitzchok could not believe that Esau was a wicked person[, as she never told him about all her problems and the answer she had received].
+שני גויים ב��טנך, Do not worry that you are experiencing so much pain because you are carrying two nations in your womb and it is common knowledge that the birth pains for two are so much greater than for one. 
+Even though the word for “nations” is spelled in our texts as גיים, it is to be read as if it had been spelled גוים in the regular way.
+ממעיך יפרדו, “they are fighting for separation from one another already in your womb. Rashi, on this expression, comments: “one wishes wickedness to prevail on earth, the other righteousness.” G-d implied that at this point in time the outcome of who would prevail in this struggle was not yet known. It would only become clear when the two children’s vocational choices had been made, one a hunter, the other a philosopher, making study his primary occupation.
+ורב יעבוד צעיר, “and the older will become subservient to the younger.” This is where the Torah decreed that Yaakov, though the younger, will eventually wind up as the senior one of the twins to be born. Rav Hunna (Bereshit Rabbah 63,6) is quoted as having said that it means if Yaakov merits it he will become the senior, if not, Esau will become senior to him. [Not found in the editions of Bereshit Rabbah at my disposal. Ed.] An alternate exegesis: the word רב does not mean: “the senior one,” but simply means “הרבה,” a great deal,” or “for a long time.” The word occurs when Esau first declined Yaakov’s gift by saying: יש לי רב, “I have lots.” (Genesis 33,9).
+
+Verse 24
+
+והנה תומם, “and behold there were twins.” The word for “twins,” i.e. תומים, has been spelled defectively, the letter י being missing. The reason is to draw our attention to the fact that although, generally speaking, twins resemble each other greatly, in this instance the one was covered with body hair, while the other was smoothskinned. Also, Esau was born with a foreskin, whereas Yaakov was born without. One, Esau, had reddish skin not resembling human skin, whereas Yaakov’s skin was goodlooking. According to Psalms 80,14, the conquerors of Jerusalem are viewed as resembling wild boars, whereas in Jeremiah 50,17 Israel, i.e. Yaakov is described as a lamb. If they were all that different the question arises: “why were they born as twins?” After all, as the proverb says: “where there is straw there must also have been a harvest first.” To quote Ovadiah 1,18, ובית עשו לקש, “the house of Esau will be turned to straw.” We also have a verse: קדש ישראל לה' ראשית תבואתו, “Israel is sacred for G-d, the first of His harvest;” (Jeremiah 2,3). The reference to Yaakov in Rivkah’s womb [the Torah describes him as the only one of the two twins who is worthwhile]; hence the word is in the singular mode.
+
+Verse 25
+
+ויצא הראשון “the first one emerged;” why was he born first? In order that he together with any afterbirth, i.e. something dispensable and at the same time despicable content of the womb, would be discarded with the emergence of Esau. Rabbi Abahu illustrated this by means of a parable in Pessikta Zutrata: when entering a bathtub or public bath, the servant always precedes his master in order to clear away any offensive residue left behind by the previous user. An alternate exegesis: the reason why Esau was born first is that he would inherit the material physical parts of the earth, which had been created before the world to come. Another version: he was born first as he was the product of the last drop of Yitzchok’s seminal ejaculation. We owe this insight to Rabbi Yossi, recorded from a conversation he had with a well educated lady, quoted in the above mentioned midrash. He explained to her that if someone puts two pearls inside a tube sealed at one end, and he wants to access the first one he inserted, he first has to remove the ones he inserted at a later stage. In our story also, in order for the world to be able to enjoy the benefits Yaakov contributed to Judaism and thereby to mankind, Esau had to be born first, as he had blocked Yaakov’s way. Yaakov was conceived from Yitzchok’s first drop of semen so that he was innermost in Rivkah’s womb.
+אדמוני, from the word אדם, a complete human being. He is also described as hairy like a fur coat. Some commentators view the verse as reflecting abbreviations, the word אדרת not being understood as in a construct mode to the word שער, hair. The meaning that results would be: “he was covered with hair as if wearing a mantle.” (Ibn Ezra)
+
+Verse 26
+
+וידו אוחזת, “with his hand grabbing;” the younger baby’s had is portrayed as holding on to the older twin’s heel already while still inside Rivkah’s womb. The author cites as proof for this Hoseah 12,4: בבטן עקב את אחיו, “in the womb he tried to overtake his brother.” The word עקב is understood to mean: “heel, hoof.” Yaakov is presumed to have tried to prevent Esau from becoming the firstborn. He wanted to become the firstborn as he had developed from his father’s first drop of semen as quoted by Rabbi Yossi’s response to the lady’s question in Pessikta Zutrata. This would enable Yaakov to claim the status of being the legal firstborn. His failure to prevent Esau from emerging from Rivkah’s womb first, prompted him years later to acquire that status through buying the birthright from his brother.
+בן ששים שנה, “sixty years old.” Rashi comments on this that during the first ten years of their marriage Rivkah had not been old enough to conceive, and that during the ten years following he had waited before praying to have children as had his father Avraham during the first ten years in the land of Canaan. When she had failed to conceive during these years, he realised that she was barren and prayed on her behalf. He did not want to sleep with a Canaanite concubine, as his status of having been a burnt offering on the altar on Mount Moriah made this inappropriate. All Canaanites are viewed as “slaves,” both males and females. [The author’s quoting this Rashi at this point is interesting as he had previously gone to some length to prove that Rivkah could not have been so young when she got married. Ed.]
+
+Verse 27
+
+ויגדלו הנערים, “the lads grew up;” Rashi comments on this statement that they had attained the age of 13 at this point. During the years prior to this they did not show signs of developing radically different from one another. Until that age they had both been tutored by their father and been trained in how to become wholesome personalities, as pointed out in Bereshit Rabbah 63,10. It is pointed out there that as of that age the father may thank the Lord that he has been relieved of the burden of raising his children. [Every father nowadays recites this blessing at his son’s bar mitzvah. Ed.] The deeper meaning of this is that from that day on a father is no longer held accountable for sins committed by his children. You might object by arguing that at the time of the sale of the birthright the children must have been at least 15 years old, seeing that our sages interpret the dish of lentils that Yaakov had cooked as having been the meal offered on the occasion of their grandfather Avraham being buried at the age of one hundred and seventy five, and they added that the reason that Avraham did not live to be one hundred and eighty, was to spare him the anguish of seeing his grandson Esau going astray spiritually. We know from the Torah that Avraham had been one hundred years of age when Yitzchok was born, so that at his death the children of Yitzchok must have been 15 years of age. The answer given by the midrash to this argument is that Esau had succeeded in keeping his wicked deeds secret or misrepresenting them as good deeds for two years.
+איש יודע ציד, “his vocation was to use trickery to achieve his ends.” Trapping and hunting wild beasts cannot be done successfully without first deceiving those beasts[, as man is physically weaker than they are]. The expression is also used by the Torah as Yitzchok, in due course, would ask Esau: הביאה לי ציד, “bring me some venison.” The Torah therefore had to tell us first that Esau had become a hunter of venison by profession.
+יושב אהלים, “according to the plain meaning this means that Yaakov tended sheep i.e. slept in tents as the sheep graze where they find meadows. Compare Genesis 4,20, אבי יושב אוהל ומקנה, “the founder of nomads tending sheep and cattle.” Another reason for describing Yaakov in such terms is that he was going to make his livelihood as a shepherd while at Lavan for 20 years.
+
+Verse 28
+
+ויאהב יצחק את עשו, “Yitzchok loved Esau;” in connection with Esau the Torah uses the past tense, i.e. ויאהב, to show that Yitzchok did not love Esau all the time, butonly at times when he provided him with venison. When describing Rivkah’s feelings for Yaakov, the Torah uses the present tense, אוהבת, as her feelings for him were constant. Furthermore, it is the nature of women to love those who look after her domestic animals.
+
+Verse 29
+
+והוא עיף, “and he was worn out;” it is usual for hunters to be worn out after chasing their prey. Moreover, sometimes they lose sight of their prey in the forest and get lost and it takes them a long time to find their way home. They may remain lost for a day or two, and when they finally get home they are totally worn out, hungry and thirsty.
+
+Verse 30
+
+מן האדום האדום “from this reddish looking stuff.” Every time we encounter the adjective “red,” it always appears to be repeated. The author quotes as examples: אדמדם, ירקרק in Leviticus 13,19 and 49 .(Rash’bam). When someone requests something urgently, he is always in the habit of repeating the key words in such a request. Esau, on that occasion, was extremely in need of food and drink.
+
+Verse 31
+
+מכרה כיום, “Sell me effective immediately!” when the Talmud in B’rachot 32 states that a priest who has killed a person must not perform the priestly service in the Temple, the same applied during Avraham’s time when the priestly services were performed by the respective firstborn males of each family. The priests from the tribe of Levi were appointed only after the sin of the golden calf. An alternate exegesis: while it is true that a person is obligated to give honour to his older brother, the firstborn, no such rule exists when that firstborn is a wicked person. Yaakov no longer considered his brother Esau as worthy of being honoured. כיום, effective as of today;” Yaakov referred to the extent that the rules for the privileges of the firstborns exist now. He knew that in the future the “birthright” would not be subject to being “sold” by the one who had been born to it. An alternate exegesis: the word כיום refers to the monetary value of such a birthright at that time. Clearly it had very little value as so much could happen before the present owner of it could ever make use of it. [Esau’s reference to his impending death in a hunting accident being a distinct possibility makes sense then. Ed.]
+
+Verse 32
+
+הנה אנכי הולך למות, “here I am going to die;” (prematurely) the inheritance of the land of Israel promised by G-d to Avraham is linked to the birthright. Seeing that it will not be realised until after 400 years as G-d had told Avraham, (15,13) and seeing that Esau did not expect to live that long, of what benefit was the status of being the firstborn to him personally? What could he possibly lose by trading that status for a hot meal at this time? ולמה זה לי הבכורה, “what good is this birthright for me?” Esau means that if he could be assured that he would live that long he would not entertain the thought of selling his birthright, but since G-d Himself had told his grandfather that this would come true only in the fourth generation [and Avraham had therefore been able to make a pact of non aggression with Avimelech covering the next three generations, Ed.] he could sell such an entitlement for next to nothing. His own life was in danger daily due to his vocation as a hunter. In the very best set of circumstances his claim to the Land of Israel could only become of interest after their father Yitzchok had died. [Yitzchok was only 175 years old when this conversation took place. Ed.]
+
+Verse 33
+
+השבעה לי כיום “swear it to me as of this day. Yaakov requested an oath that Esau would not change his mind about this deal at some time in the future. This was the only way that the sale would have meaning for him. He did so because the Talmud teaches that if someone announces: “I will sell you whatever I will inherit from my father,” such a statement is legally meaningless. (Baba Metzia 16).
+
+Verse 34
+
+ויעקב נתן לעשו וגו, meanwhile Yaakov had already given to Esau, etc.;” at the same time when Esau had paid him money for the birthright, Yaakov had already fed him bread and a dish of lentils as proof that the sale had taken place. This was a normal procedure when commercial transactions took place in those days. We find an additional example of this in Genesis 31,46, when Yaakov and Lavan conclude a peace treaty by the stone monument.
+ויבז עשו את הבכורה, “at that point Esau had shown that he despised the birthright;” until Aaron was appointed priest, the Temple service used to be performed by the firstborns of each family, regardless of which tribe they belonged to. In practice what Esau had done was as if he had said: “why should I dirty my hands with the blood of sacrificial animals,” as per Ezekiel 35,6: as I live, declares G-d: “I will doom you with blood, blood shall pursue you;” the reference is to the blood of circumcision as well as to that of sacrificial animals. [Esau is presumed to have poked fun at the need of circumcision also.] An alternate explanation of the line: “Esau despised the birthright;” seeing that Esau did not want people to point at him as the fool who had sold his birthright, he made it plain that he despised the birthright and what it stood for. In the end, we know that he came to regret this as he accused Yaakov of having tricked him out of it. (27,36).
+
+Chapter 26
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+ויהי רעב בארץ, there was a famine in the land (Canaan); Yitzchok thought [that this was a signal] that the exile of Avraham’s descendants [predicted to him] was about to begin; this is why he headed for Egypt. G-d told him not to proceed to Egypt but to remain within the boundaries of the land of Canaan. (Philistine region) He indicated to him that the exile in Egypt was not yet about to commence.
+מלבד הרעב הראשון, “in addition to the previous famine,” (in his father’s lifetime) According to some commentators this was already the second famine in Yitzchok’s lifetime.
+וילך יצחק אל אבימלך, “Yitzchok went to Avimelech” (whose land had not been affected, and with whom Avraham had made a reciprocal treaty.)
+מלך פלשתים גררה, “the King of the Philistines whose capital was in G’ror.” At that time it had still been Yitzchok’s intention to use the land of the Philistines as a shortcut to Egypt. (Compare Exodus 13,17 where G-d did not use the land of the Philistines as a shortcut to lead the Israelites to the land of Canaan.)
+
+Verse 2
+
+
+
+Verse 3
+
+והקימותי את השבועה וגו, “and I will keep My oath,etc.” 'ונתתי לזרעך וגו, “I will give to your descendants, etc;” by repeating this oath, G-d specifically excluded Yishmael’s descendants from this promise. This was in spite of the fact that Yishmael was a descendant of Yitzchok’s father Avraham.
+
+Verse 4
+
+הארצות האל, “these lands;” this was to make plain that the lands over which the King of the Philistines ruled at that time were included in the land G-d had promised to the descendants of Avraham. Our author had already explained this in his commentary on Genesis 22,1.
+The word: האל, is an allusion to the 31 Kings Joshua would defeat and whose lands he would conquer after Moses’ death.
+והתברכו בזרעך, “and through your descendants will be blessed;” Rabbi Yoseph son of Tuviah said: “through your descendants all the nations of the world will receive genetic input.” As we learned in the Mishnah (Sotah 43) אחד המבריך ואחד המרכיב, it does not matter whether he bends or grafts the vine.
+
+Verse 5
+
+עקב אשר שמע אברהם בקולי, “as a consequence of Avraham having listened to My voice;” a reference to the binding of Yitzchok. The same formulation occurs also in Genesis 22,18: עקב אשר שמעת בקולי, “(G-d to Avraham) “as a consequence of your having listened to My voice.”
+וישמור משמרתי, “he observed My commandments;” this is a reference to the commandment of circumcising himself which he immediately accepted as recorded in Genesis 7,10: 'זאת בריתי אשר תשמרו וגו, “this is My covenant that you are to observe;”
+מצותי, “My directive;” a reference to circumcision to be performed on the eighth day after the baby’s birth, as is recorded: וימל אברהם את יצחק בנו בן שמונת ימים כאשר צוה אותו אלוקים, “Avraham circumcised his son Yitzchok on the eighth day as G-d had commanded him.”
+חקותי, “My statutes,” a reference to his commanding his children to continue the tradition he had commenced of circumcising himself, as is recorded: והיתה בריתי בבשרכם לברית עולם, ”My covenant shall be on your flesh as an eternalcovenant.” (17,13) Also compare Psalms 105,10: ויעמידיה ליעקב לחוק, “He confirmed it in a decree for Yaakov.”
+ותורותי, “and My teachings;” this is a reference to the beginning of chapter 12 where G-d instructs Avraham to leave home and to proceed to a land that He will show him. As proof that this interpretation is correct, the author quotes Psalms 32,8: אשכילך ואורך בדרך זו, “Let me enlighten you and show you which way to go.” [The subject speaking in that verse is the Holy Spirit. (Alshich) He quotes a similar verse from Psalms 32,8.] Whenever the word תורה occurs, it refers to teaching [as a prelude to commanding the listener to conduct himself in accordance with it.] But the plain sense of the verse is that it refers to the 7 universal laws that apply to all of mankind.
+
+Verse 6
+
+
+
+Verse 7
+
+וישאלו אנשי המקום לאשתו, “The inhabitants of that place enquired about the marital status of the woman accompanying him.” The reason why Rivkah was not abducted immediately, as had been Sarah when Avraham had stayed in Avimelech’s country, is that Avraham had at the time warned the Philistines by saying to them at the time: “since when is the first thing you ask a stranger about the status of the people who accompany him?” Compare Talmud Baba Metzia 92.
+פן יהרגוני, “lest they kill me;” Avraham at the time had ultimately not been afraid to tell Avimelech that Sarah was his wife as it had become known how he and a few men had defeated Amrafel and his mighty armies in battle. At this point they had no reason to be afraid of Yitzchok[, seeing he had not performed any deeds of valour]. This is why he was afraid to tell the people [there that Rivkah was his wife].
+כי טובת מראה היא, “for she was goodlooking;” the word מאד, “very much,” is absent here whereas it had appeared in connection with Rivkah before she had mothered twins. (Compare 24,16)
+
+Verse 8
+
+ויהי כי ארכו לו הימים, “it happened that his days were lengthened” seeing that Yitzchok had to abstain from marital relations for an extended period; it had become permissible for him to indulge in such relations even in daytime [to prevent involuntary ejaculation.] (Compare Bereshit Rabbah 64,5);
+וישקף אבימלן בעד החלון, “Avimelech took a look through the window;” according to some commentators the window had not been open but had in fact been securely locked. This fact led Avimelech to conclude that Yitzchok and his wife were engaged in activities that were extremely private. Even when marital intercourse is permitted in daytime, the room in which it takes place must be dark. Yizchak was permitted to engage in marital relations [which are generally prohibited in times of famine] because there was no famine in this country.
+וירא, והנה יצחק מצחק את רבקה, “he looked and here he saw that Yitzchok was engaged in intimacies with Rivkah.” This expression for describing intimacies with the opposite sex is found when the wife of Potiphar tells the servants in her husband’s household that this is what the Hebrew slave tried to do to her. (Genesis 39,14). In that verse the next words are: לשכב עמי, “to sleep with me;” from this we are able to deduce that Avimelech did not witness actual intercourse but only foreplay. Yitzchok most certainly would not have engaged in marital relations unless he was sure that no peeping Tom could witness this.
+
+Verse 9
+
+
+
+Verse 10
+
+אחד העם, “one of the people;” whether an important person or a commoner; the word occurs in this sense in Samuel I 26,15.
+והבאת עלינו אשם, “and you would have brought guilt upon us.” He referred to the pact of friendship between Avraham and Avimelech’s father.” [The name “Avimelech,” presumably is a title, just as Pharaoh was a title for every King of Egypt. Ed.] Violating an oath requires a guilt offering in Jewish law, compare Leviticus 5, 2425.
+
+Verse 11
+
+
+
+Verse 12
+
+מאה שערים, Rashi writes that our sages said that the meaning of the expression (שער(ים here is “estimate” for the sake of tithing. [Either, according to Onkelos,] Yitzchok’s harvest was 100 times as much as could be expected, or that he had to tithe 100 times as much as he had expected.
+
+Verse 13
+
+
+
+Verse 14
+
+
+
+Verse 15
+
+סתמום פלשתים, “the Philistines had stopped up.” They had argued that their land had not been blessed on account of the famine they had experienced. Therefore they were jealous of Yitzchok’s success, and tried to limit it as much as was in their power. [Avraham had not been a farmer, so that he had dug wells from altruistic motives. If the land of the Philistines either in Avraham’s time or in Yitzchoks’ time had sufferedfrom a famine, why would either Avraham or Yitzchok have gone there, seeing they needed grazing for their sheep and herds? Ed.]
+
+Verse 16
+
+לך מעמנו, “go from us;” they argued that the reason they wanted him to leave was that they felt their land had not been blessed due to the famine, as opposed to the piece of land on which Yitzchok had brought forth such an exceptionally good harvest. They assumed that as soon as Yitzchok would vacate the land he had worked they would appropriate it for themselves and reap the benefits.
+
+Verse 17
+
+
+
+Verse 18
+
+כשמות אשר קרא להן אביו, “as had been their names when his father had named them.” He wished to draw attention to the fact that the success of these wells had been and continued to be due to the merit of his father. In order to prove that this was so, when he left the vicinity of Avimelech’s capital and settled where Avraham had lived for a while and [demonstrated that the success depended not on the quality of the earth and the skill of its farmers, but on the goodwill enjoyed by them in the heavenly spheres and] based on this he concluded a treaty with Avimelech.
+
+Verse 19
+
+
+
+Verse 20
+
+לאמור לנו המים, saying: “the water is ours.” They argued that the water from the well had originally been flowing in the river that was theirs. They used the same argument with the second well Yitzchok’s servants brought in. When Yitzchok moved away further and again succeeded in bringing in a well, they did not argue about it [they finally realised that it was he who was blessed, and that he had not robbed them of anything (verse 22)].
+
+Verse 21
+
+ויקרא שמה שטנה, “he named that well: “hatred.” We must not understand the name of this well as reflecting the same sentiments as the previous well he had dug, as at that time the name עשק, “dispute,” reflected that he gave the Philistines the benefit of the doubt when they claimed that the waters that came out of that well had previously flowed in their river. When they disputed his right to the second well, he became convinced that their arguments were malicious and not based on a legitimate claim.
+
+Verse 22
+
+
+
+Verse 23
+
+ויעל משם באר שבע, “he moved uphill from there to B’eer Sheva. This was the B’eer Sheva where his father had stayed for many years, which is not far from Chevron.
+
+Verse 24
+
+אל תירא כי אתך אני, “Do not fear for I am with you;” G-d appeared to him at this point as he had been greatly disturbed by the hostile attitude displayed by the Philistines time and again.
+
+Verse 25
+
+
+
+Verse 26
+
+ואחוזת; some commentators (quoted by Baal Haturim) understand this word as being a personal name as opposed to a title or rank.
+מרעהו, a friend of Avimelech; the letter מ in this word would then be part of his name; an example of something similar is found in Judges 14,20: ויתנה לרעהו, “he (the father of Shimshon’s wife gave her to someone by the name of מרעהו.” (Pessikta zutrata) The word: אחוזת would then not be a personal name.
+
+Verse 27
+
+
+
+Verse 28
+
+ראה ראינו, “we have seen repeatedly;” the fact that you have succeeded twice where we have failed has convinced us that your G-d is on your side;” clearly your success is due to you personally, and not to the quality of the earth that you have either planted seeds in or dug wells in. We have noted that since you departed this earth has failed to be blessed. It is clearly your G-d Who is the cause and Who is with you.
+בינותינו בינינו וביניך, “between us; the oath that we swear by our deities shall now be binding both between us and you;” he meant that although Yitzchok swears in the name of his G-d, such an oath shall also be binding for them who swear in the name of their own deity. [The linguistic problem here is that the word בינינו, is otherwise completely superfluous. Ed].]
+ונכרתה ברית עמך, “and we are willing to conclude a binding treaty with you;” an offer to renew the covenant Avraham had made with Avimelech’s predecessor for three generations.” They felt the need for this, since their having breached it when they claimed the wells and when the expelled Yitzchok[, they were afraid that Yitzchok might feel free to disregard it].
+
+Verse 29
+
+לא נגענוך, “we have not harmed you bodily;” this was the reply to Yitzchok’s accusation that they had displayed their hatred for him. (verse 27) They used the fact that they had allowed him to leave unharmed as proof that they had not hated him, as they had made no attempt to harm him or his family physically. We may understand the words: לא נגענוך, as well as the words: “we have only done good with you,” as referring to the past as well as to the future. We find a similar formulation in the Scriptures in Psalms 9,19: כי לא לנצח ישכח אביון תקוות עניים תאבד לעד, “not always shall the needy by ignored, nor the hope of the afflicted forever lost.”'
+אתה עתה ברוך ה, “you are now the one blessed by the Lord.” They wanted to forestall Yitzchok saying to them that before making him swear as the son of Avraham to keep the peace, they should first secure such a sworn undertaking from his brother Yishmael. [Yitzchok understood that the word עתה, “now,” reflected their worry about Yitzchok saying this to him. After all, when the Philistines breached the covenant made with Avraham for three generations they had also freed Yishmael from the obligation to observe its terms. Ed.] By using the words 'אתה עתה ברוך ה, they implied that they had reason to be afraid of him, whereas they had no reason to fear that they could not cope with Yishmael. G-d, after all, had not promised their land to Yishmael’s descendants. They were aware that G-d had bestowed the blessing He had given to Avraham, especially his power to bless and cure, to Yitzchok, as soon as Avraham had died. (25,11)
+
+Verse 30
+
+
+
+Verse 31
+
+
+
+Verse 32
+
+
+
+Verse 33
+
+על כן שם העיר באר שבע, “this is why the name of the town was B’eer sheva. If you were to question that that name for this well (site) had already been given to it by Avraham, so why does the Torah let us think that this was something new? We must understand the meaning of the verse as follows: Yitzchok named the well mentioned in verse 32 shivah, “seven,” because he had named the town B’eer sheva. Actually, originally the name was a reminder of the “oath” שבועה, not the “number” שבע. As to the question how Yitzchok could enter into a business arrangement with a pagan, the Talmud Avodah Zarah considers the prohibition based only on such deals leaving a wrong impression on other Jews, something that was not relevant as yet. This was also the reason that the Philistines came to Yitzchok there, as they wanted to renew the oath at the place it had been concluded originally. There is also the problem of Exodus 23,13 that “the name of an alien deity shall not cross your lips,” i.e. you must not be heard uttering it. [I have not understood how Yitzchok could have become guilty of this in this connection. Ed.]
+
+Verse 34
+
+
+
+Verse 35
+
+ותהיין מורת רוח, “both of these daughtersinlaw became sources of frustration to both Yitzchok and Rivkah. We see this from Rivkah’s justifying her wishing to take a wife from her family (27,46) by telling her husband that if Yaakov were to take wife from the local Hittite population she would get fed up with her very life. What can describe more graphically her and her husband’s frustration at the choice of wives Esau had made? Moreover, it is likely that if these daughtersinlaw had been compatible with them they would all of them have lived in one house. The fact that they did not live under one roof is clear, as Yaakov would never have gotten away with deceiving his father by pretending to be Esau if Esau’s wives had lived in the same house! He had expelled them from his house on account of their conduct. [I find this argument very weak, as in Genesis 2,24 already the Torah describes a son marrying and setting up house for himself and his wife as being the norm and not the exception. Ed.]
+ליצחק ולרבקה, “to Yitzchok and to Rivkah.” According to our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 65,4, Yitzchok was the first to experience this dissatisfaction with Esau’s wives’ conduct. It is explained that the reason is psychological. Rivkah, who had grown up in an environment of pagans, did not become affronted so easily by Hittite girls not yet having abandoned every nuance of their former pagan backgrounds, whereas Yitzchok, used be surrounded only to holiness,at least in his father’s house and his wife’s housewas far more sensitive to this. [Another exegesis: Normally, women spend most of their time in the home and therefore become aware of what other women in their homes do. Men, whose lifestyle usually requires them to spend more time outdoors, are not privy to what goes on inside the house. Yitzchok, being blind, and therefore housebound, not being preoccupied with mundane activities in the kitchen, etc., had a keener sense of hearing and overheard more inappropriate remarks made by his daughter in law than did Rivkah.]
+
+Chapter 27
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+ותכהינן עיניו, his eyes had become weak; but not Rivkah’s eyes; this is so because woman was created from man’s bone, as were the wives of Esau, and we have a rule that one bone does not harm another bone. {Tanchuma Toldot 8)[When bone hits bone nothing breaks. When bone hits vessels made of earth(enware) the latter is liable to be shattered. When G-d made Adam, He used earth. Ed.] An alternate exegesis: Rivkah’s eyes, which had been used to the smoke emanating from sacrifices offered to idols, had become immune to that smoke from childhood.
+
+Verse 2
+
+לא ידעתי יום מותי, I do not know when I shall die;” if I were to die suddenly, you (Esau) will lose all your money and your authority as you have sold your birthright to Yaakov. Therefore I wish to anticipate such an event by giving you my wealth while I am still alive so that Yaakov cannot deprive you of what was yours from birth. Gifts made during one’s lifetime cannot be challenged.
+
+Verse 3
+
+תליך, “your quiver,” the bag fastened around one’s midriff containing the supply of arrows;”
+וצודה לי ציד, “and hunt some game for me.” If you were to question how it is possible for Yitzchok to have been eating the meat of animals that had not died through ritual slaughter even inadvertently, seeing that we have a statement by our sages that G-d protects the righteous from becoming guilty of this, seeing that He even protects their livestock from becoming guilty of this? (Talmud Chulin 7) We have to answer that Yitzchok stopped eating meat slaughtered by Esau after he found out that he was a heretic. He acquired his name as a ציד בפיו, before he had become a heretic.
+צידה, the letter ה at the end of this word is unnecessary. Our sages explain it as an acronym, warning the ritual slaughterer of 5 possible problems that would invalidate the halachically acceptable slaughter of an animal, i.e ,שהייה דריסה, חלדה, הגרמה, עיקור, undue delay in completing the severing of the vital pipes; leaning on the knife performing the cutting; a rusty blade, sliding of the knife from the correct position, tearing loose either of the two pipes.
+
+Verse 4
+
+והביאה לי ואוכלה, “and bring it to me so that I may eat it.” Yitzchok said to Esau that he had sold his birthright in order to taste part of a single meal. He would now restore it to him by his acquiring the merit of feeding his father a meal prepared by him. This is what was meant by the words: הוי גביר לאחיך “become senior to your brother.” (27,29) [The reader is reminded that the blessing Yitzchok bestowed on the brother who fed him, Yaakov, had been intended for Esau. Ed.]
+בעבור תברכני נפשי, “so that my soul can bestow a blessing upon you.” Yitzchok said to Esau: “tonight is the night on which in the future the Israelites will all offer the Passover, and the angels will respond with many songs of praises to the Lord. This will make blessings pronounced today especially acceptable in heaven, as they will become part of the myriads of blessings uttered at this time.” (Based on Pirkey de Rabbi Eliezer chapter 32.)
+
+Verse 5
+
+בדבר, spelled with the “strong” ב.
+
+Verse 6
+
+
+
+Verse 7
+
+ואברככה לפני ה, “I shall give you the blessing that is approved by the Lord.” [Seeing that after Avraham’s death the Lord had conferred his power to bless on his son Yitzchok. (Compare 25,11). Ed.] Yitzchok explained that this was why he encouraged Esau now to perform deeds to be worthy of such blessings. The author refers to his commentary on Genesis 10,9, in connection with the expression: 'גבור ציד לפני ה.
+The last two letters in the word ואברככה are כה.
+
+Verse 8
+
+
+
+Verse 9
+
+טובים, “tasty.”
+
+Verse 10
+
+והבאת לאביך ואוכל, “and bring it to your father so that he may eat it.” She meant that through eating and enjoying its taste he would be in the mood to bestow his blessing. It is a fact that Holy Spirit comes to rest on people only when they are in a good mood. (Shabbat folio 30)
+
+Verse 11
+
+איש שעיר, according to the Jerusalem Targum, “a very virile and hairy man.”
+
+Verse 12
+
+והבאתי עלי קללה, “I will bring a curse upon myself as I am bound to lie by saying ‘I am Esau;’ if I do not lie, he will not believe me.” Furthermore, all he has to do is to touch me and he will know that I am not Esau. He will curse me for having deceived him.”
+
+Verse 13
+
+עלי קללתך בני, “neither you nor I need worry as I am certain that what G-d has told me before the two of you have been born will come true. So I can safely say that I will absorb any curse you might be cursed with.”A different exegesis: Rivkah meant that even if Yitzchok would subject Yaakov to a “touchtest” in order to assure himself that he was Esau, he would never curse him, as he would realise that you would never have tried to deceive him if I had not put you up to this charade. If he would curse anyone, he would curse me.”A third possible exegesis of this line: the curse would backfire on me; why would he curse someone who had brought him such tasty food? Our author uses the line על עמך ברכתך, “Your blessing be upon Your people” in Psalms 3,9 as a comparison. [The curse in that context would befall the people mentioned in the previous verse. Ed.] You would only become cursed if you refused to carry out what I command you. Listen to me and go and get me the goats.”
+
+Verse 14
+
+
+
+Verse 15
+
+החמודות, “the valuable ones, the new ones with which Esau wants to impress the people with whom he deals. They are the ones which he wears when he performs tasks his father asks him to perform.” And that is why Yitzchok could smell them, for the smell of new clothes is noticeable. A different exegesis: החמודות, the one he wears always when he goes out hunting to kill venison. Your father is familiar with the smell of these garments and will not question the identity of the wearer of them. [This makes little sense to me, as Esau had already left on his errand to hunt game to feed his father. He would not likely have possessed two such sets of garments. Ed.]
+
+Verse 16
+
+.הלבישה על ידיו, “she placed on his hands and arms.” The reason why she took goats’ skins was that these hairs are harder than those of sheep and more closely resemble human hair.
+
+Verse 17
+
+
+
+Verse 18
+
+
+
+Verse 19
+
+אנכי, עשו בכור, “it is I; Esau is your firstborn.” There are some commentators who claim that Yaakov considered the situation as so critical for his future that he permitted himself the kind of lie his grandfather Avraham had used when he referred to his wife by saying that she was his sister. (Ibn Ezra) He had also used a similarly false statement before the binding of Yitzchok, when he told the accompanying lads that both he and Yitzchok would return to them from Mount Moriah, something which at that time was a lie, as he expected to slaughter Yitzchok. (Genesis 20,13) David in Samuel I 21,3 told the High Priest in the town of Nof that he was on a mission from his king, which was not true, as he was in the process of fleeing from him. The prophet Michayu told the king of Israel, Achav, in Kings I 22,15 who had asked him if his planned war to recapture Yavesh Gilad would be successful. He wished the king success, making it appear that his answer was in the affirmative, though he knew that Achav would not return alive from that battle, but would be killed. In Kings II 8,10 the prophet Elisha sent a message to King Ben Haddad of Aram who was ill that he would recover, when he knew full well that this was not so. He had told the messenger whom the king had sent to him the truth, however. An alternate exegesis of Yaakov’s words: “I am taking the place of Esau your firstborn.” He felt entitled to use this formulation as Esau had already sold him the birthright (48 years earlier).
+בעבור תברכני נפשך, “in order that your soul will bless me.” The question that presents itself here is if Yaakov only fed his father for the sake of receiving a reward? Yaakov spoke words that would help convince his father that he was Esau, as Yitzchok had said to Esau when he had not been present: בעבור תברכך נפשי, “so that my soul will bless you.” (verse 4)
+
+Verse 20
+
+
+
+Verse 21
+
+
+
+Verse 22
+
+.הקול קול יעקב, “the voice is distinctly the voice of Yaakov;” Yitzchok was not willing to base his judgment on the voice alone, as people are apt to disguise their voices on many occasions, both voluntarily and involuntarily. However he did not let this disturb him as the evidence of Yaakov’s arms and hands which were hairy were a much better indication that Esau indeed was standing in front of him. This was why he proceeded to give him a blessing that he had intended to give Esau.
+
+Verse 23
+
+
+
+Verse 24
+
+
+
+Verse 25
+
+ויבא לו יין וישת, “he brought his father wine and Yitzchok drank it.” Wine was apt to confuse a person’s mind at times, so that he would not proceed further with worrying if this was indeed Esau or an impostor.
+
+Verse 26
+
+
+
+Verse 27
+
+וירח את ריח בגדיו, “he smelled the aroma of his clothes,” and as they smelled just as he expected them to smell,
+ויאמר: ראה בני, he said: “see, “ etc; as soon as he had smelled the aroma of the clothes Yaakov wore he no longer had any doubts and began to bestow his blessing: commencing with the words: “see the fragrance emanating from my son is like the fragrance from the field;” he even omitted to say the first word in the line that we would have expected, i.e. “see my son, this fragrance is etc;”a different exegesis: the word ראה can have a number of meanings depending on the context in which it appears. The equivalent word in other languages also has different meanings on different occasions. For instance: Deuteronomy 1,8 ראה נתתי לפניכם את הארץ, “see here I have given to you the land;”
+כריח שדה, “like the smell of the field;” Yitzchok smelled the field in which Esau made his livelihood reflected in the aroma exuded by the clothes he wore.
+אשר ברכו ה, “which the Lord has blessed;” some commentators understand these words not as applying to the field, but to Yitzchok’s son, i.e. בני; in other words: “my son whom the Lord has blessed.” The blessing he refers to is the gift of the land of Israel.
+
+Verse 28
+
+
+
+Verse 29
+
+
+
+Verse 30
+
+
+
+Verse 31
+
+יקום אבי, “arise my father!” Esau awakened his father who had taken a nap after having eaten.
+
+Verse 32
+
+
+
+Verse 33
+
+ויחרד יצחק, “Yitzchok became frightened;” according to Rashi, he had a vision of gehinom opening up beneath him. He had this vision as soon as he wanted to curse Yaakov for having deceived him. Some commentators understand the expression as Yitzchok now realising that if he could not even have known the difference between his two sons he could no longer be surprised why he had been struck with blindness as a punishment. Nonetheless, there was one thing he was not frightened of. Seeing that nothing is concealed from G-d, how could He have allowed the birthright to be transferred from the older son to the younger son?
+גם ברוך יהיה “he shall also remain blessed.” Yitzchok reasoned that seeing that he had intended to bless his firstborn son, [and Yaakov had bought the birthright already a long time ago,] he had actually blessed the son to whom this blessing belonged legally. Another exegesis: seeing that I already said to Yaakov that anyone who would curse him shall himself become cursed, if I cursed him now I would bring a curse upon myself. If you, [the reader] were to ask me, if so at least Yitzchok should not have given Yaakov an additional blessing? The answer is that I also said that anyone who would bless him should be blessed. Therefore it is in my own interest to bestow another blessing upon him. Another interpretation for the words: “he shall also retain the blessing;” Yitzchok asked G-d to confirm the blessing that he had bestowed upon Yaakov.
+
+Verse 34
+
+
+
+Verse 35
+
+ויקח ברכתך, “he has taken the blessing that I meant to bestow upon you.” [Yitzchok meant that the reason that he had wanted to bestow this blessing on Esau originally, was only because biologically speaking,] for he had been the firstborn.
+
+Verse 36
+
+את בכורתי לקח, “he had purchased my birthright;” with these words he tripped himself up by revealing that Yaakov was legally entitled to this blessing.
+
+Verse 37
+
+ואת כל אחיו, “and all his brothers, etc.;” Yitzchok refers to Yishmael and his extended family and the children of Keturah.
+ולכה, “and as far as you personally are concerned;” the unusual spelling with the letters כה at the end is not a scribe’s error, but is deliberate.
+איפה מה אעשה בני, “what can I do then my son?” Yitzchok explains that seeing that his descendants had been promised by G-d only the land of Canaan, and he had already “given” the whole of it to Yaakov’s descendants, there was no other inheritance he could pass on.
+
+Verse 38
+
+
+
+Verse 39
+
+הנה משמני הארץ, “from the best parts of the land of Canaan will be your personal home;” a reign of the Holy Land is as the best parts and sweets of the Land [Yitzchok referred to the region known as har seir, which adjoins the ancestral region settled by the tribe of Yehudah, a very fruitful region and irrigated from the heavenly dews no less than the Holy Land itself. How did Yitzchok know that G-d approved of the blessing he just pronounced? The reader is referred to Joshua 24,4].
+ואתן לעשו את הר שעיר, “I gave to Esau the region of Mount Seir.” which is close to Eretz Yisrael near the territory of the tribe of Judah. This is a fertile land which is watered by dew just like Erez Yisrael. And how do we know that G-d permitted Yitzchok to give to Esau Mount seir? By the formulation of יהיה מושבך, “is going to be your legal residence,” This is supposed to mean that regardless of whether you or your descendants merit it, it is assured to you. If the matter were to depend on individual or collective merit, the promise would never be fulfilled. The problem with the promise to the Jewish people is that it was made by the Attribute of Justice, hence it is subject to the Israelites deserving it.
+
+Verse 40
+
+ועל חרבך תחיה, “you will live by grace of your sword.” Yitzchok promises Esau that as a reward for having hunted deer in order to bring him delectable food, he will also henceforth be able to survive by his sword in his dangerous vocation. [The word “sword” here is used by Yitzchok as a general term for instruments used to kill, seeing that Esau had hunted for him with bow and arrow. Ed.]
+
+ואת אחיך תעבוד, “but you will be subservient to your brother.” Esau had first complained that this is a put down for him. Yitzchok explains to him that prevailing in military confrontations is never a “put down,” but on the contrary, the victors are held in high esteem and are feared. Esau complained that having to live by constant confrontation with others is a very demanding task; Yitzchok answers that he has the option to be peaceful and subservient to his brother. If so, his brother will surely display mercy and tolerance for him.
+כאשר תריד, an unusual expression, similar to Psalms 55,3: אריד בשמחי, “I am complaining;” Yitzchok assures him that if in the future the descendants of his brother will oppress those of Esau so that they will complain to Him, they will be able to shake off the yoke of the Israelites, i.e. ופרקת עולו. It is best for him to find himself another land in which to live so that he will never be exposed to subjugation by Yaakov’s descendants. [Esau chose to do so from his own free will, as we know from Genesis 36,68. Ed.] An alternative exegesis for the words: כאשר תריד. The root is ירד to descend, (compare Numbers 24,19, Bileam’s blessings) וירד מיעקב, “when you rule then you will shake off his yoke.” We find that history proved Bileam correct when we read in Kings II 8,20, that during the rule of Yoram, son of Achav, the Edomites rebelled against his rule. They proceeded to set up a state of their own by crowning a king.
+
+Verse 41
+
+וישטום עשו את יעקב על הברכה, “Esau hated Yaakov on account of the blessing;” there are some commentators who do not consider the words: על הברכה in our verse as referring to the blessing that Yaakov had “robbed” Esau of, but they consider these words as Esau’s complaint about the blessing that he did receive from his father, i.e. that he would always have to fight for his survival, על חרבך תחיה, “you will live (only) by the sword.” He placed a great deal of trust in that blessing. We would then have to understand our verse as follows: “Esau hated Yaakov, as from now on he had an assurance that by means of the sword he would always survive.”
+יקרבו ימי אבל אבי, Esau was sure that his father would not live long enough to sire another son who could avenge Yaakov when he would murder him.
+ואהרגה, “when I shall kill, etc.” The letter ו is vocalised with the semi vowel sheva, and the letter aleph with a patach.
+
+Verse 42
+
+ויגד לרבקה את דברי עשו בנה, “Rivkah was informed of the words of her son Esau;” he was saying quite openly what was in his heart, i.e. that as soon as his father would die, he would murder his twin brother. Someone who had heard him say this told his mother.
+
+Verse 43
+
+
+
+Verse 44
+
+ימים אחדים, “one year.”
+
+Verse 45
+
+למה אשכל גם שניכם יום אחד, “why should your father and I be bereft of both of you on a single day? Rivkah referred to her becoming widowed on the day Yitzchok would die, and immediately thereafter would also be bereft of Yaakov when Esau would carry out his threat. (verse 41) The principal commentary on this line is that of Rashi, who understands Rivkah as saying to Yaakov that even if he were to kill Esau first, his sons would avenge him by killing him. The word: גם, “also,” in this verse refers to herself, who meant that if she were to lose both her sons she would consider herself as dead.
+יום אחד, even though they might not both die on the same day, they would be buried on the same day. (Based on the Talmud in Sotah 13)
+
+Verse 46
+
+אם לוקח יעקב אשה מבנות חת, “if Yaakov were to take a wife from amongst the Hittites;” She said this only in order to insure that Yaakov would be physically out of reach to Esau. [She could not imagine that Yaakov actually would do such a thing. Ed.] She wanted Yitzchok to specifically warn Yaakov not to marry a Hittite woman. She was afraid that unless specifically instructed, he would not want to leave his home and appear like a fugitive. He might instead marry someone from a powerful family and take his chances that they would protect him against his brother.
+
+Chapter 28
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+
+
+Verse 2
+
+
+
+Verse 3
+
+ואל שדי, “and the G-d known also as Shaddai;” the G-d Who has said of Himself that none of His creatures needs any other power to help him. (Compare Rashi on Genesis 17,1) “He will bless you.”Rabbi Eleazar in Bereshit Rabbah 67,12, says that a divorce decree becomes valid only after its signatories have appended their seals to it. This is why Yitzchok was not content with the blessing he had already given Yaakov which had commenced with the words: ויתן לך, in 27,28.
+
+Verse 4
+
+לרשתך את ארץ מגוריך, “to give you as an inheritance the land in which you presently are sojourning.” Seeing that you must not take a wife from the present occupiers of this land, Yitzchok had to reconfirm this. Not only that, he implied that seeing the Canaanites, ever since having been cursed by Noach, were a nation of slaves, slaves could not claim legal title to any possessions.
+
+Verse 5
+
+אם יעקב ועשו, “mother of Yaakov and Esau.” The Torah had to repeat this although the reader knows it, as the reader might wonder how a couple such as Yitzchok and Rivkah had produced a person as wicked as Esau. If Rivkah had not been the sister of a wicked person such as Lavan and daughter of a wicked person such as Betuel, the question would have been more serious.[Personally, I think the verse is important as the Torah’s mentioning Yaakov first, i.e. confirming that he was the firstborn legally, having purchased that status from his brother. Moreover, we know that from the marriage of King Chizkiyah to the daughter of the prophet Isaiah the great prophet, a Jewish rasha came forth, so that such phenomena are not strange seeing we have been given the freedom of choice. Ed.] Our sages, not basing themselves on the DNA factors, stated in Baba Batra 110, that most children reflect the character of their maternal uncles. An alternate exegesis: the reason that mention is made of their mother here is that the Torah wants the reader to know that Rivkah did what she did for the benefit of both her children. This is in line to when she said: “why would I have to lose both my children in one day?
+
+Verse 6
+
+
+
+Verse 7
+
+
+
+Verse 8
+
+
+
+Verse 9
+
+וילך עשו אל ישמעאל, “Esau went to Yishmael;” Our sages in the Talmud Baba Kamma 92, refer to a popular proverb saying that palms that do not produce fruit are usually found near other non fruitbearing trees. Rashi understands the proverb as an allusion to wicked people keeping company with other wicked people. Our verse describing Esau as going to Yishmael to choose another wife is quoted as the Scriptural source for this proverb. We have a similar verse in the Book of Prophets Judges 11,3 where Yiftach is described as having kept company with common criminals. A third verse confirming this is found in Scriptures where we are told that birds keep company with other birds of the same species, and human beings with like minded other human beings. (no source specified) Apparently the verse is found in the book ben sirs, a text often quoted by the Talmud but not part of the Holy Scriptures. ויקח את מחלת בת ישמעאל, “he married Machalat daughter of Yishmael.”Esau reasoned as follows: Yitzchok promised Yaakov the land of Canaan as the land of Israel in his second blessing. He also told him to take a wife from his own family but not from the Canaanites. Now that I married such women, this nullified my claim to the land of Canaan in the future. The only way he saw to overcome this obstacle was by marrying a descendant of Avraham, i.e. a daughter of Yishmael.
+
+Verse 10
+
+ויצא יעקב, “Yaakov departed;” Rashi comments on these words that Yaakov was forced to leave the Holy Land on account of the women in that land being so unsuitable for him to marry. He means that the Torah had inserted matters in the story that were not connected to Yaakov starting with verse 6 of our chapter. Esau had not previously realised how opposed his father and mother had been to his wives. Now it resumes the story of Yaakov. If not for that, the name Yaakov would not have been needed at the beginning of this verse. Seeing that Yaakov left his home without fanfare, like a thief in the night, the Torah needed to refer to his departure as having been a fact. [The manner in which this paragraph is written in the Torah scrolls reflects the fact that it was not drawn to the reader’s immediate attention by a new line or new paragraph having been started. It begins at the end of a line after space has been left open for only three letters in the same line. All other portions, with the exception of Vayechi where there is only room for a single letter between the conclusion of the previous portion. Ed.] and the beginning of the new one, commence after a more distinct separation from the previous portion. One reason for this absence of a separation is to hint that Yaakov hid himself to study for fourteen years in the yeshiva of Ever. Another reason is to point out that his departure was hidden from Esav. An additional reason for the slim separation from verse is the fact that the story had been interrupted with telling us that his father had sent him to Padan Arom in order to take a wife there from Rivkah’s family. The departure is mentioned a second time, on account of the dream with the ladder, and his proceeding to his destination.
+באר שבע, a site especially suited for the swearing of oaths. According to a midrash, Yaakov avoided staying at that place so as not to afford Avimelech an opportunity to extend the validity of the oath Avraham had sworn and which Yitzchok had confirmed for another generation or more. The באר שבע mentioned he is located close to Chevron, not to be confused with the modern B’eer Sheva, located far more to the south. It was the באר שבע in which Avraham had sojourned for many years. It was very near קרית ארבע. The fact that the Torah reports Avraham returning from the Akeydah and settling in B’eer Sheva in 22,19 and 6 verses later that Sarah died and he went to Kiryat Arba to bury her, certainly suggests that these two locations could not have been far apart.
+וילך חרנה, “he walked in the direction of Charan.” According to our sages in Sanhedrin 95 this means that he arrived in Charan still on the same day. He had travelled a number of days from Kiryat Arba. According to our sages it was17 days’ walk from Kiryat Arvaba to Charan, a distance which Yaakov covered in 12 hours.
+חרנה, Charan and Padan Arom are both the same town. They were known by two different names; one name is used in connection with its being the town where Lavan resided, (Genesis 27,43) and immediately afterwards the Torah called it Padan Arom (28,2).
+
+Verse 11
+
+וילן שם, “he spent the night there.” He was forced to do so by the prevailing conditions seeing that the sun had set. Concerning that line, כי בא השמש, Rav Yehudah (Pessachim 2) stated that a person should make it a rule to commence any journey on Tuesdays, the day of which the Torah writes twice that G-d saw that what He had created on that day was “good.” (Genesis 1,913) If the sun had not set unexpectedly, Yaakov would have kept walking to put more distance between himself and Esau.
+ויקח מאבני המקום, “he took some of the stones lying around on that place” (to make some kind of headrest for himself). According to tradition these stones had been part of the altar on which his father Yitzchok had been bound on the occasion of the Akeydah. According to Rashi, during the night these stones fused so that when he awoke there was only one stone. We have a tradition also that the meaning of this phenomenon was that Yaakov’s children as opposed to those of his father and grandfather, would all remain true to their father’s religious outlook. Some commentators (Rash’bam) claim that Yaakov had taken only a single stone and that this is the reason why the Torah wrote immediately after these words: (after he awoke) “he took the stone which he had placed as his headrest.”
+וישכב במקום ההוא, “he lay down in that place.” The Torah emphasises that he lacked the normal means to ensure a good sleep, i.e. sheets, cushion and a blanket to cover his body, even though he was very close to a town which could have furnished these items. This is why the Torah bothers to inform us that the name of that town used to be Luz when it was first founded. He was not forced to “rough” it, but seeing that he intended to get up early in the morning to continue on his journey, he chose to do this. We have proof of this when the Torah continued after relating his dream (18), with the words: וישכם יעקב בבקר, “Yaakov arose early in the morning.” If he had stayed at an inn in the town, he could not have left that early as the gates of the town were not yet open. An alternate exegesis: the reason why he stayed outside of the town overnight is that he did not know where the entrance to the town was located as we know from Judges 1,24, where it is written concerning Luz: הראנו נא מבא העיר, “please show us where the entrance to the town is located.”
+
+Verse 12
+
+עולים ויורדים בו, “ascending and descending on it.” They first ascended and then descended; afterwards they remained at the bottom. They behaved like a human being who climbs the ladder in his house to get to the loft, and then descends on it again. This is what led Yaakov to understand that this location was intended to become G-ds house on earth. He surmised that for the time being this was the residence of the angels he had seen. Angels, servants of the Lord, must have their residence in G-d’s house. If G-d was to establish a residence on earth also, they would have to ascend to heaven first in order to accompany their Lord to His alternate residence. If these angels were meant to only briefly remain on earth, the Torah should have described their movements as יורדים ועולים, “descending and then ascending, “(back to their residence) The Jerusalem Targum understands the function of these angels as having been to accompany Yaakov from here on in wherever he went. The reason that they ascended was to relay their messages to other angels in the celestial spheres that they had been assigned to descend to earth. They were to show them that there was a human being of the stature of Yaakov on earth. They would recognise him at once as a likeness of his features had long been engraved at the base of G-d’s throne.
+
+Verse 13
+
+אברהם אביך, “your father Avraham;” we learn from here that grandchildren are to treated as if they were one’s children.
+הארץ אשר אתה שוכב עליה, “the earth that you are lying on;” what does the Torah tell us here that we did not know? G-d tells Yaakov that seeing that at this time he is receiving a minute amount of earth, this is symbolic of the fact that in due course his descendants will expand in all four directions of the globe. “You, i.e. they, will conquer all the land that is presently around you.” It was a well known practice in those days that kings who wished to reward their most important subjects would do so by symbolically giving them a token of the real reward. The recipients would then be free to personally, or with the help of their servants, conquer the lands the king had assigned for them. Rashi here describes G-d as symbolically folding the whole of the land of Israel beneath Yaakov’s head. All this G-d showed him in the dream in which he saw the ladder.
+
+Verse 14
+
+
+
+Verse 15
+
+ושמרתיך, “I will guard you;” this was necessary because of Esau’s threat to kill Yaakov. והשיבותיך אל האדמה הזאת, “I will bring you back to this soil;” this promise was fulfilled as stated in Genesis 35,27: וישב יעקב אל יצחק אביו “Yaakov returned to his father Yitzchok.”
+כי לא אעזבך, “for I shall not abandon you;” on this way. את אשר דברתי לך “what I have said to you;” to bring you back to this soil. People always need protection when on a journey. For proof the author cites: Psalms 91,11: לשמרך בדרך, “to guard you while you are on the way.”
+
+Verse 16
+
+
+
+Verse 17
+
+אין זה כי אם בית אלוקים, “this can only be the house of G-d.” Rashi explains this exclamation as follows quoting Rabbi Elazar in Bereshit Rabbah 69,7: “the foot of the ladder was in B’eer Sheva. It stood at an angle so that the halfway mark was precisely above the site where the Temple would be built in the future; its top would have been above Bet El.” [Bet El being the northernmost point and B’eer Sheva the southern most point. Jerusalem would be at the half way mark. Ed.]
+אין זה כי אם בית אלוקים, “this can only be (the location of) the House of G-d.” Rashi endeavours to find the source for the statement by the sages that G-d had said that it is intolerable that a righteous person of the calibre of Yaakov who needed a place to spend the night, should be unable to find more than a stone to lay his head on. Also why would Yaakov call the place that had been known as Luz “Yerusalem,” i.e. the house of G-d? Furthermore why afterwards does he refer to “Beyt El,” a place much further north? Clearly there appears to be some contradiction here! Our sages themselves seem to have had second thoughts when they said that Yaakov renamed called Luz as Beyt ElBeing aware of these difficulties, Rashi says; “therefore I say that Mount Moriah had been moved and Yaakov had arrived there, i.e. as far as Beyt El, (all on the same day)[If any reader finds all this as strange, I remind him that if G-d enabled Eliezer, Avraham’s servant, to cover a similar distance with his 10 camels when he went to look for a wife for his master in the course of one day, then Yaakov’s experience can certainly not be considered as so unbelievable. Ed.] There is also the problem that Yaakov instead of walking from B’eer Sheva to Charan would be travelling from west to East, as testified to by Isaiah 9,11 ארם מקדם ופלשתים מאחור, “Aram to the East and the land of the Philistines at the back.” (to the west) Moreover, we (our author) had previously explained that Aram and Charan are one and the same. (compare verse 10). According to what we have read here Yaakov was traveling from the south to the north according to what Rashi explained earlier. We have to say that Yaakov travelled the same route that his grandfather Avraham had traveled when coming from Charan, southward after having left both Ur Casdim and Charan on his way to the land of Canaan. He had proceeded southward in stages all the way to B’eer Sheva. Both he and Yitzchok had taken up residence in towns on this route from time to time as we have read in previous portions of the Torah. The route was well known and they were familiar with it. This is the reason why Yaakov also used this route. As to Rashi quoting Yaakov as having said that possibly he had failed to stop at a place where his father and grandfather had offered prayers to G-d, this must have referred not to Mount Moriah, for he had prayed there repeatedly as stated by our sages in Bereshit Rabbah at the end of chapter 78,16, where we are told that no one can properly appreciate how many libations Yaakov had offered at Mount Moriah, but to Beyt El, for Avraham had prayed there and built an altar as recorded in Genesis 12,78. Our sages in Sanhedrin 44 are on record that if Avraham had not prayed between Beyt El and Ai, the Jewish people would long ago have perished completely (Joshua 7,25 when they were defeated there during the first encounter They were saved only due to the merit acquired by the prayers Avraham had offered in that region.) The reason that this location is referred to as Beyt El is on account of the prayers offered there in the future, for in Yaakov’s time it was still known as Luz. Yitzchok had also offered prayers at that altar which his father Avraham had built. Even though we do not possess a written record of it, it is quite plausible to assume that he used this altar on numerous occasions in order to offer prayers. Yaakov, on the other hand, had not had an opportunity to offer prayers at that location up until now. This is also why he said: “is it possible that I simply passed by this place without stopping to offer up a prayer?” He therefore decided to retrace his steps after coming to Charan, and to go back as far as Beyt El to offer a prayer there. In response to Yaakov’s determination to do so, G-d folded the earth beneath him to expedite matters. What this meant in practice was that the town known as Luz was transported to the vicinity of Charan, saving him many days of walking. G-d’s motivation was that the prayer of a righteous person such as Yaakov should preferably be said in a Temple or other sacred site. As a result, the mountain of Moriah was immediately uprooted and removed as far as Charan. After having prayed there Yaakov continued on his way. When G-d saw that, He said: seeing that this righteous person has taken so much trouble to come to My residence, how can I allow him not to have shelter for the night? This is why He arranged for the sun to set prematurely so that Yaakov would spend the night there. During that night he dreamt the dream reported in detail in our chapter where it became clear to him that the place he had slept was destined to become a Temple in the future. Realising that this was the meaning of the dream, he called the site “house of G-d,” renaming the town of Luz to be known as Beyt El. (House of G-d). This is the meaning of the line: “he called that site Beyt El, the site being that which had previously been known as the town of Luz. The stone which had served as Yaakov’s “pillow,” which had come from Mount Moriah, remained at that site. Yaakov anointed it with oil as a symbol of its future significance. As soon as he had done this, he proceeded on his trek to Charan. It would be wrong to understand the verse as meaning that Yaakov arose in the morning in the town of Charan. This is clear from the Torah telling us in 19,1 that Yaakov then set out in the direction of the people residing in the land of the Orientals. When he met the shepherds huddled around the well he asked them where their home was and they told him that their home was Charan. When Yaakov, 20 years later, was on the way from Lavan to the land of Canaan, he passed this location and he named the site Beyt El and erected a monument at the site. (Genesis 35,7, and 15)[This is a unique exegesis, as, normally, Yaakov is understood as having had to return to that site after having already settled in the land of Canaan and having overlooked his promise to erect a Temple at that site so that G-d had to remind him. (compare chapter 33,18 30) Ed.]
+וזה שער השמים, “and this is the gateway to heaven.” According to Rashi, Yaakov referred to the Temple in heaven which is understood to be “opposite” the terrestrial Temple. If, you the reader were to ask how it is possible that the Temple in heaven is opposite that on earth, seeing that the site of that Temple had been moved by G-d, as we have explained?The answer is that it had been moved to be next to Yaakov. When Yaakov had traveled, the site of the terrestrial Temple had always moved with him, as the miracle had been performed for him and not for a piece of earth.
+
+Verse 18
+
+ויקח את האבן, “he took the stone;” according to the sages in Pirkey de rabbi Eliezer, chapter 35, this stone was the one known in later generations as the even shetiyah’ symbolising the navel of the globe a mystical stone at the site where the Holy Ark had stood in the Holy of Holies during the first Temple. This stone, if removed, would expose a hole going down to the center of the earth. It is supposed to have served G-d as the first piece of solid material of what would be the globe on which we live.
+ויצק שמן על ראשה, “he poured some oil on top of it;” he anointed it in order to make it suitable to serve as an altar for sacrifices when he would return from Padan Arom. We know that later on when the Jewish people built a Tabernacle in the desert in Moses’ time, every vessel that was used in that Temple had to be anointed with a special type of oil in order to qualify for such use. (Numbers 7,1) When G-d told Yaakov to return to this site in Genesis 31,13, He made reference to Yaakov having already anointed this stone when he was fleeing from Esau. An alternate exegesis: he poured oil on this stone as a mark by which to recognise this stone on his return when he would fulfill his vow to make it part of a Temple. (Ibn Ezra)
+
+Verse 19
+
+ואולם לוז שם העיר לראשונה, “however, the name of the town was Luz, originally. The town was now renamed (probably at the time when the Jewish people conquered that region) on account of the important historical figure Yaakov who had spent the night outside it.
+
+Verse 20
+
+וידר יעקב נדר, “Yaakov made a vow;” if you were to ask that according to the Talmud in Chulin, 2 (based on Kohelet 5,4) that it is better not to make any vows than to make vows and not pay them on time, so why did Yaakov make such a vow? The word: לאמור which follows the quote above was added in the Torah to show that Yaakov, who was in dire circumstances, made the vow due to his desperate situation; we are to learn from this that in such circumstances G-d even welcomes a vow, as it is proof that the person making it has turned to Him for help.
+אם יהיה אלוקים עמדי, “if G’d will be with me;” what made him doubt that G’d would be with him? After all he was on an errant for his father to fulfill the commandment to take for himself a suitable wife? Answer: he was afraid that before being able to carry out his mission he might have become guilty of some sin so that he would forfeit that the protection that being on a mitzvah errand would normally afford him. Some commentators prefer to understand the whole verse as an oath, meaning: “I swear to do this in order that G’d will listen to my prayer. [The reason for this interpretation, I believe, is that otherwise the conditional word אם, “if” in the vow sounds as if he presented G’d with an ultimatum, that he would acknowledge G’d as his G’d only on these conditions first having been met. Ed.]
+
+Verse 21
+
+
+
+Verse 22
+
+והאבן הזאת literally: “and this stone,” but the meaning must be: “I will offer sacrifices and separate tithes on this stone (altar).” The letter ו at the beginning of the word: והאבן, appears superfluous.
+
+Chapter 29
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+ארצה בני קדם, “to the land of Aram,” as we know from Isaiah 9,11.
+
+Verse 2
+
+וירא והנה באר בשדה, “when he looked, see there was a well in the field.” This whole paragraph, up to and including the line: “he rolled aside the rock,” (in verse 10) has been recorded only in order to teach us about the physical strength of Yaakov.
+רובצים עליה, “were lying upon it;” in expectation of being watered.
+פי הבאר והאבן גדולה על, “and the rock covering the opening of the well was large;” this was in order to prevent anything falling into the well which would contaminate its water or interfere with its free flow. It was also meant to prevent individual strangers to make use of its water.
+
+Verse 3
+
+
+
+Verse 4
+
+
+
+Verse 5
+
+לבן בן נחור, Lavan’s father Bethuel, was some kind of an outcast, as opposed to his grandfather. This is why the Torah here mentions only Nachor. When Lavan had moved to Charan, his father had already died, and no one there had known him. The local inhabitants welcomed Lavan on account of his well known grandfather Nachor.
+
+Verse 6
+
+
+
+Verse 7
+
+לא עת האסף המקנה, “it is not yet time to bring the cattle home.” The use of the word: האסף in this context also occurs in Judges 19,18: ואין איש מאסף אותי הביתה, “and no one is willing to give me shelter in his house.”
+השקו הצאן ולכו ורעו, “water the flock and proceed to let them graze.” Why would a stranger like Yaakov dare to order these shepherds around as if they were his employees? He was afraid that Rachel would join the shepherds, whereas he was interested in having a private conversation with her.
+
+Verse 8
+
+
+
+Verse 9
+
+ורחל באה עם הצאן אשר לאביה כי רועה היא, “and Rachel arrived with the flocks that belonged to her father;” the reason that her older sister did not tend the flocks was that due to her sensitive eyes the air on the field was harmful for her condition. Besides, it was one way of honouring her status as being the older one that she did not have to leave the house to go to work. (according to Pessikta zutrata she was already of marriageable age.)
+
+Verse 10
+
+
+
+Verse 11
+
+
+
+Verse 12
+
+ויגד יעקב לרחל, “Yaakov told Rachel;” He must have identified himself already previously, or he would not have dared kiss her as is reported in verse 11. Now he told her more details about himself. כי אחי אביה הוא, “that he was a brother of her father.” After having told her this, he kissed her. Another exegesis of this sequence: Yaakov first told Rachel that he was the brother of her father in order that she should not feel insulted that he had been fresh enough to kiss her. ותגד לאביה, “she told her father.”[This is already the second time that Bethuel is described as alive; I do not understand why our author has claimed that he died before Lavan ever came to Charan, as he did on verse 5. Ed.] When Rivkah had a similar experience with Eliezer, she is reported as relating her encounter to her mother, as she did not know precisely who Eliezer was. Daughters normally keep their mothers’ company, not their father’s.
+
+Verse 13
+
+ויספר ללבן את כל הדברים האלה, “he told Lavan in detail about all these events;” i.e. how he had acquired the birthright and subsequently the blessing, in order that Lavan would agree to give him Rachel in marriage. He also told him that he had been forced to flee from his brother Esau in order to explain why he had arrived emptyhanded.
+
+Verse 14
+
+אך עצמי ובשרי אתה, “Lavan said that legally speaking he should not have given Yaakov shelter, just as his other relatives had not protected him and forced him to flee after he had cheated his brother on two separate occasions. However, “seeing that you are my own flesh and blood,I will make an exception and not kick you out.”
+וישב עמו חדש ימים, “he stayed with him for a month.” The Torah uses this opportunity to teach us for how long a person must practice hospitality with his relatives. (Bereshit Rabbah 70,14) An alternate exegesis: When Lavan had heard what Yaakov had done to Esau, he was afraid to hire him until he had at least assured himself of his skills and suitability.
+
+Verse 15
+
+
+
+Verse 16
+
+
+
+Verse 17
+
+
+
+Verse 18
+
+ויאהב יעקב את רחל, “Yaakov loved Rachel;” he already had set his eyes on her with a view to wedding her.
+אעבדך, “I will serve you;” the letter ב in this word is vocalised with a chataph kametz, an abbreviated vowel kametz. (Not in our editions of the chumash).
+שבע שנים, “for seven years.” He should not have offered to serve Lavan for more than a year or maximum two years. Yaakov felt that Lavan would not give him a beautiful girlsuch as Rachel for a relatively cheap price. He also wanted Rachel to know how highly he prized her as a wife to be. This is why he volunteered seven years of work.
+ברחל בך הקטנה, “for your small daughter Rachel.” The use of the word: “the small” one, instead of “the younger one,” implied that her father did not think very highly of her. This is why she was assigned the duties of a shepherd. He volunteered to perform the duties that she had been assigned previously by being a shepherdess. An alternate exegesis: why did he add the word: ברחל. Who did not know that this was her name? Yaakov reasoned that if he were to marry Lavan’s older daughter, Esau would have another complaint against him by claiming that he had not only stolen his birthright, but also the woman designated for him as the firstborn son of Rivkah. [This seems very weak, as the Torah had already told us that Yaakov was in love with Rachel from the moment he met her. Ed.]
+
+Verse 19
+
+
+
+Verse 20
+
+ויהיו בעיניו כימים אחדים, “these seven years went by for him as if they had been only a few days.” Yaakov considered having to work for seven years in order to marry Rachel, as cheap at the price, as if he had paid only the equivalent of a few days’ wages for her. This reflected how much he was in love with her. If Lavan had demanded a higher price, he would also have been willing to pay it. While engaged actively in labouring, however, he felt the opposite way and could not await the time when he would finally be united with her.
+
+Verse 21
+
+כי מלאו ימי, “for my days of labouring (for her) have been completed.” seven full years had passed. Another exegesis of this line: he hinted that the time had come for him to start his family seeing that he was already 84 years old, and was approaching old age. Use of the term in that sense is found also in Jeremiah 6,11, i.e. זקן ומלא ימים.
+
+Verse 22
+
+
+
+Verse 23
+
+
+
+Verse 24
+
+את זלפה שפחתו, “his servantmaid Zilpah;” how could the Torah describe them as servantmaids when they were actually Lavan’s daughters? (Compare Bereshit rabbah 74,13) We must therefore assume that the Torah used the terminology of the people at that time who described their daughters born by concubines as their servantmaids.
+
+Verse 25
+
+ויהי בבקר והנה היא לאה, “and when it was morning Yaakov found out that the woman in bed with him had been Leah;” this verse teaches us a great deal about how chaste a person Yaakov was, and that he had hardly exchanged any words with who he thought was his wife while having marital relations with her. Had he been speaking with her, surely he would have known from her voice that he had been deceived. After all, he had lived in her proximity for the last seven years, and she was no stranger to him. If you were to ask that seeing that the so called marriage ceremony was clearly invalid, as the woman under the wedding canopy had not been the one with whom he thought that he had exchanged sacred vows, we would have to answer that as soon as he found this out he had relations with her for the purpose of legalising their marriage.
+
+Verse 26
+
+
+
+Verse 27
+
+ונתנה לך גם את זאת, “we will give you this one also;” the plural mode used here shows that Yaakov had not believed that Lavan would not try to trick him and had confirmed his betrothal already then in the presence of and with the consent of the local population. The entire population of Padan Arom had been a party to this deception from the start.
+
+Verse 28
+
+ויתן לו את רחל, “he gave him Rachel;” if you were to ask how Yaakov could legally have lived with two sisters, while both were alive, something forbidden by Jewish law, and according to tradition he kept the entire Torah laws, our sages have said that when a pagan undergoes conversion, all previous family relationships are retroactively cancelled (Yevamot 22), so that as soon as Leah became Yaakov’s wife, Rachel automatically had ceased to be her sister. A convert is considered as if a newly born person. An alternate exegesis: Leah and Rachel had been halfsisters sharing only their father. In Jewish law these family ties are dependent on the mother, not the father. Proof of this can be found in Deuteronomy 7,4; from here it is clear that the word בנך, “your son,” is a term that applies only to a son born by a Jewish mother, otherwise he would have been referred to as “her son.”
+
+Verse 29
+
+
+
+Verse 30
+
+ויאהב גם את רחל מלאה, “Yaakov also loved Rachel more than (he loved) Leah.” What is the meaning of the word גם, “also,” in this verse? Normally a man’s first wife occupies a permanent place in his heart, more so than any subsequent wives he will take. The Torah tells us that whenever Yaakov spent time with Rachel, he enjoyed that “quality time,” more than when he spent time with Leah. This was so although his first experience of marital intimacy had been with Leah. This is hinted at by the word גם.
+
+Verse 31
+
+
+
+Verse 32
+
+
+
+Verse 33
+
+
+
+Verse 34
+
+ילוה אישי אלי, “my husband will be more firmly connected to me.” She meant that up until now she would take her two children one with each hand, and did not need to call on her husband’s support. Now she needed to call on his support as she could not take three children by her two hands.
+על כן קרא שמו לוי, “this is why he named him Levi, companion. [All the other eleven children of Yaakov were named by their mothers, Yaakov, adding a second name to the youngest whom Rachel had named ben Oni. Ed.] There is some debate about the name of Zevulun; (30,20) some commentators assume that Yaakov did not agree with Leah’s implying that he would now make his permanent residence in Leah’s tent.
+
+Verse 35
+
+ותעמד מלדת, “she was (temporarily) unable to conceive and give birth again. Seeing that several years later Leah did give birth to Dinah, the Torah chose a word (עמידה, temporary standing still) which indicated that her inability to give birth for a while was not due to her having become too old. She was not able to conceive and give birth again until after Asher had been born.
+
+Chapter 30
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+ותקנא רחל באחותה, “Rachel became jealous of her sister;” she had not become jealous until after Leah had given birth to her fourth son. The reason was that by doing so she had received more than her “fair” share of the 12 sons Yaakov was supposed to sire.
+
+Verse 2
+
+
+
+Verse 3
+
+
+
+Verse 4
+
+את בלהה שפחתה לאשה, “her servantmaid Bilhah as wife.” This was similar to what Leah had received from her father when she had married. She also gave that servant maid to her husband Yaakov, as reported in 30,9. We know that Joseph in his early years kept company with the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah who are described there as his father’s “wives.” (Genesis 37,2) This teaches that these women were not concubines, but regular wives with all the financial security that such a status guarantees the wife. None of the 12 “tribes” were born to women who were merely concubines. The only time when the expression “concubine” is used about them is when they are mentioned in comparison to Rachel and Leah, when the indiscretion of Reuven is alluded to by the Torah in both Genesis 35,22, and 49,4. Gad and Asher had already been born when that indiscretion took place.
+
+Verse 5
+
+
+
+Verse 6
+
+דנני, “He has judged me;” she acknowledges that she had been appropriately punished for having been jealous of her sister. Nonetheless she had also then been rewarded. (Compare Bereshit Rabbah 71,7)
+
+Verse 7
+
+
+
+Verse 8
+
+נפתלתי עם אחותי, “I have struggled mightily with my sister;” first she had been judged by the attribute of Justice of G-d; as a result of realising her error, she had now become closer to her sister. This is reflected in history. Though Betzalel, from the tribe of Yehudah (son of Leah) became the primary architect of the Tabernacle in the desert, his second in command was Oholiov, from the tribe of Dan, i.e. from Rachel’s servant maid. She felt that in a measure she had also prevailed over her sister in her rivalry, as the permanent Temple in Solomon’s time would be constructed by a descendant of Naftali, from her family. (Compare Kings I7,1314: וישלח המלך שלמה ויקח את תירם בן אשה אלמנה הוא ממטה נפתלי, “King Solomon sent for Chirom and brought him down from Tyre. He was the son of a widow of the tribe of Naftali, and his father had been a Tyrian, a coppersmith. He was endowed with skill, ability, and talent, for executing all work on bronze.” He came to King Solomon and executed all his work.”
+
+Verse 9
+
+
+
+Verse 10
+
+
+
+Verse 11
+
+ותאמר לאה בגד, Leah said: “he betrayed,” i.e. this son is the result of my husband’s betrayal. [based on the word בגידה, “treachery. Ed.] Leah felt that although she had given Yaakov her servant maid to sleep with, he should not have accepted that offer. Did I not bear him four sons already? While it is true that he slept with Rachel’s servant maid also, this was understandable, as she had not born him any children. She called the son גד. [If I understand our author correctly, Leah was happy to be the “mother” of another son, but unhappy about how she had to come by him, i.e. vicariously. Ed.] She called the second son her servant maid had born, אשר, i.e. source of happiness, as by now she had reconciled herself to have given Yaakov her maidservant (This interpretation is close to the one offered in the midrash hagadol)
+The word: בגד, which is spelled as a single word instead of as two words: i.e. בא גד, but is read as one word. If we read this word as two words, the meaning is: בא גד, “a troop arrived,” i.e. my four sons have now been joined by another one that forms part of my little army.
+
+Verse 12
+
+
+
+Verse 13
+
+
+
+Verse 14
+
+וימצא דודאים, “he found figs.” (Rash’bam).
+
+Verse 15
+
+המעט קחתך את אישי, “not only have you usurped my position as the senior wife, seeing that I was married to him first, but...”
+
+Verse 16
+
+וישכב עמה בלילה הוא, “he slept with her on that night.” [In order to be grammatically correct, the Torah should have written: בלילה ההוא. Our author points out that this is not a scribe’s error, but that we have a similar formulation in Genesis 32,23: ויקם לילה הוא, “he got up during that night,” where we also would have expected to find: בלילה ההוא. [Perhaps the missing letter is to indicate that in both instances Yaakov made the decision hastily. Ed.]
+
+Verse 17
+
+
+
+Verse 18
+
+נתן אלוקים שכרי אשר נתתי שפחתי לאישי, “G-d gave me my reward for having given my maidservant to my husband.” She acknowledged G-d’s generosity, by having realised that if her sister had become a mother only vicariously by having given her servant maid to her husband, she had had good reason, as she had failed to personally provide him with children, and this was excusable; she, Leah having done so also was probably inexcusable; if nonetheless G-d had blessed her with having two more sons to raise, she considered this as a reward for her generosity in offering Yaakov her servant maid as a wife. In light of these considerations she named this son יששכר, “he who will be the symbol of a reward.” The name is written with two letters ש to draw our attention to what she meant.
+
+Verse 19
+
+
+
+Verse 20
+
+יזבלני אישי, “my husband will make a home with me.” The word is a composition of two words. Examples of similar constructions are found in Jeremiah 10,20: my sons will leave me; as well as in Genesis 49,19 גדוד יגודני, “troops will be called up from the tribe of Gad.”
+
+Verse 21
+
+ואחר ילדה בת, “afterwards she gave birth to a daughter.” This is the only time that the mother has not first been described as becoming pregnant. Our author uses this as proof at Dinah was a twin sister of Zevulun. (This interpretation is quoted also by Ibn Ezra, B’chor shor, and David Kimchi.) An alternate exegesis: the reason why no mention has been made of a pregnancy here is that originally, this child was supposed to be another male. Leah prayed that it would become a female, as otherwiseseeing that Yaakov was destined to sire 12 sons,Rachel could not have given birth to two sons. The fetus which would have been Joseph thus became Dinah. (Compare Rashi, whose source is an opinion in the Talmud B’rachot, 60 a well as the Targum Yonathan ben Uzziel [older than the Talmud. Ed.])
+
+Verse 22
+
+ויזכור אלוקים את רחל, G-d attribute of Justiceremembered Rachel. Blessed the righteous who posses the power to turn the attribute of Justice into the attribute of Mercy. (Based on Bereshit Rabbah 72,3 which adds that whenever the expression אלוקים is used in the Torah it refers to G-d’s attribute of Justice)
+
+Verse 23
+
+אסף אלוקים את חרפתי, “G-d has removed my shame.” Rachel referred to her becoming the victim of the same penalty as people guilty of karet, leaving behind no biological issue. The expression אסף occurs in a similar context in Isaiah 16,10: נאספה שמחה וגיל, “rejoicing and gladness are gone;”
+
+Verse 24
+
+
+
+Verse 25
+
+ויהי כאשר רחל ילדה יוסף, “it occurred as soon as Rachel had born Joseph,” i.e. when Yaakov’s second term of indenture to Lavan had been completed; now all the 12 sons that were to become the twelve tribes of Israel had been born. [according to Ibn Ezra, who considers Dinah as one of those 12. Ed] Rachel’s giving birth completed this circle, she who had been described as barren in 29,31 finally having overcome her handicap. Yaakov therefore now approached Lavan by announcing that he planned to go home to his parents. A different interpretation: the words “ויאמר שלחני,” Yaakov had not asked Lavan for permission to leave previously because he was afraid that as long as Rachel was still barren, Lavan would suspect him of treating her with disdain on account of this. Now that she too had born him a son, he felt confident that Lavan would permit him to leave. We have found the following text in the book called seder olam: “eleven of the tribes, plus Dinah were born during the seven years of Yaakov serving his second term of seven years. Each one of these was born after a pregnancy of only seven months by his respective mother. The 84 months of these seven years are made up of the mothers being actively pregnant for six months each, and allowing for one week of ritual impurity separating each birth from the next.” [Clearly this is a mystic approach which saw in these 84 months a single preordained sequence, and the mothers all being perceived as if they were only one mother. Ed.] The text in seder olam interprets a statement in the Talmud Rosh hashanah 11 in this sense. [The Talmud there discusses the viability of a fetus that was born after less than 36 weeks’ pregnancy. Ed.]
+
+Verse 26
+
+
+
+Verse 27
+
+
+ נחשתי, “I have learned by divination;” Lavan owned household idols. Seeing that this was so, he consulted with sorcerers.
+נחשתי ויברכני, “I consulted with them and have found that I have been blessed since your having come to me.” Rashi explains this as follows: until you came here I have only had daughters. This is why he had to send out his daughters to tend his flocks. Surely, if he had had sons he would not have sent out daughters to tend the flocks. One could understand the line: כי רועה היא in 29,9 to mean: “instead of them;” the boys. Maybe his sons were too young to be sent out tending sheep.
+
+Verse 28
+
+ויאמר נקבה שכרך, “he said: tell me what you wish to receive as compensation for tending my flocks?” This line refers to when Lavan had told Yaakov that he realised that Yaakov’s presence had been especially beneficial for him. He was interested in keeping Yaakov near him as he had been such a source of blessing for him. The repetition of the word ויאמר in two successive verses is not especially unusual.
+
+Verse 29
+
+את אשר עבדתיך, “I have served you for the hand of a woman in marriage, not for “wages.”
+
+Verse 30
+
+
+
+Verse 31
+
+?ויאמר מה אתן לך, He said: “what shall I give you for the work you have performed for me?”
+ויאמר יעקב לא תתן לי מאומה, Yaakov said: “you do not have to give me anything;” he referred to the last seven years; he had worked for the hand of Rachel in marriage. She was his now. However, he added, “if you wish me to stay with you longer and to continue to look after your flocks, do the following for me and I will agree and continue to tend your flocks;”
+
+Verse 32
+
+כל שה נקוד וטלוא, “every lamb whose skin pattern is characterised by being either dappled or blotched, etc., he referred not to fully grown animals but to the ones under one year old. Neither did he single out the animals whose skin had a pattern known as עקודים; any animals that would be borne henceforth and whose skin reflected the patterns described by Yaakov would be his. Lavan commenced immediately with his treachery by removing any animals which according to accepted standards were likely to either sire or give birth to young ones having the skin patterns that Yaakov had stipulated as becoming his. This treachery forced Yaakov to devise a different means to encourage the remaining animals under his care to produce some young that reflected the skin patterns he had chosen.
+חום בכבשים, brown skin patterns among the sheep; this is emphasised as he did not do so with the goats, as the majority of them displayed such brown skin blotches.
+
+Verse 33
+
+וענתה בי צדקתי, an abbreviated verse; the meaning is: “my truthfulness will be demonstrated on the following day i.e. in the future, (when these animals will produce young) when you have a chance to check on what I have selected as the basis for my wages.
+ביום, the letter ב does not have the vowel patach, as Yaakov cannot predict the exact day when this will be proven several months later.
+
+Verse 34
+
+
+
+Verse 35
+
+
+
+Verse 36
+
+
+
+Verse 37
+
+מקל, “rod;” the letter ק has the vowel patach under it (instead of tzeyreh). This is not unusual for the construct mode; we find it also in the word מעשר, Leviticus 27,32, as well as in the word מספד in Jeremiah 6,26 which has the vowel patach under the letter .פ
+לבנה לח, “moist aspen wood;” the wood of this tree is white only when exposed after peeling the bark and still moist. This distinguishes it from the luz and armon trees the wood of which are white regardless of moist or dry. This is why they are described as לבנה, “white.”
+ולוז, and almond trees. We know this from the Talmud Bechorot 8, where the time needed for a hen to lay an egg after copulating is given as 21 days, identical to the development of the almond in the almond tree after pollination. It is not to be confused with the hazelnut tree which produces small nuts, and which requires more than 21 days between pollination and blossoming.
+ויפצל, “he peeled;” this word does not appear elsewhere in the Bible. In the Talmud it means to split something into separate parts by peeling or skimming. Examples are enclosures where female sheep or goats are prevented from escaping so that the males introduced will copulate promptly and impregnate them. This is the meaning of the phrase: והיו הקשורים ליעקב, “and the ones that had been tied up would belong to Yaakov.”
+
+Verse 38
+
+ויחמנה, “they grew heated;” the construction of this word is a combination of two conjugations. It is similar in this respect to Samuel I 6,12: וישרנה הפרות, “the cows went straight, and to ארבע מלכיות מגוי יעמודנה, “four kingdoms will arise out of a nation,” and in Daniel 8,2, and in ותקרבו העצמות עצם אל עצם, “the bones came together,” in Ezekiel 37,7.
+
+Verse 39
+
+ויחמו הצאן, “the flocks grew heated;” the Torah did not mind in this case to use the singular mode when speaking of numerous animals; we know of other examples of a similar construction such as Judges 21,21: אם יצאו בנות שילה, “as soon as the daughters of Shiloh will come forth,” where the masculine mode is applied to the girls of Shiloh.
+אל המקלות, “in response to the sticks;” the word אל does not mean to approach physically;” similar to Genesis 41,57: לשבור אל יוסף, “to buy grain from Joseph,” where it also has not been used in a physical sense. Another interpretation: “on account of the sticks.” This would be similar to Yaakov saying in Genesis 37,35: כי ארד אל בני שאולה, “for I will join my son on the way down to hades” (a grave in the nether regions of the earth).
+ותלדנה הצאן עקודים, “the flocks gave birth to young with striped birth patterns on the skins of their feet.” From then on Yaakov did not again bother to erect the sticks near the troughs, but he simply separated the animals that had displayed the skin patterns in accordance with his agreement Lavan from the brownskinned ones that were Lavan’s.
+
+Verse 40
+
+ולא שתם על צאו לבן, and he did not keep them near the flocks that belonged to Lavan. He did not want Lavan to be able to say that he had mixed them among Lavan’s flocks in order that Lavan’s sheep would produce young looking like those of Yaakov.
+The construction: על צאן לבן, must be understood as similar to Leviticus 25,31: על שדה הארץ יחשב, “shall be considered as open country.”
+
+Verse 41
+
+
+
+Verse 42
+
+
+
+Verse 43
+
+
+
+Chapter 31
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+
+
+Verse 2
+
+
+
+Verse 3
+
+ויאמר ה' אל יעקב, “the Lord said to Yaakov;” what follows is the dream that he told his wives.
+
+Verse 4
+
+ויקרא לרחל וללאה, “he sent word to Rachel and Leah to come to him;” the Torah mentions the names of these wives by name as they were the senior wives; he did not have to send messages to Zilpah and Bilhah and their respective children as they were in his proximity all the time, helping him tend the flocks.
+
+Verse 5
+
+
+
+Verse 6
+
+
+
+Verse 7
+
+
+
+Verse 8
+
+
+
+Verse 9
+
+את מקנה אביכם, “the herds of your father.” The masculine ending ם is used although according to the rules of grammar the feminine ending should have been used
+
+Verse 10
+
+וברודים, speckled, some of the animals he saw in the dream showed such skin patterns.
+
+Verse 11
+
+
+
+Verse 12
+
+
+
+Verse 13
+
+
+
+Verse 14
+
+
+
+Verse 15
+
+את כספנו, “our money;” they told Yaakov that their father had withheld the money that had rightfully been theirs as their dowry, even though he had paid this in the form of physical labour as a shepherd. This would have been no more than common decency.
+
+Verse 16
+
+
+
+Verse 17
+
+
+
+Verse 18
+
+
+
+Verse 19
+
+ותגנוב רחל את התרפים, “Rachel stole the teraphim;” in order that Lavan would not be able to divine the route they had taken by consulting them as oracles. We have read about their uses in Hoseah 3,4 as well as in Zachariah 10,2.
+
+Verse 20
+
+
+
+Verse 21
+
+
+
+Verse 22
+
+
+
+Verse 23
+
+וירדוף אחריו, “he chased after him. According to Rashi, the distance that Yaakov with all his sheep and cattle had covered in seven days, Lavan, riding, had been able to cover in a single day. Yaakov had taken seven days to get from Padan Arom to Har Gilead. Different commentators disagree on how long it took Yaakov. Considering that we have been told in Genesis 30,36, that he had put three days walk between himself and Lavan, he had only travelled for 4 days before Lavan caught up with him. At any rate Lavan’s catching up with Yaakov is not surprising due to his riding either on camels or donkeys, and not being slowed down by animals and other heavy luggage.
+
+Verse 24
+
+ויבא אלוקים אל לבן, G-d came (in a dream) to Lavan;
+
+Verse 25
+
+
+
+Verse 26
+
+
+
+Verse 27
+
+
+
+Verse 28
+
+לנשק לבני ולבנותי, “to provide my sons and daughters with parting gifts;” although the word נשק appears primarily as meaning “to kiss,” it is also the same word (as a noun) meaning neshek, “weapons,” in the sense of the equipment needed for survival, as we know from Psalms 2,12: נשקו בר, “gird yourselves;”
+
+Verse 29
+
+יש לאל ידי לעשות עמכם רע, “it is within my power to harm you;” Lavan implies that even G-d is aware of this and is afraid that I will take my revenge of you, and that it why He has warned me concerning you.
+
+Verse 30
+
+
+
+Verse 31
+
+
+
+Verse 32
+
+
+
+Verse 33
+
+ויבא באהל רחל “he came into the tent of Rachel;” Rashi on these words (basing himself on Bereshit Rabbah 74,12) says that Lavan now went back to the tent of Rachel once more after having already searched the tent of Leah, before proceeding to the tents of the other matriarchs, because he considered her a thief. What is the reason that prompted Rashi to accept this interpretation, i.e. that Lavan searched the tents of the matriarchs last? I believe it is based on the words: ולא מצא “and he had not found” in our verse, after having told us that he searched the tents of Yaakov and the matriarchs. Clearly this had to refer to the tents of the matriarchs which would have been the logical starting point for the search. On the one hand, seeing that Rachel was Yaakov’s favourite wife and he spent most of his time with her, the reference to the tent of Yaakov could be understood as including searching Rachel’s belongings. Rachel’s personal tent, presumably used by her only while experiencing her menses, and therefore ritually impure, was located in the centre of the whole camp. The entrances of the tents of the matriarchs opened to public paths on the one side and to Rachel’s tent on the other. Some commentators argue that we must follow the sequence of the text, i.e. that Leah’s tent was in the centre Rachel’s tent adjoining, and the other two matriarchs’ tents adjoining that of Rachel. Only Leah’s and Rachel’s tents also had an entrance facing a public path, so that Yaakov could not go out to the public domain without the knowledge of either Rachel or Leah. Lavan was therefore forced to return to the tent of Leah, and subsequently to that of Rachel. [Lavan searched in the order of who he thought had most to gain by stealing his teraphim, commencing with Yaakov. Ed.]
+
+Verse 34
+
+ורחל לקחה את התרפים, “and Rachel had taken the teraphim; when Lavan left the tent of Leah went and placed them under her cushion while seated on the camel.
+
+Verse 35
+
+
+
+Verse 36
+
+
+
+Verse 37
+
+
+
+Verse 38
+
+לא שכלו, “did not miscarry;” it is customary for shepherds to occasionally beat one or another of the animals entrusted to him in order to force them to walk in line with the other beasts. This could result in a miscarriage of a pregnant animal. Yaakov prides himself never to have beaten any of these animals, and that is how he explains that in twenty years under his care none ever miscarried.
+ואילי צאנך, “and the ewes among your flocks,” Rashi here (based on Baba Kamma, 65 explains that we learn from this line that even a ewe only one day old, is already called “ewe” and not “sheep” or “lamb”. If Rashi were not correct, what point would Yaakov be making by claiming never to have eaten any of the flock entrusted to him? He could have eaten them while they bore a different name, such as mentioned! If you were to counter that we know from experience that the name “ewe” is not applied to male sheep until they have reached the age of two years and someone obligated to bring a sacrificial animal called “ewe” must bring one not younger that two years old, [and are therefore capable of copulating? Ed.] the answer is that, of course, the name “ewe” is applied to even one day old male sheep, it is only for the purpose of serving as a sacrificial animal that such a ewe must be at least two years old. ואילי צאנך לא אכלתי, “neither have I eaten from the ewes of your flocks.” It is the custom of shepherds to look after the flock by day and to bring the flock home at night to the owner; if during the night one or more of the sheep have been stolen, the loss is that of the owner. You, however, have demanded compensation from me even for sheep that disappeared while in your possession and inside your pens.
+
+Verse 39
+
+טרפה לא הבאתי אליך, “I did not bring you the remains of animals that had been torn by wild beasts; even if I was completely powerless to prevent such incidences I did not expect it to become your loss; neither did I expect you to compensate me for animals stolen by day or night.
+
+Verse 40
+
+
+
+Verse 41
+
+ושש שנים בצאנך, “and six years for “your” flocks. Under the same terms as those set forth in the Torah for a Jewish servant who has been indentured for a fixed period. (Exodus chapter 21)
+ותחלף, “you have repeatedly changed the terms during the currency of that term.” The vowel under the letter ל is a tzeyreh instead of the expected segol.
+
+Verse 42
+
+ופחד יצחק, Yaakov claims that if Lavan had not shown a degree of fear of the retaliation by Yitzchok his father who is wealthy and locally mighty, (in addition to the fear of Yaakov’s, Yitzchok’s and his own G-d)
+היה לי, “Who had repeatedly be on my side by making you scared;”An alternate interpretation: “if my father Yitzchok who revered and feared G-d, had not assisted me.”Rashi states here that Yaakov was afraid to refer to G-d as Yitzchok’s G-d, as we have a rule that G-d does not associate His sacred name with a person still alive, as there is no guarantee that he may not become a heretic. [If we find that G-d made an exception in the case of Yitzchok, as He said to Yaakov in the dream of the ladder, this was because Yitzchok was blind and housebound and therefore not subject to temptation by the evil urge; at this point Yaakov was not yet sure that the dream had not only been just his wishful thinking or a revelation to him by G-d. Ed.] We do find that Eliezer used the name of the Lord in connection with His being the G-d of Avraham four times, but that was only the Torah reporting it, no proof that G-d approved of his doing so. Alternately, seeing that Avraham had already passed 10 tests of his faith by G-d, Eliezer was on solid ground when he presumed it was in order.
+כי עתה ריקם שלחתני, “you would now have sent me away emptyhanded.” You simply would not have compensated me for the last six years that I worked for you.
+
+Verse 43
+
+?ולבנותי מה אעשה, “Lavan is beginning to become more conciliatory by saying that he could not bring himself to harm his daughters [all four matriarchs were his daughters, though not from the same mother. Ed.]
+
+Verse 44
+
+
+
+Verse 45
+
+
+
+Verse 46
+
+
+
+Verse 47
+
+
+
+Verse 48
+
+
+
+Verse 49
+
+
+
+Verse 50
+
+אם תענה את בנותי, “if you were to maltreat my daughters;” Lavan refers to the possibility of Yaakov forcing marital intercourse on his daughters against their will. If he were to argue that in the event of their refusing him he would marry additional wives, he would consider this as if his daughters had been denied their legitimate entitlement to their marital rights.
+אין איש עמנו, even though this understanding is private, not having been confirmed by witnesses, he calls upon G-d as his witness it.
+
+Verse 51
+
+
+
+Verse 52
+
+אם אני לא אעבור עליך, “I will not cross this stonepile with hostile intent against you. Lavan undertakes not to join anyone bent on attacking Yaakov in return for Yaakov’s promise not to do this in the event that he will be attacked.
+
+Verse 53
+
+ישפטו בינינו, “will judge between us;” who of us is at fault.he will be attacked.
+אלוקי אביהם, “the gods of their father.” The word for deity in this verse may be understood as sacred when referring to Yaakov’s deity, or secular when referring to Lavan’s deities. (based on Bereshit Rabbah 74,14.)
+וישבע יעקב בפחד אביו, “Yaakov swore by his father’s G-d; Yaakov was unwilling to refer to his G-d after Lavan had already mentioned his own deities as part of the same reciprocal oath, as he would have considered it as blasphemy; this is why he used a pseudonym, i.e. pachad, when referring to his father’s G-d. We find numerous examples of such kinnuyim, pseudonyms, being used in the Talmud when the sages wanted to avoid having to profane the holy name of G-d by using it unnecessarily. Onkelos also renders it literally, to avoid using the name of G-d when Yaakov had made a strenuous effort to avoid same. An alternate exegesis: he wished to remind Lavan of the fright that had overcome Yitzchok when he had become aware that but for the intervention of Rivkah and himself he had almost bestowed the power to bless on wicked Esau, and thus become guilty of risking losing his share in the world to come. (27,33)
+
+Verse 54
+
+
+
+Chapter 32
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+
+
+Verse 2
+
+
+
+Verse 3
+
+מחנים, “camps;” a reference to two camps of angels meeting at this place; the ones who had protected him thus far, and the ones assigned to so while he would be in the Holy Land.
+
+Verse 4
+
+וישלח יעקב מלאכים, “Yaakov sent out messengers;” the meaning of the word: malachim here is, as understood by both translators into Aramaic, izgedin, runners, messengers; [human beings. Ed.]
+ארצה שעיר, “towards the land of Seir.” This land had originally belonged to “Seir,” but when Esau married Oholivamah, daughter of Ana, he inherited this land courtesy of his wife whose maternal links had been Ana, a daughter of Tzivon as stated in Genesis 36,2. Esau had moved there from the land of Canaan to spend more time with his wives to whom he felt greatly attached. Eventually this land was named after him, i.e. “field of Edom.” This term reminds everyone of Esau’s primary vocation as hunter in the field.
+
+Verse 5
+
+לאדני, לעשו, “to my lord, to Esau.” We find Yaakov addressing Esau as “my lord,” no fewer than eight times in this portion. This may be the reason why eight kings ruled in the land of Edom before the first king ruled in the land of Israel.
+כה אמר עבדך יעקב, “thus has said your obedient servant Yaakov;” Yaakov used this subservient posture in order to cool Esau’s burning anger at what he perceived that Yaakov had done to him. He hinted broadly that his father’s blessing which had portrayed Esau as subservient to him had not been fulfilled at all. In fact, he, Yaakov, was quite ready to recognise his older brother as also his senior.
+עם לבן גרתי, he explains that he had learned to adopt such a wealth of animals and servants this was due to my having stayed with my uncle many years. If he had stayed in someone else’s house during all these years he would still be penniless. An alternate explanation of the line: “I have sojourned with Lavan; ”you are aware that I stayed with Lavan as my father and mother have commanded me.” He said this in order to underline that Esau should not flatter himself that he had been a fugitive from Esau’s wrath. A third alternate exegesis of these words: Esau should not be cross that he had not come sooner to pay his respects to him; the only reason for this was that he had been indentured to Lavan under contract.
+
+Verse 6
+
+למצוא חן בעיניך, in order to find favour in your eyes.” Yaakov wants a reconciliation with his brother, and in order to achieve this he is willing to be completely transparent with Esau concerning all that he owns.
+
+Verse 7
+
+וגם הולך לקראתך, “he is also coming toward you happy to welcome you.”
+וארבע מאות איש עמו, “he took them along in order to honour you.”
+
+Verse 8
+
+ויירא יעקב מאד (upon hearing this) “Yaakov was very much afraid;” you may well ask that after Yaakov had been met by angels, as we read at the end of the last portion, and these angels were clearly meant to protect him, what did he have to worry about? This obvious question is answered by our sages by explaining that one of these angels was Michael, Yaakov’s protective angel, whereas the second one was Samael, Esau’s angel. Knowing this, Yaakov had no way of knowing which of these two angels was more powerful. This is why he became very fearful. Yaakov feared that although he had sent a conciliatory message to Esau, he was afraid that through some inadvertent sin he might have committed recently, he might fall victim to his older brother. He was especially conscious of the fact that he had overstayed his time at Lavan for six years in order to amass some money, instead of returning to the land of Canaan and fulfilling the commandment of honouring his father and mother, especially so, seeing that his father was blind. (Based on Bereshit Rabbah 76,2) He therefore did not credit Esau with having friendly intentions. Another exegesis about the words: באנו אל אחיך, ”we have come to your brother;” (but he did not respond with a single word). He only said that he would proceed to meet Yaakov; he did not have to come to him, and the messengers returning added that Esau was accompanied by four hundred men. Esau did say that he would speak with Yaakov personally. Yaakov’s fear resulted from the fact that now he was no wiser than before. He had no clue as to Esau’s real intentions.
+ויצר לו, “he was anxious;” the letter י has the vowel tzeyreh underneath it;
+ויחץ את העם אשר אתו, “he split up the entourage that was with him;” Yaakov had said to himself: “if Esau should see me fleeing, (instead) I will awaken feelings of hatred within him.”
+
+Verse 9
+
+אל המחנה האחת, “to one of the camps;” some commentators understand the word האחת here, as a reference to the camp containing the matriarchs and their children. והיה המחנה הנשאר לפלטה, “this will afford the people in the remaining camp to escape.” [Presumably Esau will not be aware that there are two camps, so that he will not bother to search for it. Ed.] An alternate explanation of Yaakov’s strategy: while Esau will battle with the people making up the first camp, there will be time enough for the people making up the second camp to flee and escape destruction.
+
+Verse 10
+
+ויאמר יעקב, “Yaakov said (in his prayer to G-d); according to Rashi on verse 10, in 31,42 Yaakov avoided referring to his father’s G-d by His name in connection with Him, but had used a euphemism, i.e. פחד יצחק, whereas now he speaks of אלוקי אבי יצחק, without using any euphemism. He answers that Yaakov here refers to the promise of G-d in his dream with the ladder, in which he quotes G-d as having described Himself as the אלוקי יצחק, “the G-d of Yitzchok.” In 31,3, G-d had asked him to return to the land of his fathers. In recalling these instructions from G-d which he had complied with, he sees the justification for appealing to G-d to save him from Esau while he is on the way to fulfill G-d’s commandment.
+
+Verse 11
+
+קטונתי מכל החסדים, “I have not been worthy of all the acts of kindness;” Yaakov explains what prompts him to be so fearful; he says that G-d has already done more for him than he could have expected, seeing that he did not feel worthy of it. As a result of his unworthiness he was afraid thatEsau who had performed the commandment of honouring his father and mother all the years when he had been absent, had accumulated sufficient merits to emerge victorious in a military confrontation with him. [After all, his father had blessed him with being successful with his sword. Ed.] Whenever the expression חסד and אמת occur in the Scriptures (together), they refer to someone having performed kind deeds, beyond the call of duty. Examples Genesis 49,29, when Yaakov asks his son Joseph to transport his remains to the land of Canaan and for him to be buried next to his wife Leah, although he had buried Joseph’s mother on the roadside where she had died. We find another example in Samuel II 15,20, where David excuses Gittai, from Gat, a gentile, from endangering himself while remaining in his company while he has to flee from his own son Avshalom.
+
+Verse 12
+
+מיד אחי, מיד עשו, from (the hand of) my brother, from (the hand of) Esau.” If Yaakov had only referred to Esau as “my brother,” it could have referred to any blood relative. If he had referred to Esau only by his name, it could have been understood as referring to anyone named Esau. [Yaakov had used the same caution when spelling out for whom he would serve Lavan for his future wife, i.e. “your younger daughter, Rachel.” (29,18) Ed.]
+פן יבא והכני אם על בנים, “lest he come and smite me both mother and children.” Yaakov implied that if this were to happen, G-d forbid, how could the promises G-d had made to him that his children would develop into numerous tribes (28,13) come true. A different exegesis of this phrase: Yaakov was not at all concerned about being killed himself because he had G-d’s assurances. He was only concerned about the lives of his wives and children, concerning whom he did not have G-d’s assurance. G-d had only promised him personally that He would bring him safely back to his home (even though it might entail many detours, i.e. בכל אשר תלך), “wherever you will go” (28,15). This is why he specifically spelled this out with the words: אם על בנים, “mother and children.” Use of the preposition על in the sense of “with,” also occurs in Numbers 28,10: על עולת התמיד, “with the daily burnt offering,” as well as in Numbers 19,5: על פרשה ישרף, “it is to be burned with its dung.”
+
+Verse 13
+
+
+
+Verse 14
+
+מנחה לעשו אחיו, “as a gift for his brother Esau.” He meant to be conciliatory regardless of Esau’s intentions concerning him.
+
+Verse 15
+
+
+
+Verse 16
+
+גמלים מיניקות, “female camels;” 
+ובניהם, and their masculine young. The total number of camels was 30. How is this number arrived at? There were twenty female camels and 10 male camels. [Each mother animal had a female young with her. Ed.] The ratio was similar to that of the male and female donkeys which also totaled 30. After having read the details of the latter, we understand what is meant about the camels. According to Rashi, however, there were 30 male camels plus thirty female camels.
+
+Verse 17
+
+
+
+Verse 18
+
+
+
+Verse 19
+
+?למי אתה, “Who do you belong to?” ואמרת: ״לעבדך וגו׳״, “you will say: ‘to your servant, etc.” Yaakov ordered his servants, the ones who accompanied the herds of gifts, to answer each question in the order in which it had been asked. To the question of: “who do these herds belong to?” the answer was to be: “they belong to your servant Yaakov and are a gift for my lord Esau.” In response to the question: ולמי אלה לפניך, “and to whom do these animals in front of you belong?” They were all to answer: “and he (Yaakov) is also following a short distance behind us.”
+
+Verse 20
+
+
+
+Verse 21
+
+ואמרתם גם הנה עבדך יעקב אחרינו, you are to say: “your servant Yaakov is also not far behind us.” He made them repeat this answer twice. He told his servants that when they would see Esau they should not be afraid to address him in such a manner, i.e. by referring to their own master as Esau’s servant. In the event Esau would ask them why Yaakov did not precede them in order to welcome him, as befits a younger brother when he meets his older brother, you will say: etc.: he reasoned that he wanted Esau to be in a good frame of mind concerning him before actually setting eyes on him.” They were to reveal that Yaakov had felt the need to appease his older brother by means of the gift he had sent ahead of himself. He hoped that in view of this substantial gift Esau would be good tempered when they came face to face after so many years. These latter words were not spoken by the servants of Yaakov who walked with the animals, but are to be understood as editorial comment by the author of the Torah. If they had done so, Yaakov would have committed the psychological error of reminding Esau of how he had once deceived him.
+
+Verse 22
+
+והוא לן בלילה ההוא במחנה, “and he (Yaakov) spent that night in the camp.” This is a reference to what we have read in verse14: וילן שם בלילה ההוא, “he spent the night there.” It has been repeated, as the gift that Yaakov sent to Esau has been reported in the meantime in detail.
+
+Verse 23
+
+ויקם בלילה, “he arose during that night;” he intended to flee via a different route. (Rash’bam)
+ויקם בלילה הוא, “a truncated phrase, which if grammatically correct should have been: ויקם הוא בלילה, “he arose during the night.” ויקח את שתי נשיו ואת שתי שפחותיו ואת אחד עשר ילדיו, “he took hold of his two wives, his two servant maids and his eleven children;” the wives are mentioned before the children, i.e. he transported them across the river first; he transported the wives across the river first, as he was more concerned with the children than with his wives; if Esau by chance should already have reached the far side of the river and was bent on killing him and his family, he would meet his wives first. At the time when Lavan had chased Yaakov, (from behind), Yaakov had positioned his wives, Lavan’s daughters behind him, so that Lavan would meet up with his daughters first.
+יבק, “the name of the river.” There are some commentators who claim that this is an alternate name for the river Jordan. They arrive at this conclusion by quoting Yaakov as saying to G-d in verse 11: “I have crossed the river Jordan the first time equipped only with my walking stick, and by now I have become two camps.” Here the river has been called: Yabbok.
+
+Verse 24
+
+
+
+Verse 25
+
+ויאבק איש עמו, “a man began to wrestle with him.” The “man,” was an angel who had assumed the form of a human being. The angel, Esau’s protective power, had come to prevent Yaakov from escaping from Esau. He realised soon that G-d’s assurances to Yaakov were strong enough to protect him against being harmed by Esau. (Rash’bam)
+עד עלות השחר, “until dawn.”
+
+Verse 26
+
+וירא, “the angel saw;” (realised)
+כי לא יוכל לו “that he could not overpower Yaakov;” the words: לא יוכל, must be understood in the sense that Moses used them before taking leave from his people, when he said: in Deut. 31,2: לא אוכל עוד לצאת ולבא, “I cannot any longer lead you in war,” where he was physically fully able, but G-d had forbidden him to do so. The author cites more examples of the word יכול occurring in that sense.
+ויגע, “the angel touched in a manner which twisted (his hip joint);
+בכף ירכו, “his hip joint;” he tried to dislocate his hip joint, hoping that this would cause him to fall down.
+ותקע, “he succeeded in dislocating it.” This is one of the words which can be interpreted in two opposite ways depending on the context in which they appear. A well known example is the root דשן, which can mean “to saturate,” i.e. to heap more and more of a substance onto something, but it also appears as removing excess ashes from the altar. (Compare Exodus 27,3) The root תקע is more familiar to us as meaning to firmly establish something, such as the pegs holding a tent to the ground it is on. Compare Genesis 31,25, ויעקב תקע את אהלו בהר, “and Yaakov placed his tent firmly on the mountain.” Compare Leviticus 6,3, Psalms 80,10, and Psalms 52,7. In our verse it describes the angel’s attempt to uproot Yaakov.
+כף ירך יעקב, “the hip joint of Yaakov.” The angel succeeded to injure Yaakov despite G-d’s assurances to him that “I will protect you wherever you go;” because Yaakov allowed himself to be frightened of Esau in spite of G-d’s assurances. [This was a lack of faith in G-d’s promise. Ed.] We find something similar with Moses, whom the angel injured and almost killed. (The incident at the inn on the way to Egypt) He had been assured of G-d’s support (Exodus 3,12) but displayed fear of Pharaoh, and refused the mission to become the leader of the Jewish people and to return to Egypt. (Exodus 3,13) He had asked G-d to send anyone but him.
+
+Verse 27
+
+שלחני כי עלה השחר, “give me permission to leave for dawn has arisen!” “Until now I held you up from proceeding according to plan; now you have permission to proceed on your way.” An alternate exegesis of this strange conversation: The angel told Yaakov that since it now was almost daylight, he no longer had anything to fear from him. It is not customary for destructive forces to do their jobs during the daylight hours.
+כי אם ברכתני, “unless you first give me a blessing.” Yaakov meant that he would not accept the angel’s words until he had demonstrated that he meant it, by giving him a blessing. After that he would feel confident that he no longer had reason to fear him and would not seek revenge because he had failed to disable him. (Rash’bam)
+
+Verse 28
+
+
+
+Verse 29
+
+כי שרית עם אלהים, “you have now become the equal of angels, but you have not succeeded in outranking them.”
+
+Verse 30
+
+למה זה תשאל לשמי, “why are you asking for my name?” The angel informs Yaakov that there is no point in knowing his name; he explains that when people that have not seen one another ever, upon meeting, will extend greetings with one another and bless each other wishing each other well, and ask one another for their names, they justify this in the event that they wished to communicate with each other in the future. If they do not know one another’s name and address, how could they communicate with each other? Knowing the angel’s name, just as in the case of Manoach in Judges 13,17, is important only when such occasions will arise. The angel assures Yaakov that in this instance there is no need for this as he knows his name and address and will not forget it. Another interpretation of why the angel retorted to Yaakov’s question with a question of his own, instead of with an answer, though he complied with Yaakov’s request to bless him: the reason why angels do not like to reveal their names is to prevent human beings to make them swear an oath concerning the mission that they had fulfilled. And we also found that it is also written about Manoach to whom the angel says, "Why do you ask for my name? And it is wonderful" (Judges 13,18). Another interpretation: I asked what is your name in order to mention it in the name of the act, but what will my name be of any use to you? Why would you ask me?
+
+Verse 31
+
+
+
+Verse 32
+
+ויזרח לו השמש, “the sun shone for him.” In the In the Western hemisphere, the sun’s rays rise earlier and became stronger on a daily basis starting in the month of Tevet, until in the month of Tammuz the days again start to become shorter and the sun’s rays weaker. Our author tries to show how the season’s variations are hinted at in the words of the Torah here. The reason why the author does this is because he was troubled by the Torah in our verse making it appear as if the sun shone only for Yaakov and not the rest of the world. He uses the numerical value of the word: 36=לו, as the basis of this exegesis. [I have decided to omit the details of this astronomical part of his exegesis of this verse. Ed.]
+והוא צולע על ירכו, “and he was limping, i.e. dragging his feet.” He had not been able to leave Peduel before the sun was shining strongly and its healing rays enabled him to walk. An alternate exegesis: no one had noticed his limp until the sun shone. The grammatical construction of our verse would be parallel to Genesis 29,25 when the Torah writes: ויהי בבקר והנה היא לאה, “it was morning when he found out (Yaakov) that it was Leah (in bed with him)”.
+
+Verse 33
+
+על כן לא יאכלו, “therefore it is appropriate that the Israelites do not eat, etc.;” this construction is parallel to Isaiah 10,7: והוא לא כן ידמה, “but it does not seem like this to him;” in other words: it would be right and proper to punish the Israelites not to eat that particular sinew as they should not have allowed their founding father to be exposed to hostile forces at night. Yaakov’s sons were physically strong, and they should have been at hand to assist their father if the need arose to do so. Seeing that they failed to do this, the blame for the injury sustained by their father was theirs. From now on they would have learned their lesson and would practice the commandment to accompany their father, or for that matter, any older and wiser person, especially at night. Yaakov himself set an example when he accompanied his son Joseph part of the way on a mission which he had sent him on, and which was potentially dangerous. (Genesis 37,14) A different approach to the verse above: as a result of their father Yaakov having stood up to the protective celestial force of Esau, his sons stopped eating the part of the body that the angel had been able to injure. They did this out of a feeling of pride in their founding father. A third approach to this verse: due to their father Yaakov having sustained an injury, his descendants voluntarily decided not to eat the part of the body of an animal that had been injured in their father’s body. This has to be understood better by the use of a parable; a person suffered from a headache or from pains in a different part of his body. As a reminder of that pain he decides not to eat that part of the body of an animal as a symbol of his having been healed from that pain, so that it (abstention) would serve as a remedy for them (preventive medicine) in the future. We have a Baraitah in Chulin 101 which relates that people came to Rabbi Yehudah who had expressed the opinion that the prohibition not to eat that part of an animal also applied to animals that were altogether forbidden to be eaten, questioning his interpretation by citing the fact that only the descendants of Israel were forbidden to eat this part of an animal, and that the Jews had never been called “Children of Israel” until they had been given the Torah at Mount Sinai. He answered them that it is true that this custom did not become law until the Torah was given, but it had been observed already earlier. It was recorded here only in order for us to understand the reason behind this prohibition. Prior to the legislation of dietary laws at Mount Sinai, Yaakov’s descendants were allowed to eat also the meat of animals that were outlawed at Mount Sinai.
+
+Chapter 33
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+
+
+Verse 2
+
+
+
+Verse 3
+
+
+
+Verse 4
+
+ויפול על צוארו, “he (Esau) embraced his neck”; the letter י in the word צואריו, is missing here.
+וישקהו, “he kissed him;” this word has dots above the letters.
+
+Verse 5
+
+?מי אלה לך, “how are these related to you?” Esau wanted to know if these people were Yaakov’s children or members of his household not biologically related to him, or if they were his slaves.
+
+Verse 6
+
+השפחות, הנה וילדיהן ותשתחוין, “the servant maids, they and their children, and they prostrated themselves; but their children did not prostrate themselves, seeing that they were only children of servants, Esau would not insist on their making an obeisance to him. An alternate exegesis: the children only approached Esau as a sign of courtesy together with their respective mothers. They were not willing to prostrate themselves together with their mothers. Their reasoning was that their mothers being servants themselves naturally had to make an obeisance; however they, who were sons of Yaakov, were not prepared to make any obeisance to anyone. When the sons of Leah and Rachel saw that their mothers made an obeisance they decided to do the same. This is why the Torah in verse 7 writes twice: וישתחוו, “they prostrated themselves,” in the masculine mode.
+
+Verse 7
+
+נגש יוסף ורחל, Joseph and Rachel approached; it is customary for the Torah when referring to a man and a woman in the same story to mention the name of the man first. Earlier, in verse 2, the Torah had mentioned the women first, even Rachel before Joseph. If you were to ask why Yaakov had not hidden Rachel just as he is supposed to have hidden Dinah? We would have to answer that all of Avraham’s descendants up to that time had strictly refrained from violating a married woman sexually. There was therefore no reason to suspect Esau of doing such a thing. Dinah, was single however, so that Yaakov reasoned that he might violate her. Joseph was not so sure and therefore insisted on walking ahead of his mother. [Seeing that he was at most seven years old at the time, it is difficult to see how he could have protected his mother in such a case. Ed.]
+
+Verse 8
+
+
+
+Verse 9
+
+
+
+Verse 10
+
+כי על כן ראיתי פניך , “for I have made a special effort to meet you face to face in order to present you with this gift. The word: ראיתי, in the past tense, although at the time described Yaakov had not yet met Esau face to face, may be understood in the same way as when Avraham said to Efron, concerning the money for the field and cave of Machpelah, “נתתי כסף השדה, “I have given the money for the field;” (he had not yet given it though he kept it at hand) (Compare 23,13) Compare also the expression: הרימותי ידי ,“I have raised my hand in an oath,”(14,23) where Avraham is prepared to swear that he will not accept any loot from the King of Sodom. He was about to swear this oath, but had not yet done so.
+כראות פני אלוהים, “as if being received by G’d.” (After a pilgrimage) The Torah demanded from each pilgrim to Jerusalem during the three festivals not to appear empty-handed. (Deuteronomy 16,16,(Bereshit Rabbah 78,12.)
+
+Verse 11
+
+
+
+Verse 12
+
+
+
+Verse 13
+
+כי הילדים רכים, “for the children are frail;” when speaking of the flocks, Yaakov had expressed the fear that they die if rushed;” we find reference to something like this in Job 21,11: וילדיהן ירקדון, “and their children skip about.” Yaakov’s wives and children were riding slowly on camels. (Compare 31,17.)
+
+Verse 14
+
+
+עד אשר אבוא אל אדוני שעירה, “until I shall join up with my lord in Seir. Yaakov meant that once he had settled his wives and children and had made suitable arrangements for his flocks and herds, he would visit his brother in his homeland, Seir. At that time there would be an opportunity to celebrate their reunion with joy.
+
+Verse 15
+
+
+
+Verse 16
+
+וישב ביום ההוא עשו, “on that day Esau returned;” according to Rashi, from this verse we derive that the four hundred men who had formed Esau’s entourage had simply melted away, seeing Esau is described as returning alone. They had clearly still been with him in verse 15.
+
+Verse 17
+
+
+
+Verse 18
+
+ויבא יעשב שלם, “Yaakov arrived intact at Shalem; he arrived at a town named Shalem, a suburb of Sh’chem, named after the ruler of that region. We find similar examples of capitals being identified with the names of their respective rulers, such as in Numbers 21,26, Sichon and Cheshbon. A different interpretation: The place called Shalem was actually the city Sh’chem. As long as Yaakov had not suffered the indignity of Dinah’s rape, his return to the land of Canaan, had been shalem, perfect, without incident. The “Shalem” mentioned here is not the same as the one we have heard about in Genesis 14, i.e. Jerusalem, over which Malki Tzedek was king, because we never found that Sh’chem ruled over Jerusalem.
+ויחן את פני העיר, “he encamped next to the city.” One reason was that he had too many possessions to be absorbed inside the city, and he did not feel comfortable about mingling with the inhabitants of that city.
+
+Verse 19
+
+
+
+Verse 20
+
+ויקרא לו, He called it אל, the construction is similar to Genesis 20 13: אמרי לי אחי הוא, “say, concerning me, that he is my brother.” The word לו here may be understood as if it had been עלי, “on it,” in other words: he proclaimed the altar as dedicated the G-d Who is the G-d of Israel. This is also how Onkelos translates it. Rashi emphasises that it was not the altar that was called: “the G-d of Israel,” by the nations of the world, but that Yaakov called it by a name that symbolised the special relationship between G-d and Israel on account of all the miracles He had performed for him. It is not so different from when he called the site where he had the dream with the ladder 34 years earlier, Beyt El (Genesis 5,7), after he erected an altar there. We find a similar construction in Judges 6,24 where Gideon built an altar in honour of G-d, and named it: ה' שלום. This is also how we understand the name Moses gave the altar he built after having fought off the Amalekites in Exodus 17,17 which became known as ה' נסי, “the Lord is my Banner.”
+
+Chapter 34
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+
+
+Verse 2
+
+
+
+Verse 3
+
+
+
+Verse 4
+
+
+
+Verse 5
+
+
+
+Verse 6
+
+
+
+Verse 7
+
+מן השדה כשמעם,”returned from the field after hearing (about Dinah’s rape).” They returned prematurely, in a hurry.
+וכן לא יעשה, “and such a thing must not happen,” even to the daughter of common parents, much less one of a distinguished family such as ours.
+
+Verse 8
+
+
+
+Verse 9
+
+
+
+Verse 10
+
+
+
+Verse 11
+
+
+
+Verse 12
+
+
+
+Verse 13
+
+במרמה, “with slyness;” the sons of Yaakov expected that only Sh’chem and his father Chamor would agree to this condition to circumcise themselves on account of their love for the girl (but they never expected that all the males of the city would do so). They reasoned that seeing that not all the males in that city would perform circumcision on themselves, they would be free to take their revenge on them. This is the mirmah that the Torah speaks about here. At any rate they were fully justified to attack the population of that city as we will explain shortly.
+
+Verse 14
+
+כי חרפה היא לנו, “for it is something shameful in our eyes.” Their argument was as follows: “if you do not circumcise yourselves as part of the bargain then one fine day you will declare all of us as baaley mum, cripples or deformed because we lack a foreskin.”
+
+Verse 15
+
+
+
+Verse 16
+
+
+
+Verse 17
+
+
+
+Verse 18
+
+
+
+Verse 19
+
+והוא נכבד מכל בית אביו, “and he was the most revered person of his father’s family.” He knew that they would not refuse his request.
+
+Verse 20
+
+
+
+Verse 21
+
+רחבת ידים, “enough large places:” we find the word: יד used in this sense also in Deuteronomy. 23,13 ויד תהיה לך, “you shall have a small place there” and explained in this sense by Ibn Ezra.
+
+Verse 22
+
+
+
+Verse 23
+
+
+
+Verse 24
+
+כל יוצאי שער עירו, “here the Torah speaks about people leaving his city,” whereas in 23,10, it spoke about כל באי עירו, “all the people coming into the gate of the town.” In this instance no one was allowed to leave the city until after he had been circumcised. In chapter 23 above everybody came in order to pay their respects to Sarah on the occasion of her forthcoming burial.
+
+Verse 25
+
+ויהי ביום השלישי בהיותם כואבים, “It was on the third day when they are in pain:” they were all in pain and regretted having agreed to undergo circumcision: when Yaakov’s sons heard about this and they also heard that Chamor and Sh’chem had altered the conditions they had agreed to with them, i.e. that no one was allowed to leave the town before he had undergone circumcision, plus their having presented the whole agreement as due to enhancing the honour of the people of Sh’chem instead of in response to an ultimatum by the sons of Yaakov, plus the fact that they boasted that henceforth the herds and flocks of Yaakov’s family would (verse 23) be theirs, they decided to attack the city’s inhabitants. The reason they had waited until the third day was that it took the people of Sh’chem until that day to complete the process of circumcising all the men and boys. On that day those who had been circumcised on the first day were still suffering from pains and relatively weak. This is why the Torah writes: ויבואו על הער בטח, “they came into the city unopposed, without having to worry.” This is also how Onkelos translated it. A different exegesis: Shimon and Levi entered the town while the inhabitants were sitting, feeling themselves secure.
+ויהרגו כל זכר, “they killed every male inhabitant; they were all guilty as gentiles are also commanded to appoint a judicial court in every town and when it became known that Sh’chem had raped Dinah and abducted her, refusing to release her, he should have been tried and convicted.”
+
+Verse 26
+
+ויקחו את דינה מבית שכם, “they took Dinah from the house of Sh’chem;” Rabbi Yudon claims that they had to drag her along on the floor, as she was unwilling to come along willingly. Rabbi Chunia claims that it is a known fact that a girl or woman who has had sexual relations with a gentile is difficult to separate from that gentile (Compare Bereshit Rabbah 80,11).
+
+Verse 27
+
+
+
+Verse 28
+
+
+
+Verse 29
+
+
+
+Verse 30
+
+
+
+Verse 31
+
+?הכזונה יעשה את אחותנו, ,“is he (Sh’chem) to be allowed to treat our sister as if she were a harlot?” Rashi explains the word את in this phrase as emphasising the singular mode as the word אחותנו, occurs several times in the Bible in the plural mode although not spelled in the plural mode with the letter י. [In Aramaic it would then have to be spelled אחותנא instead of אחתנא.
+
+Chapter 35
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+קום עלה בית אל, “arise and go to BetEl!” Rashi explains that Yaakov was commanded to keep the vow he had made at the time when he had the dream with the ladder. G-d implied that if he had not delayed keeping that vow the problem with Dinah would not have befallen him. If you were to argue that Rashi himself, when commenting on Yaakov presenting only eleven of his children before Esau because he was afraid that Esau might violate her, was punished for having failed to seize the opportunity that she might bring him back to the faith of his father? How does this tally with what he writes here? It tallies absolutely! She could not have become the victim of Sh’chem if Esau would have expressed a desire for her. [I do not see a problem at all. If Yaakov thought he had to protect her from his own brother, why was Dinah not chaperoned and allowed to leave the house on her own and roam amongst Canaanites?Surely this was an additional act of neglect by her father, who was punished here for this act of neglect. Ed.]
+
+Verse 2
+
+הסירו את אלוהי הנכר, “remove the alien deities!” This was required in order to avoid giving the impression that prayers or sacrifices were intended for them.
+והחליפו שמלתיכם, “Change your garments!” because they were worn when engaging in idol worship.
+
+Verse 3
+
+
+
+Verse 4
+
+אשר באזניהם, “which were in the ears of those idols.”
+
+Verse 5
+
+
+
+Verse 6
+
+לוזה אשר בארץ כנען, “towards Luz which is in the land of Canaan.” There was another town called Luz, elsewhere.
+
+Verse 7
+
+האלו־הים, the angels (according to Ibn Ezra) scriptural proof: Genesis 32,2: ויפגעו בו מלאכי אלוהים, “angels of G-d met him there.” Also: Genesis 28,12: והנה מלאכי אלו הים, “and lo here there were angels of G-d.” (in his dream)
+
+Verse 8
+
+ותמת דבורה, “Deborah died;” Rashi explains why the Torah suddenly inserts this statement and how it is relevant. We never knew that she was part of Yaakov’s entourage. After all, Yaakov himself had said that when he crossed the river Jordan the first time he had been accompanied only by his walking stick (Compare Genesis 32,11) Rivkah had told Yaakov (Genesis 27,4445) that she would let him know when it was safe to return, when Esau’s wrath had cooled off. She had dispatched Deborah to Padan Arom to inform Yaakov of this. Yaakov had not been willing to return already. Deborah remained with him in the house of Lavan and passed away on the journey on the way back to the land of Canaan. When she had been mentioned the first time (Genesis 24,59) she had only been described as Rivkah’s nursemaid; now the Torah supplied her name.
+
+Verse 9
+
+
+
+Verse 10
+
+,לא יקרא שמך עוד יעקב'שמך יעקב, “your name has been Yaakov; it will no longer be Yaakov;” The Torah means that henceforth his name would no longer only be “Yaakov,” but the name “Yisrael” would be added to it. If the name “Yaakov” were to be eliminated completely, this would be interpreted as having been a name describing a person with negative character traits up to now. (Compare Esau’s comment in Genesis 27,36) Henceforth the Torah will refer to YaakovYisrael sometimes by his original name and sometimes only by his additional name. When G-d changed Avram’s name to Avraham, He had never said that שמך אבדם, “your name is or was Avram.” This is why the sages have said that anyone referring to Avraham as Avram, is equivalent to violating a positive commandment of the Torah. (Talmud B’rachot 13).
+כי אם ישראל יהיה שמך, “but your name shall be Yisrael.” The name implies that the one possessing it wields authority, as the angel had said to Yaakov: ”you have contended with Divinity and you have prevailed.” (32,29) The name is very appropriate for you as you will be the founding father of kings. Rashi here claims that the reference in this verse is to King Shaul and his son Ish Boshet. Should you ask that we have been taught (in Sanhedrin 20) that Avner was punished for having delayed David’s occupying the throne of the Kingdom for two and a half years, i.e. the years during which Ish Boshet ruled after he appointed him as Shaul’s successor; why would he be punished for this, seeing it has been decreed already in the Torah that he would rule (according to Rashi)? We would have to answer that he was not punished for having crowned Ish Boshet, but because he had crowned Ish Boshet not because he considered him as fit to rule, but that he was motivated exclusively by trying to thwart David from ascending the throne.
+
+Verse 11
+
+
+
+Verse 12
+
+
+
+Verse 13
+
+
+
+Verse 14
+
+
+
+Verse 15
+
+
+
+Verse 16
+
+ויהי עוד כברת ארץ לבא אפרתה, “it was still a short distance from Efrat;” the prefix ב is missing here before the word: עוד, the meaning of the phrase is as if it had been present.
+כברת ארץ, according to Rash’bam, the word is similar to Job 34,24 הביריה, and means “a considerable amount.” It is also compared to Isaiah 10,13, ואוריד כביר יושבים, “I have deposed those who have ruled for many years.” [The prophet quotes the boast of the King of Ashur. Ed.] In our verse the line means that Yaakov was still a considerable distance from the nearest human settlement where he could bury Rachel. ותלד רחל, She did not have enough time to travel to Efrat because it was a long distance away.
+
+Verse 17
+
+כי גם זה לך בן, “for this child will also be a son for you;” Rashi writes that the midwife referred by the word גם “also” to Joseph. She meant that Rachel’s prayer at the time when she gave birth to Joseph that she would be granted to give birth to another son had been fulfilled. (Compare 30,24) She encouraged Rachel with her words suggesting that it was not G-d’s intention to let her die at this time.
+
+Verse 18
+
+בצאת נפשה כי מתה, ”when her soul departed as she was dying;” she was both dying and not dying;
+בנימין, the name is spelled with two letters י, as if it meant בן ימין, “the son of my right hand.” (Compare KimchiJ) Alternate version: the last letter in the word is the letter ם, i.e. ימים, “days” or “years,” and means that Yaakov considered Benjamin as a son who would assist him in his old age, seeing that he was the youngest. We find support for this interpretation in Isaiah 51,18, אין מחזיק בידה מכל בנים גדלה, “no one takes her by the hand of all the sons she raised.”
+
+Verse 19
+
+ותקבר בדרך אפרתה, “she was buried on the way to Efrat.” Rachel had lost so much blood during giving birth that Yaakov was not able to bring her to the cave of Machpelah.
+
+Verse 20
+
+
+
+Verse 21
+
+למגדל עדר, a tower not far from Efrat. We find a reference to this place in Micah 5,1: ואתה בית לחם אפרתה, and immediately afterwards: ואתה מגדל עדר. An alternate interpretation: the reason why Yaakov did not bury Rachel in that cave was that Esau had still not given up his claim that he would be buried there. After the reconciliation between the brothers, Esau not only renounced this claim but eventually moved out of the land of Canaan altogether, leaving it for the descendants of Yaakov.
+
+Verse 22
+
+וישכב את בלהה, “he slept with Bilhah.” This is not to be understood literally, but he invaded her privacy and messed up the linen on her bedstead, or simply moved her bed from its normal position. This was a protest against her trying to replace Rachel. Reuven, Leah’s oldest son, felt that now that Rachel had died, his mother should outrank any of the other wives of his father. Rashi points out that this is not the only instance when the Torah to make its point exaggerates the indiscretion committed by some people, or when it rounds up numbers. An example of such an exaggeration quoted is the injury that the angel had caused Yaakov in their nocturnal struggle. He had not made Yaakov’s hip joint useless, but had only dislocated it. (32,26) וישמע ישראל, “Israel heard about this;” about Reuven’s indiscretion. ויהיו בני יעקב שנים עשר, “the sons of Yaakov remained 12.” Yaakov had no more sons after this. The reason was that he no longer carried on marital relations with any of his wives. Our sages derive this from the line: אז חללת יצועי עלה, “then you desecrated Him who abode on my bed.” (Genesis 49,4) Yaakov meant that ever since the sanctity which had distinguished his marital bed had ceased to exist and been profaned. (Compare Rash’bam on that verse) The reason why here we have the words: וישמע ישראל, “Israel heard,” (instead of “Yaakov” heard) is so that when you read that verse in chapter 49 you will not ask: ‘how did Yaakov ever find out about Reuven’s indiscretion?’An alternate interpretation: the reason why the line that Yaakov’s sons were and remained 12, is inserted here where reference is made to Reuven’s indiscretion, is in order not to allow anyone to think that possibly some of Yaakov’s sons might not have been his but Reuven’s, but it refers to the most recently born son born for him by Rachel. Yaakov together with all of his twelve sons returned to their father’s home.
+
+Verse 23
+
+
+
+Verse 24
+
+
+
+Verse 25
+
+
+
+Verse 26
+
+אשר יולד לו בפדן ארם, “that had been born for him in Padan Arom.” This statement begs the question that as we have just heard, Binyamin had not been born in Padan Arom?We have to understand the verse as meaning that Binyamin had been born as a result of Rachel’s having prayed to G-d to give her another son while she had still been in Padan Arom (Compare Genesis 30,23. This is why the Torah here, 7 years later, describes Binyamin’s birth as dating back to that time.) A different exegesis of this puzzling statement: Seeing that almost all of Yaakov’s children had been born while he was in Padan Arom, the Torah applies the Talmudic statement of רובם ככולם, “if the majority had been distinguished by a certain detail we view all of the ones referred to in that context as if they possessed the same distinguishing features.” We find this principle applied by the Torah also in Genesis 46,27, where 70 people are reported to have been brought to Egypt by Yaakov, although only 69 names are listed, three of them being Joseph and his two sons. The Midrash (B‘reshit Rabbah 94,9) claims that seeing that Moses’ mother was born at the border of Egypt, her birth completes the number 70.
+
+Verse 27
+
+
+
+Verse 28
+
+
+
+Verse 29
+
+ויקברו אותו עשו ויעקב בניו, “and his sons Esau and Yaakov buried him.” Esau is mentioned first seeing that biologically, he remained the firstborn. Yaakov also treated him with the honour due to a firstborn. When the Torah describes the burial of Avraham, in which both his sons also participated, Yitzchok is mentioned first although he was 14 junior to Yishmael, seeing Yishmael was the son of a slavewoman. (Compare Rash’bam).
+
+Chapter 36
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+ואלה תולדות עשו, “and these are the descendants of Esau;” the prefix ו in the word: ואלה is to remind the reader that since the Torah had already listed the 12 sons of Yaakov, the time had come to list the descendants of Esau.
+
+Verse 2
+
+עשו לקח את נשיו מבנות כנען וגו, “Esau had taken his wives from the daughters of the Canaanites, etc.;” here the Torah fails to mention the daughter of Beeri, although in Genesis 26,34 we have been told that Esau took Yehudit who was a daughter of Beeri, a Hittite as a wife. We must therefore assume that the reason she is not mentioned here is that she died without having provided Esau with any sons. All the sons mentioned in this chapter therefore must have been born by עדה בת אלון, who is identical with the wife called בשמת בת אלון, in Genesis 6,34 She had changed her name, just as had the daughter of Yishmael, which has now been called בשמת, whereas when she had first been introduced she had been called מחלת. (Compare 28,9.)
+אהליבמה בת ענה, who according to Rashi is identical with יהודית. If you were to ask: is this not the יהודית בת בארי as we have been told in 26,34? How could she now have been the daughter of ענה? Moreover, if we deal here with a woman who was a bastard, why did Rashi not say that she was the combined product from these two fathers as he explained concerning ענה בת צבעון? We are forced to answer that בארי and ענה were one and the same person.
+בת ענה בת צבעון. In this paragraph you find that ענה was a brother of צבעון, as is written: ושובל וצבעון וענה (and Shoval and Tzivon and Anah.” (verse 20.) You also find written in verse 24 that “these were the sons of Tzivon and Ayah and Anah;” this is what Rashi referred to that Tzivon must have slept with his own mother and from this carnal union Anah was born. In other words, he was both his son and his (half) brother. This is why the Torah wrote the unusual phrase: הוא ענה, “this is the Anah,” i.e. the one we have read about earlier. (Mentioned in verse 20) It is also possible to say that the meaning of the words בת ענה בת צבעון, really is that he was the grandson, that Tzivon was the grandfather. It is not unusual in the Torah for grandchildren being described as the children of their grandfather. Examples cited are: בת מטרד בת מי זהב, in verse 39 of our chapter. There is an opinion voiced in the Talmud Baba Batra folio 115, that ענה is not the name of a male but of a female because the Torah wrote successively: בת ענת בת צבעון, “daughter of Anat, daughter of Tzivon.” If you were to counter that earlier we have read about הוא ענה אשר מצא את הימים, “he was the Anah who discovered the species yemim,” so how could that have been a female? We would have to answer that she inherited in lieu of Ayah who was a male, and whose brother was a brother of Anah. The fact that “he” is not listed among the sons who founded or became leaders of thousands, i.e. alufim, would lend support to the opinion that we are dealing with a female who could not qualify for such a rank
+
+Verse 3
+
+
+
+Verse 4
+
+
+
+Verse 5
+
+ואהליבמה ילדה את יעיש, and Oholibama bore Yayish. This name is spelled יעיש but is read as if it had been spelled יעוש.
+
+Verse 6
+
+לך אל ארץ, “he went (emigrated) to a land.” Esau conquered the land of Seir from the people known as Chorim. Rashi explains what motivated Esau to leave the land of Canaan voluntarily. If you were to counter that at the beginning of this portion it is written: ארצה שעיר שדה אדום, “that Yaakov had dispatched his messengers to ”the land of Seir otherwise known as the field of Edom, (which gives the reader the impression that Esau had already taken possession of that land at that time) and it entitles us to think that Esau already lived there, we have to assume that up until the period mentioned in our verse here he had lived alternately both in the land of Canaan and in the land of Seir. It was only after Yaakov had returned to the land of Canaan and the brothers had been reconciled, that Esau vacated the land of Canaan, thus acknowledging that this would become the land possessed as ancestral home by the descendants of Yaakov.
+מפני יעקב אחיו, “on account of Yaakov, his brother.” Seeing that he had sold the birthright to Yaakov, thus making Yaakov the legal heir of Yitzchok, he left for a foreign country to show that he did no longer dispute Yaakov’s claim to that land.
+
+Verse 7
+
+
+
+Verse 8
+
+
+
+Verse 9
+
+
+
+Verse 10
+
+
+
+Verse 11
+
+
+
+Verse 12
+
+
+
+Verse 13
+
+
+
+Verse 14
+
+ותלד לעשו את יעוש “she bore Ye-ush for Esau.” The word is spelled as יעיש, but read as if it had been spelled יעוש.
+
+Verse 15
+
+
+
+Verse 16
+
+אלוף קרח, “a chieftain over a thousand, named Korach. This person has already been listed amongst the sons of Eliphaz that has been mentioned in Chronicles I 1,36, seeing that the Korach who was a son of Oholivamah is a different Korach. In the tractate Sotah 13, Rashi explains that there was a Korach who was the son of Eliphaz as well as a Korach who was the son of Oholivamah. Some commentators argue that both times the Torah refers to the same Korach; the reason why the Torah mentions the “second” Korach is only because he lived together with the alufey Eliphaz. His mother Oholivamah died while Korach was still very young and she adopted him and raised him with her own children. We find something parallel concerning Amalek, who is linked together with the sons of Adah because he was the son of Adah’s servant maid.
+
+Verse 17
+
+
+
+Verse 18
+
+
+
+Verse 19
+
+
+
+Verse 20
+
+אלה בני שעיר וגו, “these were the sons of Seir, etc.” We do not know Seir’s ancestry. The Torah mentions his offspring merely in order to distinguish them from Esau’s offspring, seeing that the Torah (Deuteronomy 2,12) discusses them in connection with the nations whom the Israelites under Moses and Joshua are not to attack or harass.
+יושבי הארץ, “the inhabitants of the land;” originally that land had belonged to them as we know from Deuteronomy 2,12: ובני עשו יירשום וישבו תחתם, “an the descendants of Esau disinherited them and settled there in their place.
+וצבעון וענה, “and Tzivon and Anah;” this was the same Tzivon who had slept with his mother as a result of which Anah had been born. Subsequently, he slept with his daughterinlaw, the wife of Anah, as a result of which he produced Oholivamah, Esau’s wife.
+
+Verse 21
+
+ודישון ואצר ודשן, as well as Dishon, Atzar, and Dishan.” According to the vocalisation by the authors of the tradition that we rely on, the sequence for reading these names is as follows: דישון, דישן, דישון, דישן, דישן דישון, דישן to help us memorize this sequence (these names appear a total of seven times) it pays to commence with the seventh day, i.e. Shabbat. On the seventh day the second day and the fifth day of the week (the three days of the week the Torah is read in public) this recalls the spelling with the letter ו. On the days of the week when we do not read from the Torah in public, i.e. first, third, fourth and sixth day, this recalls the times it is read as if spelled defectively. Do not be astounded concerning the phrasing of: ואלה בני דישן חמדן וגו', “and these were the sons of Dishon, Chemdon,” in verse 27. This refers to the first time we read about דישון. Verse 27 refers back to דישן in verse 26 which should have been vocalised as דישון. We must understand that whenever in the Holy Scriptures books written later, refer to names of persons or places which appear spelled differently from the first time they had appeared, they refer to the ones mentioned the first time in the Bible, unless otherwise stated. Examples of the names of the same people, or the same verbs, being spelled differently in different Books of the Bible, are: Samuel II 22 as opposed to Psalms chapter 18, where the word מגדל, in verse 51 of the former means the same as the word מגדיל in the verse 51 of Psalms.[You will note the similarity of the subject matter in both chapters, plus the fact that both of these words appear in verse 51 of the chapter mentioned. Compare also Genesis 32,32 and 31 respectively, where the name of the place פנואל is once spelled with the letter ו and the other time with the letter י in the middle. Compare the spelling of the ears of corn in Pharaoh’s dream in Genesis 41,7 as דקות, and when Joseph interprets it in about it in Genesis 41,27, as רקות. Our author cites a few more examples which I have decided to skip as he has made his point. Ed.]
+
+Verse 22
+
+ואחות לוטן תמנע, “Lotan’s sister was called Timna.” Seeing that Lotan was the senior of the brothers, Timna’s name appears next to his. [Normally, we would have expected the sequence: ותמנע אחות לוטן, “Timna was the sister of Lotan.” Ed.] We find a similar example of this construction in Genesis 28,9, as well as in Exodus 15,20 and in Exodus 6,23.
+
+Verse 23
+
+
+
+Verse 24
+
+אשר מצא את הימים, “who discovered the yemim. According to Rashi, these were animals that resulted from crossbreeding, and the Torah names him in order to chastise him for having successfully violated the principle of not crossbreeding. If you were to question that Anah could not have been the first person having done this as Rashi himself commenting on Genesis 26,13 on the words: ויגדל מאד, writes that people at that time already used to say that “the dung of the mules of Yitzchok are worth more than the gold of their king,” which proves that mules, which are the result of crossbreeding horses and donkeys already existed and people were familiar with them, we have to understand this verse as follows: Anah was the first person who deliberately mated donkeys with horses. Prior to this, mules existed but they resulted from the mother animal having mated with a horse of its own account. The word: מצא means that he developed a system of breeding such animals successfully. He noted that in order to tell which animal was the result of a male donkey mating with a female horse, and which was the product of a sheass having mated with a male horse, if the animal has thin ears it is the product of a female horse and a male donkey; when the ears are thick, it is proof that the mother animal was a sheass and it had mated with a male horse. Seeing that G-d is very displeased with such procedures being undertaken by man, he is blamed for such practices having been introduced. Another interpretation: the Torah wishes the reader to know that the animals resulting from crossbreeding are not included in the blessing given by the Creator to all the creatures He had created. Proof of this is the fact that such creatures cannot sire or give birth to another generation of their breed.
+
+Verse 25
+
+ואלה בני ענה, “and these are the offspring of Anah:” even though the verse mentions both בני ענה as well as בת ענה they are the same person.
+
+Verse 26
+
+
+
+Verse 27
+
+
+
+Verse 28
+
+
+
+Verse 29
+
+
+
+Verse 30
+
+
+
+Verse 31
+
+לפני מלך מלך לבני ישראל, ”before a king ruled over the Children of Israel;” the “king” referred to here is none other than Moses. We know that he was the equivalent of a crowned king from Deuteronomy 33,5: ויהי בישורון מלך, “he was King over Yeshurun” (pseudonym for Jewish people). The reason he was described by this “title” was that he had been the saviour of the Israelites when he took them out of Egypt.” [The word מלך is derived from מוליך, leading. He who is the leader of others is described as their “king,” i.e. מלך. Ed.] It would be incorrect to understand the comparison of historical developments between the descendants of Esau with those of the Jewish people who did not have a crowned head until Samuel crowned Shaul as their king about 400 years after Moses’ death as recorded in Josephus, for after the kings mentioned here at least 40 kings whose names we know ruled over Edom before the ascent to the throne of the Jewish people by King David. Here only eight of these kings have been named. There were 14 generations between Avraham and King Shaul. When David ascended the throne of the Jewish people he deprived the Edomites of their King. We know this from Samuel II 8,14: וישם באדום נציבים ויהיו כל אדום עבדים לדוד, “he appointed governors in Edom, and all of Edom became a vassal state to David.” You find confirmation of this in Chronicles I 18,13.
+
+Verse 32
+
+
+
+Verse 33
+
+
+
+Verse 34
+
+
+
+Verse 35
+
+וימלוך תחתיו הדד, “Haddad reigned in his stead.” The second time the word Haddad appears, it is spelled with the letter ד, whereas the third time it is spelled with the letter ר, i.e. הדר.
+
+Verse 36
+
+
+
+Verse 37
+
+
+
+Verse 38
+
+
+
+Verse 39
+
+
+
+Verse 40
+
+ואלה שמות אלופי עשו למשפחותם למקומותם, “the following are the names alufim (clans) of Esau, according to their names and locations.” These latter ones were the principal descendants to be counted separately in each city that they dwelled; this is why here the Torah adds the word: למקומותם, “according to the localities they lived in.” The Torah also adds the word: אחוזתם, “their ancestral homes,” in verse 43. Proof of the importance of the ones listed here is the fact that the previous ones have not been listed in Chronicles I 1,51 54 at all.
+
+Verse 41
+
+
+
+Verse 42
+
+
+
+Verse 43
+
+
+
+Chapter 37
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+וישב יעקב, “Yaakov settled down;” this is recorded as something parallel to Esau’ settling down having been reported in Mount Seir in Genesis 36,8. After Esau having settled on what is now ancestral land for him. ( ואתן לעשו את הר שעיר, “I have given to Esau Mount Seir.) (Joshua 24,3) Yaakov is now described as having done something similar on the land promised by G-d to Avraham and his descendants commencing with Yitzchok and Yaakov. G-d had renewed this promise to Yaakov during his first vision in which he saw a ladder to heaven. Both Avraham and Yitzchok had only lived on that soil as sojourners, מגורי אביו; Yaakov’s claim was based on the law of the birthright, something he had purchased from Esau. At this time, when Esau went to the land of Seir, he went as an alien.
+בארץ מגורי אביו בארץ כנען, “in the land in which his father sojourned, in the land of Canaan.” The Torah had to write both these details, even though it is common knowledge that Yitzchok never set foot on soil outside the land of Canaan. If the Torah had only mentioned the words מגורי אביו, “where his father had sojourned,” we would not know to which land it referred. In fact I might have thought that the Torah speaks about Ur Casdim where Avraham had sojourned for many years. If the Torah had only written: בארץ כנען, “in the land of Canaan,” I would not have known near which city Yaakov settled.
+וישב יעקב בארץ מגורי אביו. “Yaakov settled in the land his fathers had sojourned in.” The entire line was written in order to show that G-d had kept his promise to both Avraham and Yitzchok, and that one of their descendants had already not only sojourned in this land but had settled in it, and had acquired land in it through purchase. (33,19) In fact the expression ישיבה, referring to being settled did appear in connection with both Avraham and Yitzchok, as we know from 26,12, and 13,18.
+
+Verse 2
+
+אלה תולדות יעקב, “these are the descendants of Yaakov;” wherever a paragraph commences with the word: אלה, this means that this a paragraph that is not the continuation of the subject which had been discussed immediately before it. In this instance, the word is used to remind the reader that the personalities referred to immediately before this paragraph, were all wicked people, i.e. bastards, born of parents guilty of practicing incest. The personalities who are the subject of our chapter were all righteous, born from parents who had formed legitimate unions. They are the descendants of Yehudah and Joseph.
+אלה תולדות יעקב, יוסף, “these were the descendants of Yaakov: Joseph;” the reason why this has been repeated here is because the Torah had interrupted reporting about Yaakov’s children who had been sired and born while he was with Lavan, Joseph having been the last of those. We find that the Torah employed a similar manner when describing Noach (Genesis 5,8) as siring three sons, interrupting with a description of the sins which led to the deluge, before returning to the subject in Genesis 6,9 with the words: אלה תולדות נח, although we had already known who his children were.
+היה רועה את אחיו בצאן, “who was tending flocks with his brothers;” The Torah calls the sons of Leah Joseph’s ”brothers,” as they were the sons of their father’s principal wives; it did not refer to the sons of Zilpah and Bilhah by the same term. [although both Leah’s sons as well as those of the maids were half brothers. Ed.] An alternate exegesis of why the word אחיו was used here:והוא נער, “he was only tending flocks as long as he was still very young;” at that point it was not considered as below the dignity of the sons of Yaakov’s secondary wives to be tending flocks with them. The verse is actually truncated, and the complete text should have been: והוא נער היה רועה בצאן את אחיו בני בלהה ובני זלפה, “as long as he was a young boy he had been tending flocks with his brothers, the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah.” It is not surprising that he reported on what he considered misconduct by these “brothers,” seeing that he was still very immature, i.e. merely a .נער
+בצאן, we would have expected the Torah to have written either “את צאן, or הצאן.” The reason why the Torah used the prefix ב, is to draw our attention to the fact that his major occupation was to watch if he could find fault with the manner in which these “brothers” fulfilled their tasks. He was also concerned that his “brothers” would not do something that would harm his father’s sheep, as he was extremely loyal to his father.
+ויבא יוסף את דבתם רעה, “Joseph reported negative reports about them;” (no wonder that they all began to hate him as a tale bearer). The sons of Bilhah and Zilpah hated him as talebearer, and his other brothers hated him because he was a favorite of their father. They were therefore afraid that in due course their father would appoint him as his firstborn. When the Torah writes (in verse four: וישנאו אותו, “they hated him,”) it refers to all of the brothers except Binyamin who was only 10 years old. Each group of brothers had a different reason for hating him. They were afraid that their father would treat Joseph as their grandfather Yitzchok had treated his son Esau, because of emotional attachment, not based on objective considerations.
+
+Verse 3
+
+כי בן זקונים הוא לו, “for he had been born to him in his old age. If you were to argue that Binyamin had been born when he was still older, Binyamin caused his father to be reminded of the fact that his very existence brought about his beloved wife Rachel’s death, something which prevented him from loving him as much.
+פסים, a name that was to be given to this garment retroactively after Joseph had been sold. [Each letter of the word refers to a different master to whom Joseph had been sold, commencing with מ for the Midianites and ending with פ for Potiphar.] A different explanation sees in the word פסים as a “compensation,” for being a half orphan, not having a mother anymore. Yaakov tried to compensate him by having a costly garment made for him.
+
+Verse 4
+
+
+
+Verse 5
+
+ויחלום יוסף חלום ויגד לאחיו, “Joseph dreamt a dream and he told his brothers its content.” This was a dream that never came true. This is why the Torah does not reveal its content.
+
+Verse 6
+
+ויאמר אליהם: שמעו נא, he said to them: “please listen (to my dream).” His reason for telling them of his dream was to explain to them that his being destined for greatness was not due to the way his father preferred him, but seemed to be a destiny decreed by heaven.
+
+Verse 7
+
+מאלמים אלימים, “binding sheaves;” this paralleled the manner in which Joseph later on rose to greatness, by piling up corn in anticipation of a famine from which his foresight and providence would save the Egyptian nation and surrounding countries. Compare 41,49: ויצבור יוסף בר, “Joseph heaped up and stored grain;”
+ותשתחוין לאלומתי, “and you were all prostrating yourselves before my sheaf;” this was a sign that the world would look expectantly to Joseph’s harvest, seeing that he was the sole distributor of grain in all of Egypt to all the people.
+
+Verse 8
+
+
+
+Verse 9
+
+
+
+Verse 10
+
+ויגער בו אביו, “his father rebuked him;” in spite of his father’s obvious displeasure, he carefully retained this dream in his memory, awaiting future developments if any. He displayed anger only in order to minimise the jealousy of Joseph by his brothers [and because of his arrogance in telling about such dreams. Ed.]
+
+Verse 11
+
+
+
+Verse 12
+
+לרעות את אחיו את צאן אביהם, “to assist his brothers in tending the flocks of their father.” The reason that there are two dots over the word את in this verse is that the brothers had not gone to the neighbourhood of Sh’chem in order to look after their father’s flocks, but only to look after their own, and to put more mileage between themselves and Joseph. In other words, that word may be considered as if erased. They had not gone to also tend their father’s flocks. We find a similar construction in Michah 7,14: ירעו בשן וגלעד, “the ones which graze in Bashan and Gilead,” where we would have expected the prophet to say: ירעו את בשן ואת גלעד, “They will graze both in Bashan and in Gilead,” [the prophet continues with the words: “as in the olden days,” (when things were better). If you were to interpret the word את in our verse to mean that the brothers had gone to let the flocks graze in a place where there was ample virgin (not privately owned grazing land), or that it means to let their own as well as their fathers’ flocks graze there, there is no possible reason to omit the word את, as we always find it in connection with sheep or cattle grazing.
+
+Verse 13
+
+?הלא אחיך רועים בשכם, “are your brothers not tending flocks in Sh’chem (a dangerous place?) Seeing that they had killed all the males of that town and looted it (Genesis 34,2529).[It occurs to this editor that the reason they had chosen to do so was to show their father that they were less worried about the local population than about Joseph lording it over them. Ed.]
+
+Verse 14
+
+לך נא ראה את שלום אחיך, “please go and check whether everything is all right with your brothers!” Whenever the word נא appears in the Torah, it must be understood as a request rather than as an order. Yaakov told Joseph that although he hears every day reports about what the brothers were doing and where, it was no more than good manners that he, Joseph, should go and look them up, seeing that after all he was their brother.
+ואת שלום הצאן, “and check that everything is all right with the flocks.” From this we learn that should enquire if a person’s business is flourishing.
+וישלחהו מעמק חברון, “he took leave of him in the valley below Chevron.” Seeing that Chevron is situated at the top of a mountain, we learn from here that Yaakov accompanied Joseph on the beginning of his journey, and that this is considered no more than good manners for anyone to copy. Our sages consider it as more than good manners, i.e. as a requirement. The subject of their conversation is supposed to have been the laws about how to deal with an anonymous corpse who had clearly been murdered, so that the people nearest to that location need not feel indirectly responsible (Deuteronomy chapter 21).
+
+Verse 15
+
+
+
+Verse 16
+
+
+
+Verse 17
+
+נסעו מזה 'they have moved on from here.” They had been grazing their flocks there until recently.
+
+Verse 18
+
+
+
+Verse 19
+
+הלזה בא, “has not this one arrived?! (come closer)” (they were surprised that Joseph had dared to follow them all this distance). On the other hand, the word: והלאה is used to describe something that becomes more and more distant.
+
+Verse 20
+
+
+
+Verse 21
+
+וישמע ראובן ויצילהו מידם, “when Reuven heard this he saved him from them. G-d decided at that moment that because it was Reuven who had made the first move to save Joseph, the cities of refuge in Israel later on would begin with those in the territory allocated to the tribe of Reuven. (Bereshit Rabbah 84,15) This is also hinted at in Deuteronomy 4,43: את בצר במישור לראובני, “Bezer in the tableland to the members of the tribe of Reuven.”
+
+Verse 22
+
+אל הבור הזה, “to this pit;” the word אל has been used here instead of the prefix ב. In other words: “into this pit.” We have a similar construction in Numbers 19,6: והשליך אל תוך שרפת הפרה, “and he will throw it into the fire consuming the cow.”
+להשיבו אל אביו, “intending to bring him back to his father.” His intentions were good; if you were to ask that even though the pit may have been dry, it most likely served as a lair for all kinds of poisonous snakes etc.? The fact that the Torah writes the unnecessary word: רק, “empty,” informs us that the brothers had made sure there were no harmful creatures hiding in it either. After Reuven had left, the brothers threw Joseph into another pit which was infested with snakes and scorpions. When the Torah describes Reuven’s shock when he returned to the first pit later and found it empty, that was the pit which he had told his brothers to throw him, into.
+
+Verse 23
+
+את כתונת הפסים, “the striped coat;” because it had been the garment which had caused all the hatred and jealousy.
+
+Verse 24
+
+אין בו מים, “there was no water in it;” the Torah mentions this to tell the reader that if the pit had been filled with water the brothers would not have thrown him into it, as it would have been equivalent to drowning him with their own hands. They had already ruled out doing something like that, (verse 27).
+
+Verse 25
+
+
+וישבו, they sat down; some distance away from the pit, in order to eat their midday meal and not to have to listen to his pitiful pleas.
+
+Verse 26
+
+מה בצע כי נהרוג את אחינו, “what will it profit us to kill our brother?” They did not consider killing Joseph a worthwhile act of revenge, as all dead people become forgotten in short order, as David has stated explicitly when he said to G-d in Psalms 59,12: “Do not kill them lest my people will forget them, bring them low, instead;”
+מה בצע, the Talmud in Sanhedrin 6, states that anyone who blesses Yehudah for having said this (i.e. saving Joseph’s life) is guilty of insulting him instead, because the reason he gave for saving Joseph’s life was not in order to do him a favour but the reverse. He had implied that if killing him would be profitable they would certainly kill him. The only reason why they did not was because they could not see any advantage in it for themselves in doing so. The Torah spells this out in the next phrase:
+וכסינו את דמו, “first we would have to cover up his blood,” (so that we could not even take credit for our deed.) We have to cover up his death and cannot boast about the absence of Joseph or our part in having accomplished this because of our father’s sorrow. When one has fought a war and killed one’s enemy, the revenge is only sweet when the victor can boast about it.
+
+Verse 27
+
+וישמעו אחיו, “his brothers listened to him,” i.e. they accepted his logic;” they said that already at the covenant between the pieces between Avraham and G-d in Genesis chapter 15, certain harsh decrees had been revealed as becoming the fate of Avraham’s descendants before they would conquer the land of Canaan and settle in it. Seeing that they were all part of Avraham’s seed, it would be better for them to be sold together with him else the decree would be suffered only by Joseph. (Torah Shleymah by Rabbi Menachem Kasher item 159)
+
+Verse 28
+
+ויעברו אנשים מדינים סוחרים, “in the meantime Midianite merchants had passed by the pit that Joseph had been thrown into and they heard his cries.
+וימשכו, “they pulled him out;” the Midianites pulled him out of the pit, and proceeded to sell him to the Yishmaelites; the Yishmaelites in turned him over to the Midianites for safekeeping, as they had no immediate use for him. He was then sold to Poptiphar by the Yishmaelites and Midianites jointly. When you understand what happened in this way, all the three verses that describe what happened to Joseph after he was thrown into the pit makes perfect sense. The three verses read as follows: verse 36: The Midianites had sold him to Egypt, specifically to Potiphar.” Chapter 39,1: Potiphar bought him from the Yishmaelites;” chapter 45,4: Joseph speaking: “whom you had sold (me) to Egypt.” Joseph was not concerned with the details but with the cause of his being in Egypt. He accuses the brothers of having been the cause, not the actual sellers.
+מן הבור, “from the pit;” his brothers had no knowledge at all of what had happened to Joseph after they had thrown him into the pit. When Reuven came back to the pit and there was no trace of Joseph, all of them thought that some wild animal must have devoured him. They did not lie to their father. If the brothers themselves had sold him to anyone or any country, they would have made extensive efforts during the 22 years until they travelled to Egypt to find out what had happened to him since. Not only that, if they had had any reason to believe that he might still have been alive, they would not have failed to recognise him when they stood face to face with him. He could not have completely fooled them unless they had long ago become convinced that he was dead. At least they would have recognised him when he blessed Binyamin (43,29) or when he gave Binyamin gifts that were five time larger than the gifts he gave to them. (43,34) Also, the fact that he had seated them at the table in strict accordance with the order of their birth, would have convinced them that he must be their long lost brother. I am convinced that this is the correct sequence of what happened. An alternate interpretation of the sequence of events after Joseph was thrown into the pit: while the brothers were still debating among themselves if to sell Joseph to the approaching Yishmaelites, the Midianites had come from a different direction and seen Joseph in the pit and sold him to the Yishmaelites as soon as possible. In order not to be shamed as having left him in the pit while he was crying, they took him out and made him look presentable before handing him over to the Yishmaelites. Following this, the Yishmaelites sold Joseph to the Midianites, who in turn sold him to Potiphar. According to this scenario, Joseph was actually sold no fewer than four times. This would tally with what is written in 39,1 according to which Potiphar bought Joseph from the Yishmaelites. To sum up: the brothers sold Joseph to the Midianites; this sale has not been recorded in the Torah as it remained in effect only for an hour or so. The Midianites then sold him to the Yishmaelites; this sale was also not recorded in the Torah seeing that the Yishmaelites resold Joseph as soon as possible and secretly, not at public auction as they were afraid that the Midianites wished to cancel the sale and sell him to Potiphar instead, getting a much better price. When Potiphar saw Joseph in the possession of the Midianites and realised how handsome a slave this would be, he could not understand why a white person would sell a fellow white skinned person, they usually only sold negroes, although the reverse would have made sense to him. He therefore reasoned that Joseph could not have been born as a slave. Consequently, he demanded an ironclad guarantee that the Midinanites had not kidnapped him. The guarantee that the Midianites furnished was that they brought the Yishmaelites from whom they had purchased Joseph to confirm this for Potiphar. This is why the Torah writes that Potiphar purchased Joseph from the Yishmaelites, who had confirmed that they had sold him legitimately.
+בעשרים כסף, “for twenty pieces of silver.” The price sounds extremely cheap, seeing that Joseph was such a handsome young man. We would have to understand this as being due to Joseph’s face reflecting horrific experiences he had undergone recently and from which he did not yet recover. The brothers shared the twenty silver pieces, reportedly each buying himself a pair of new shoes (Amos 2,6) A different interpretation of why the Torah mentions the price Joseph was sold for: In Leviticus 27,5, the Torah lists the monetary value of a person who donates the value of such a person to the Temple treasury. The value depends on age and sex. According to what is written there, males between the age of five and twenty are worth 20 shekel; Joseph was 17 years at the time. According to Bereshit Rabbah 84,18, G-d decreed that because the brothers sold Joseph for 5 sela’im=20 dinarim, they will have to pay a priest 5 selaim to redeem a first born son.
+
+Verse 29
+
+
+
+Verse 30
+
+ואני אנה אני בא, “as for me in what terrible situation have I gotten myself into?” Why was Reuven more concerned and afraid than the other brothers? On the contrary, the brother who should have been the one most afraid was Yehudah, who had acted as the brothers’ leader until that time! We must therefore say that he was more concerned because his father had treated Joseph as his firstborn, and he, his father’s biological firstborn could have been accused as being negligent in looking after him due to feelings of jealousy. In addition, he had already been guilty of an indiscretion in Bilhah’s bedroom, which had shown his father that he felt aggrieved about his father having favoured Rachel and her children. Rashi already commented concerning the tales Joseph had been telling to his father, all putting the sons of Leah in a bad light.
+
+Verse 31
+
+שעיר עזים, “a male goat; ”according to Rashi they chose this animal as its blood most closely resembles the colour of human blood. When we read in the Talmud Gittin, folio 57, where the Babylonian general Nebuzaradan is reported of having tried to compare the blood of the hundreds of thousands of Jews he had slain in Jerusalem to that of the prophet of the prophet Zecharyah which had not stopped bubbling after having been stoned inside the Temple (he was also a priest) for having rebuked King Joash (about 150 years before the Temple was destroyed) and having failed to prove that that blood was human blood, we must assume that this was due to Zecharyah’s blood having become contaminated during all those years.
+
+Verse 32
+
+וישלחו את כתונת הפסים, “they sent the striped coat, etc.” the Torah abbreviated here; the full text should have been: “they sent the striped coat to their father, and the messengers who delivered it said: “this is what we found;” the brothers themselves did not want to become associated with the find, so as not becoming suspect in having had anything to do with Joseph’s death. After all, the fact that they had hated Joseph had been common knowledge.
+
+Verse 33
+
+חיה רעה אכלתהו, “a wild beast has eaten him;” for if he had fallen into the hands of robbers they would not have left the striped coat behind.
+
+Verse 34
+
+ימים רבים, “for many days.” According to Rashi the reason why Yaakov suffered this grief was as punishment for the many years that he had not observed the commandment of honouring father and mother. If you were to ask how this is possible, seeing that he had been sent away by his father to get himself a wife, the answer is that he was not willing to return home after his mother had sent Rivkah’s nursemaid to tell him that it was safe to come back, as we explained earlier on 35,8 where we have been told about Devorah’s death.
+
+Verse 35
+
+וימאן להתנחם, “he refused to accept consolations;” he felt that he had been guilty for having sent Joseph on this errand in the first place.
+כי ארד אל בני שאולה, the word: אל, usually translated as “to,” in this case means the same as על, “on account of,” Yaakov foresees that he will wind up in his grave, still in mourning over having been the cause of his beloved son’s tragic and premature death.
+ויבן אותו אביו, his father wept over him;” according to Bereshit Rabbah 84,21, this does not refer to Yaakov, about whose mourning we have already read, but refers to Yaakov’s father Yitzchok, who was still alive; [according to different opinions quoted there while Yitzchok ostentatiously shared Yaakov’s grief, this was only when he was in the presence of his son. He was aware that Joseph was alive, but did not reveal this to Yaakov, as he felt it was inappropriate to reveal something to Yaakov that G-d apparently had deliberately kept secret from him.] As Rav said to his son Hiyya, when the latter’s wife was in mourning: In her presence practice mourning, but out of her presence do not practice mourning. The source for this is the Talmud in Moed Katan folio 20.
+
+Verse 36
+
+והמדנים מכרו אותו אל מצרים, “the Midianites had sold him into Egypt;” the Torah chooses this wording [instead of mentioning at this point to whom specifically he had been sold, Ed.] as foreshadowing the brothers’ and their descendants having to remain in Egypt for many years in the future. The enslavement and forceful detention of the Israelites inside Egypt commencing after the last of the brothers had died, was an example of G-d meting out punishment fitting the crime that had been committed, in this instance to the children of those who had committed the crime. [Although Joseph had not committed the same crime, he had been the cause of all] the crimes that were committed. This still leaves open the question of how Binjamin’s descendants had to be punished. Ed.] All of the brothers, however learned from the corrupt ways of the Egyptians so that they had to suffer before being found worthy of redemption.
+אל מצרים, “in Egypt;” another example of the word אל being used as meaning: “in,” is Exodus 25,21, ואל הארון תתן את העדות, “and you are to place the testimony (Tablets) inside the ark,” as well as Numbers 19,17 as well as Numbers 19,6:.אל תוך
+שר הטבחים, “chief of the king’s slaughterers.” He was in fact the chief of the executioners, the death penalty in Egypt being quite common. We find the expression “slaughter” applied to executioners in Psalms 37,14.
+
+Chapter 38
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+וירד יהודה מאת אחיו, “Yehudah separated from his brothers;” he could not bear watching the anguish of his father. Rashi here writes that the word וירד, which means: “he descended,” means that he had been deposed from his position of being the brothers’ spokesman and leader by the other brothers. He derives this from the expression: מאת, understanding the meaning of that word as being: על ידי, “through the action of;”You could well ask that seeing that it took only 22 years until the brothers under the leadership of Yehudah went down to Egypt in order to buy grain, how was it possible that during these few years not only did Bat Shua, Yehudah’s wife bear him three sons, Er, Onan, and Shelah, but that two of them had already become married? And a few years after the death of Onan, Yehudah sired twins from his daughterinlaw Tamar, all before the descent of the brothers to Egypt for the first time? The answer to such questions is that in those times girls and boys were able to both sire and conceive and give birth already at the age of seven. According to a historical text accepted by our sages as accurate and reliable, called seder olam, Er, Yehudah’s oldest was born approximately a year after the sale of Joseph. Bat Shua bore Yehudah two more sons in short order, before she died (verse 12). When Er was seven years old he married Tamar. When he died and married Onan, and Onan died, Shelah was still too young to marry. Tamar remained a widow in the house of Yehudah for a year before returning to her mother’s home. When two or three more years had passed and she was not allowed to marry Shelah, she took matters into her own hands and contrived to become pregnant from a member of Yaakov’s family, her dearest desire, i.e. she became pregnant by her fatherinlaw, Yehudah. All of this had only taken about 19 years after Yehudah had been deposed and moved away from his brothers. In the meantime, Peretz, one of the twins Tamar had born to Yehudah had married at the age of seven and had himself become a father of Chetzron and Chamul, (Genesis 46,12) all before Yaakov and his family moved down to Egypt after the brothers’ second trip there. By the time Chetzron and Chamul came to Egypt, only twenty two years had elapsed since the sale of Joseph.[While this is interesting, this Editor cannot reconcile it with G-d having punished both Er and Onan at the tender age of 7 or eight years, for having deliberately failed to produce children (38,7 and 10) Where is the source for the culpability of such young children anywhere? Ed.]
+
+Verse 2
+
+בת שוע, איש כנעני, “Bat Shua, daughter of a merchant. She was not a Canaanite, as the sons of Yaakov would not marry women of this nation.
+
+Verse 3
+
+
+
+Verse 4
+
+
+
+Verse 5
+
+והיה יהודה בכזיב בלדתו אותו, “and Yehudah had been in Keziv (Achziv, according to Atlas Carta) when she gave birth to him.” (about 20 km north of Akko). This was the reason she named this son Sheylah; had Yehudah, the father been present at his birth, he would have named him. Rashi, commenting on this verse states that he has seen a comment in Bereshit Rabbah, according to which the name Sheylah means that Bat Shua announced that her pregnancy had come to an end. The word could be a reference to her being disappointed about her husband’s absence while she gave birth. Compare what the woman from Shunem had said (אל תשלה אותי) to Elisha when promised she would have a son, i.e. and the son had died (Kings II 4,28).
+
+Verse 6
+
+
+
+Verse 7
+
+וימיתהו, “He killed him.” The sin was that he did not sleep with his wife in such a way that she could become pregnant with his semen. Tamar had remained a virgin even after having been married to Onan, so that Yehudah was not guilty of sleeping with a close relative whose previous marriage had been consummated, so that she would have been forbidden to him on that score. Our author, at this point raises the same question this Editor had raised at the end of 38,1, i.e. that they should not have been culpable until the age of 20.
+
+Verse 8
+
+ויבם אותה, “he performed a levirate marriage ceremony on her.” This is one of the expressions which can be used positively as well as negatively, i.e. constructively and destructively. Other expressions that are similar are;,פארות, תפאר or מסעף פארה, בסעיפות קננו, in this instance it means he lifted marriage restrictions from her so that she could remarry. The same applies to the expression: ויבמה, “he preformed the levirate ritual of marriage for her.”
+
+Verse 9
+
+וידע אונן, “Onan realised;” [the author’s problem with this expression is that the term ידע, normally refers to something in the past which was known as a fact. Ed.] The author quotes הידוע נדע, “how were we to know,” in Genesis 43,7 as proof that the term can also be used here.
+כי לא לו יהיה הזרע, “for the child would not be named after him;” according to the plain meaning of the text, זרע is used with the production of a crop in the field, not a human being.'והיה אם בא וגו, “and whenever he would engage in marital relations, etc;” he reasoned that if he were to impregnate his wife (the widow of his brother) the result would be that he would at the same time destroy his own ancestral share of the land. For who would then do the plowing and all the other work needed to be performed in the field?
+לבלתי נתן זרע לאחיו, “not to provide semen for his brother;” we find similar considerations in the Book of Ruth 4,6 when a potential redeemer declined to perform a levirate marriage with Ruth;” [as the latter had not been a Jewess, and a Moabite even, his consideration was not sinful. Ed.] Besides, there was another redeemer willing and anxious to perform such a ritual for her.
+
+Verse 10
+
+
+
+Verse 11
+
+; כי אמר פן ימות , “for he had said (to himself) ‘”lest he die too;”On this line Rashi comments that Yehudah felt that Tamar was one of those women who has a tendency to bring about the death of her husbands. We have a statement to this effect in the Talmud Yevamot 64 as well as in Ketuvot 43, that if two husbands of a woman have died, one risks one’s life if one marries her. Even according to the opinion that such conclusions cannot be drawn unless the same woman had lost three husbands, Yehudah was afraid for the life of his son. The Talmud forbids a potential suitor to marry a woman with such a record.
+עד יגדל שילה, “until Sheylah would have come of age.” Yehudah felt that once Sheylah would mature, he would be wise enough not to repeat the sins of his older brothers who had died. An alternate exegesis of this paragraph: Yehudah wanted to wait until Sheylah would grow up, in her father’s house by which time, hopefully, Sheylah would have married someone else and would have produced children from such a marriage. Once that had occurred, Yehudah was willing to let Tamar marry him as he would have no reason that his semen would given to Tamar in order to keep alive the name of his deceased brothers, would at the same time destroy his own future.
+
+Verse 12
+
+על גוזזי צאנו, “with the shearers of his flocks.” The word על here is used as meaning the same as עם, “with.”
+
+Verse 13
+
+עולה תמנתה, “ascending toward Timnat;” when Yehudah travelled this route it was spiritually uplifting for him (in retrospect) seeing that two righteous people would be born from that union. When Shimshon in Judges 14,1, travelled the same route, this is described as a “descent,” as it eventually led to his being blinded and dying, [and we have no record of his having sired any children at all. Ed.]
+לגוז צאנו, “to shear his sheep.” Tamar deliberately chose a time for this encounter when her fatherinlaw, Yehudah, would be in good spirits. At such a time one is more prone to fall victim to temptation, especially as at the conclusion of such a shearing there would be a festive meal and much wine would be consumed. If you were to ask how G-d could have agreed that all of the kings of the Davidic dynasty were the result of the illegitimate pairing of Yehudah with his daughterinlaw through Peretz? The answer is that it was better that David would be descended from the daughter of Shem who had been a priest of Hashem as we know from Genesis chapter 14, than that he should be descended through a Canaanite woman, a cursed nation. [The author appears to contradict what he wrote about Bat Shua, Yehudah’s wife not having been of Canaanite descent. Compare page 281. Ed.] Furthermore, it is erroneous to describe the union between Tamar and Yehudah as sinful incest, seeing that before the giving of the Torah, when the seven laws only plus circumcision were binding for the descendants of Avraham, one could perform levirate marriages with any relative, including with the father of the deceased brother. (Compare B’chor shor) Seeing that Yehudah had not allowed Sheylah to perform the rites of the levirate marriage on Tamar, she was available to him for that purpose. Once the Torah was given, the rules about the levirate marriages were revamped to apply only to surviving brothers of the deceased. However, even after the Torah was given, the practice of the levirate marriage to other members of the family did not stop. [This editor is not sure whether the author means that after the Torah was given it remained permissible but was not obligatory for other members of the family, or whether what had once been allowed could not be abolished in practice, just as the use of private altars, though forbidden once the Israelites settled in the land of Israel, continued in spite of this, and it took until 100 years before the destruction of the Temple to eradicate that practice. Ed.] What Boaz did with Ruth is an example of this practice hundreds of years after the Torah had been given.
+
+Verse 14
+
+ותכס בסעיף, “she wrapped her veil so as to cover her face.” This was not something that widows used to do.
+
+Verse 15
+
+ויחשבה לזונה כי כסתה פניה, “he assumed that she was a harlot because she had covered her face.” She had only done this when he was approaching, in order that he could not recognise her. The letter ח in the word ויחשבה, is vocalised with a semivowel sh’va.
+
+Verse 16
+
+
+
+Verse 17
+
+אם תתן ערבון, “if you will leave an item as guarantee.” This is an abbreviated verse, which should have concluded with the words: “then I will accept your proposition.”
+
+Verse 18
+
+חותמך פתילך, “your signet ring and your cord;” these were both items that he could not be without for any length of time. He needed the signet ring for confirming any transactions, and the cord to tie up the sheep. (The third item, his staff, was less important as he was in his prime.)
+
+Verse 19
+
+
+
+Verse 20
+
+
+
+Verse 21
+
+
+
+Verse 22
+
+
+
+Verse 23
+
+
+
+Verse 24
+
+זנתה תמר כלתך, “Tamar, your daughterinlaw, has committed an act of infidelity.” She observed the norms of a woman awaiting the levirate marriage, and therefore was out of bounds to any other male pending the resolution of her problematic marital status. She would be released only if her prospective “redeemer” refused to honour this obligation.
+וגם הנה הרה, “and she is also visibly pregnant.” She can no longer hide her condition.
+ויאמר יהודה, “Yehudah, acting as judge ruled;” was there no one more qualified to sit in judgment of Tamar than her fatherinlaw? Both Yitzchok and Yaakov were still alive! The fact is that they all sat in judgment of her. The reason why Yehudah was the first one to announce his opinion was because according to the rules of Jewish law when sins or crimes involving capital punishment are discussed the most junior of the judges is asked for his vote first.
+הוציאה ותשרף, “take her outside so that she will be burned to death!” Rashi comments that Tamar was the daughter (offspring) of Shem who had been a priest, and the Torah prescribes the death penalty by burning for women of priestly descent if they are found as having committed incest before marriage while betrothed. (Leviticus 21,9). In this particular instance, Tamar had not legally been betrothed to anyone, so that even after the Torah had been given she would not have been guilty of a capital offence. However, in those days people imposed severe penalties for infidelity in order to act as deterrent to eventual sinners. Besides, as pointed out, Tamar’s ancestor had been deprived of the title “priest” after when Avraham had defeated the four mighty kings of his era he blessed both Avraham and G-d but committed a fatal error by naming Avraham ahead of naming G-d. (Compare Genesis 14,1920) Nonetheless, (assuming Tamar was Shem’s his real daughter she would have been quite old. [Shem died in the year 2156 or 2157 B. C. E. having been born in the year 15567 B. C. E., and Yehudah, Tamar’s fatherinlaw was born in 2186 or 2185 B. C. E. At the time Shem was deprived of his status as a priest Avraham was between 75 and 87 years old, seeing that he had been born in the years 1948 B. C. E. If Tamar had been alive, then it does not require a mathematician to figure out how old a lady Tamar must have been when Yehudah selected her as his daughterinlaw for his son Er. Ed.] Some commentators (Talmud Avodah Zarah, folio 36) claim that even if Tamar had not been a daughter of Shem she would have deserved the death penalty if she had committed adultery with someone other than a partner in a levirate marriage ceremony. This is based on the assumption that she slept with a Canaanite. Even though Shem was dead, the court established by him continued to function after his demise. The court continued to be named after its founder. If you were to say that if Tamar was guilty of the death penalty then so was her partner Yehudah, we would have to answer that in that era an adult surviving would perform the levirate marriage rites, but if only brothers who were minors were available, the father would perform that duty.
+
+Verse 25
+
+והיא שלחה, “and she had sent;” the word is spelled with the letter י, [although usually we find it spelled with the letter ו, just like its masculine counterpart הוא, “he.” Ed.]
+
+Verse 26
+
+צדקה ממני, “she is more righteous than I;” why did Yehudah add the word: ממני? She did what she did because she wanted to become pregnant from him since she was afraid that Shilo also would spill his seed like his brothers had done and he would die. [The meaning is as follows: whereas both she and I indulged our libido, I did it for a merely physical gratification, whereas she was intent on becoming the mother of a member of the family of Avraham, Yitzchok and a Yaakov. I considered her as a potentially bad omen, two of her husbands having died on her, whereas her entire purpose was to bring life into the world. Ed.]
+כי על כן, “because of this;” if I had not withheld her rightful husband, my son Sheylah from her because I had been afraid that he too would deliberately fail to impregnate her, she would not have felt forced to take such a drastic step in order to become part of my family. A different interpretation: “her righteousness is rooted in me so that I should free her of the death penalty, because if I were to convict her I would be punishing myself; [by killing the son she is about to bear for me. Ed.]
+ולא יסף עוד לדעתה, “and he did not stop having marital relations with her,” seeing that originally I had intended to perform the levirate marriage ritual with her,” as explained on verse 25. Some commentators claim that in that era the only valid marriage ceremony was for the parties concerned sleeping together. Such “sleeping” together was legal as a form of marriage only if the manner in which it was performed was the generally accepted method, i.e. the male ejaculating his semen into the female vagina while in the ‘missionary’ position. Seeing that this was so, Tamar had never been married, as both Yehudah’s sons had not consummated the marriage. She was therefore legally married to Yehudah, who had never been her fatherinlaw. Another interpretation of the words: ולא יסף; “he never again had marital relations with Tamar again, as he was afraid she would cause death to any husband. [When he had done it the first time, Yehudah had thought he was sleeping with a harlot. Ed.] Still another explanation of the meaning of these words: he did not sleep with her again as he was ashamed to do so seeing that he was her fatherinlaw. This is based on the grammatical nuance that if it were to mean that he never stopped to sleep with her, [i.e. treated her as his wife, Ed.] the word לדעתה, with the prefix ל, would not make sense.
+
+Verse 27
+
+והנה תאומים בבטנה, “and here there were twins in her womb.” The midwife noticed this already before Tamar had commenced to give birth. This is why she had a means of identification ready to make sure the firstborn would be identified as such.
+
+Verse 28
+
+
+
+Verse 29
+
+והנה יצא אחיו, “and here suddenly his brother emerged.” Seeing that future kings would claim Tamar as their original matriarch, it was important to know which was the older. (Compare Bereshit Rabbah 85,13)
+פרץ, this name was given to the twin whose head came out first.
+
+Verse 30
+
+ויקרא שמו זרח, “he named him Zerach”. He was reddish skinned, and the word זרח appears in that sense in Kings II 3,22.
+
+Chapter 39
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+ויוסף הורד מצרימה, “meanwhile Joseph had been transported toward Egypt;” before the first Israelite became enslaved the eventual redeemer had been born. Peretz who was destined to become the ancestor of the Mashiach was born, and only after that does the Torah report about Joseph becoming a slave in Egypt. [Joseph clearly had been brought to Egypt about 21 years earlier, as we demonstrated in our commentary on Genesis 38,1. Ed.] Joseph was the first Israelite to become enslaved.
+
+Verse 2
+
+ויהי ה' את יוסף, “Hashem was with Joseph;” he required Divine assistance in order to insulate him against the temptation to adopt the corrupt ways of that country.
+
+Verse 3
+
+
+
+Verse 4
+
+
+
+Verse 5
+
+
+
+Verse 6
+
+כי אם הלחם אשר הוא אוכל, “except for the food he used to eat.” We have learned already in Genesis 43,32, that the kind of food that Hebrews ate was considered as an abomination by the Egyptians; it is therefore understandable that Potiphar would not allow Joseph to prepare food in an Egyptian kitchen. In Isaiah 30,7 the prophet speaking in the name of the Lord, describes the Egyptians in derogatory terms. In their haughtiness, they looked down on all other nations, on Hebrews especially. [This is also clear from the way Mrs Potiphar refers to Joseph as a lowly subhuman category of being; (39,17). An alternate explanation: Potiphar entrusted everything to Joseph, the only thing he found fault with was his eating habits; we know the prejudice the Egyptians harboured against the Semites on account of that from Genesis 43,32. They could not bring themselves to eat at the same table as the Hebrews.
+
+Verse 7
+
+
+
+Verse 8
+
+
+
+Verse 9
+
+וחטאתי לאלוקים, “and I would commit a sin against G-d;” even if the matter will remain concealed from human beings, G-d sees everything.
+
+Verse 10
+
+
+
+Verse 11
+
+ויהי כהיום, “it was on a day no different from any other day;” this short phrase has been inserted here as in praise of Joseph, the righteous person, and as condemnation of the cursed person. In a cultured society, marital intercourse is an activity reserved for the night, to be performed in darkness; the wife of Potiphar demanded from Joseph that he engage not only in infidelity to his master and to G-d, but that he do so in broad daylight. Seeing that Joseph could not have foreseen such a demand by his mistress, he can certainly not be faulted to have gone about his daily routine on that day just as on any other day. Regardless of this, she tried to disrobe him. According to Rabbi Yishmael, (Pessikta zutrata) that day was the day on which the Nile used to flood its banks to irrigate the fields; that day was a kind of joyous festival, everyone participating in the festivities. Mrs Potiphar and Joseph chose not to participate in those activities.
+
+Verse 12
+
+
+
+Verse 13
+
+
+
+Verse 14
+
+
+
+Verse 15
+
+ויעזב את בגדו אצלי, “he left his outer garment in my hands;” in preparation of raping me. He was not able o retrieve it until I started yelling, when he decided to flee.
+
+Verse 16
+
+
+
+Verse 17
+
+
+
+Verse 18
+
+
+
+Verse 19
+
+
+
+Verse 20
+
+ויתנהו אל בית הסוהר, “he put him in (the) jail.” He was not guilty of the death penalty as there had been no witness to the alleged rape attempt. In such cases the standard penalty was to be incarcerated.
+אסורי המלך, “the King’s prisoners;” the spelling here is with the letter ו, although we are to read the word as if it had been written with the letter י instead of the letter ו. We found an interesting Midrash, according to which when Joseph was brought before the King, the angel Gavriel, having assumed the guise of a human being said to the King: “if it pleases Your Majesty may the garments of both the accused and the accuser be examined for evidence. If the woman’s garment show tears it is clear that the accused has tried to rape her. If only Joseph’s clothing has been torn, it is clear that his mistress attempted to seduce him by force. Gavriel’s suggestion was accepted and that was the reason why Joseph was not convicted of the death penalty. He could not be released unconditionally as it would have been too embarrassing for the wife of a highly placed minister at Pharaoh’s Court to have been declared a liar. He was judged by a court of the priests of Egypt, and out of gratitude for this, Joseph did not confiscate the lands of the priests during the years of the famine. (compare 47,22)
+
+Verse 21
+
+
+
+Verse 22
+
+
+
+Verse 23
+
+
+
+Chapter 40
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+חטאו משקה מלך מצרים, “the cup bearer and the baker of the King of Egypt committed a transgression. The former had mixed water in the king’s cup, the latter had mixed some stones in the dough of the King’s bread. According to Rashi, the former was guilty of allowing a fly to settle on the brim of the king’s cup פיילי פושרין, but פושרין seems to be a copyist error, since in the Arukh it is said that one calls a cup in the Greek language פוטירי, and this is the correct form (Compare Bereshit Rabba 88,1 where this subject is discussed)
+
+Verse 2
+
+
+
+Verse 3
+
+ויתן אותם במשמר בית שר הטבחים, “He placed them under protective custody in the house of the chief of the executioners.” This was the customary place where prisoners whose crime carried the death penalty if proven guilty would be placed pending judgment.
+
+Verse 4
+
+
+
+Verse 5
+
+איש כפטרון חלומו, “Each one interpreted his dream in accordance with what he thought was applicable to his personality,” as opposed to interpretations that seemed irrelevant. [As a result they were very disturbed. Ed.]
+
+Verse 6
+
+והנה זועפים, “and they looked very distressed.” As they considered themselves innocent in accordance with their dreams, they did not understand why they were still in jail, and considered appealing to Pharaoh who might have forgotten about them. This caused their distress.
+
+Verse 7
+
+
+
+Verse 8
+
+ופוטר אין אותו, seeing that they were held in communicado with the outside world, they had no one who could bring their plight to Pharaoh’ attention, or at least to consult with any of the professional sorcerers of Egypt.
+?הלא לאלו־הים פתרונים, “since interpretations of dreams is a matter for G-d, perhaps He has decreed that I could interpret it?”
+
+Verse 9
+
+
+
+Verse 10
+
+
+
+Verse 11
+
+
+
+Verse 12
+
+
+
+Verse 13
+
+בעוד שלשת ימים, “within another three days;” the reason why Joseph felt that the events foreshadowed were to occur so soon, was that in the cupbearer’s dream the development of the budding grapes to becoming wine were described as being so rapid. He therefore also took his cue from the cupbearer’s dream to interpret the solution to the baker’s dream to become evident within three days.
+והשיבך, “he will restore you;” the letter ו in this word is vocalised with a patach (instead of a semivowel sh’va and the letter ה with an abbreviated patach.
+
+Verse 14
+
+כי אם זכרתני, “if you would only remember me;” he meant that if the cup bearer would bring his plight to Pharaoh’s attention, perhaps he would reopen his case, as a result of which he would be released seeing that he had been completely innocent.
+
+Verse 15
+
+כי גונב גונבתי מארץ העברים, “for I have been kidnapped from the land of the Hebrews;” Joseph merited being buried in the land of Israel because he was proud to acknowledge that he was a Hebrew. Moses, on the other hand, who had allowed the daughters of Yitro to describe him as an Egyptian, was denied that privilege. (Compare Exodus2,19.) [This editor has never understood this, as at the time described in that verse, Moses was still at the watering troughs and could not have heard it. Ed.]
+
+Verse 16
+
+
+כי טוב פתר, “that he had predicted something positive, and he believed him;” his reasoning had been that if someone interprets untruthfully, he does not take a chance to be called a liar after three days.
+
+Verse 17
+
+
+
+Verse 18
+
+
+
+Verse 19
+
+
+
+Verse 20
+
+
+
+Verse 21
+
+וישב את שר המשקים, “he restored the chief of the cupbearers;” because his crime had been unavoidable, something beyond human control. Who can prevent a fly from parking on the rim of a cup?
+
+Verse 22
+
+ואת שר האופים תלה, “but he hanged the chief of the bakers.” The pebble that had been found in the king’s breakfast roll was due to negligence by one of his underlings.
+
+Verse 23
+
+ולא זכר שר המשקים את יוסף, “but the chief of the cup bearers did not remember Joseph. Since he did not bring Joseph’s plight to Pharaoh’s attention as soon as he had been released, he forgot him totally, erased him from his memory
+
+Chapter 41
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+ויהי מקץ, “it was at the end of;” Rashi writes that the meaning of this word corresponds to Onkelos’ translation, i.e. “at the end,” as it does always. If you examine the Hebrew language closely you will find that this word does not always mean “end,” as for instance when Joseph in Genesis 47,2 presents some of his brothers to Pharaoh and the word chosen for “some of” is מקצה. We also find this word in Jeremiah 34,14, meaning: “at the beginning of seven years.
+”שנתים ימים, “two years;” these years are counted from the day that the chief cupbearer was released from imprisonment. In other words שנתים ימים means two complete years (i.e. complete with 730 days, just as חודש ימים means a month complete with 30 days). If the Torah had used the word שנתים, which also means “two years,” I might have thought that it could have been as little as one year plus a day, as we find the years of a king’s rule is described in such a way from the moment the second year of his reign has commenced. The Torah wished us to know that Joseph spent a whole two extra years in jail because the chief of the cupbearers did not keep his promise.[Had he kept it, it is doubtful that he would ever have become viceroy and that the Egyptians would have been saved from the ravages of the famine. Ed.] From G-d’s point of view he was punished for putting his trust in that cup bearer instead of praying to G-d for his release. An alternate exegesis: the two years were two years that had been added to G-d’s decree for Joseph to spend time in jail. (Compare Talmud Sotah folio 36) According to the Talmud, Joseph had actually wanted to sleep with the wife of Potiphar when his father’s image appeared to him and helped him to overcome the temptation. According to the description there, he dug his fingernails into the floor and ejaculated semen by that means. The Talmud continues that he was really meant to sire twelve tribes just as had his father Yaakov, but enough semen escaped through the ten fingernails to preclude him from fulfilling his destiny in that respect. Instead, he spent ten years in jail as penance. Pharaoh’s dream occurred 12 years after he had been jailed. The Torah reports that he was 30 years old when appointed to high office. (verse 46). He had served in Potiphar’s house for a year. Therefore he was in jail for a total of 12 years.
+
+Verse 2
+
+מן היאור עולות, “rising up from the river Nile;” they had first descended to its banks to drink its waters.
+
+Verse 3
+
+שבע פרות, “seven cows;” an allusion to the seven years of plenty and the seven years of famine to occur. Cows are relevant animals as they do the ploughing in order for crops to grow.
+ותעמודנה אצל הפרות, “they were standing alongside the other cows;” the reason they are described as standing, is that they did not immediately consume the seven fat cows. It was a signal that the famine would not immediately destroy the existing crops, as Joseph told Pharaoh in verse 54: ובכל ארץ מצרים היה לחם, “whereas in the whole land of Egypt there was bread.”
+
+Verse 4
+
+ויקץ פרעה, Pharaoh awoke (at this point) in order to let the message of the dream sink into his consciousness before he would be told of the second half of his dream. The two parts should not be mixed up, and to be understood as a single event.
+
+Verse 5
+
+עולות בקנה אחד, “rising on a single stalk;” this was an allusion to plenty, abundance. The message had now become more explicit than in the first half of the dream. Normally, the seven kernels would compete with each other for the nutrients provided by a single stalk. In this dream they did not do so. They were all fully developed.
+
+Verse 6
+
+ושדופות קדים, “and parched by the east wind;” the wind coming from the eastern regions is known as kadim. It had been heated by the sun from which it blew in, as the sun there had risen earlier. This is alluded to in the expression קדמה מזרחה, (Exodus 27,13). The reason why the “west” in Hebrew is called: מערב, is that when the sun sets in the west it is evening.
+
+Verse 7
+
+ותבלענה השבלים, “the kernels swallowed;” some commentators understand this expression as describing the kernels growing so high that they completely covered the ones which had grown earlier so that they could no longer be seen. The word בלע certainly appears in this sense; of course the word ותבלענה in our verse is not to be understood literally, as G-d does not show people things in dreams which are impossible to occur in reality, such as elephants sliding through the eye of a needle.
+והנה חלום, and Pharaoh realised that what he had seen was in a dream. Whenever a person is dreaming, he believes that the images shown him represent reality, and that is why he reacts to them with different degrees of joy or consternation. As soon as he wakes up, he realises that what had so emotionally disturbed him had only been a dream. Proof of this statement can be found in Isaiah 29,8: והיה כאשר יחלום הצמא והנה שותה והקיץ ונפשו שוקקה, “like one who is thirsty and dreams that he is drinking, but when he wakes up he finds himself faint and utterly parched.” Pharaoh was meant to react in a similar manner to the cows he saw consuming cows twice their size without gaining weight. However he waited until Joseph had completed his interpretation. Some commentators point out that as far as the cows in Paraoh’s dream are concerned, we do not even find that the Torah writes that upon awaking he realised that this had been only a dream. [as opposed to the dream with the stalks of kernels of grain.] The reason for this is that it does happen in real life occasionally that one cow eats another cow. Kernels of grain consuming other kernels of grain however, is something that is unheard of.” This is why the Torah added the words: “and here it had been a dream,” to describe Pharaoh’s reaction when awaking. Another interpretation of these two words is that Pharaoh now realised that the dream had ended.
+
+Verse 8
+
+ותפעם רוחו, “His mind was greatly disturbed;” even though in Daniel 2,3 when a dream of Nebuchadnezzar is reported and he described himself as ותפעם רוחי, “my mind was disturbed,” this was because when the Babylonian soothsayers were called in for consultation, Nebuchadnezzar could not even remember what he had dreamed, as distinct from here where Pharaoh had a clear recollection of the details of his dream. [According to this view, he therefore had no reason to be so agitated. Ed.] Pharaoh had also forgotten the interpretation of his dream, and when Joseph interpreted it he recalled that he also had dreamt this interpretation. This also brought back to the chief of the cup bearers his own experience in jail with Joseph as an interpreter of dreams.
+ותפעם, “it became agitated;” there is a difference in meaning between the words: ותפעם and ותתפעם. The former describes an emotion which cannot be explained as resulting in a definite action by the person so troubled faking his agitation, whereas the reflexive mode ותתפעם, allows for the subject either to take an action as a result of his agitation or to remain passive. The latter is a rule that applies whenever we encounter the use of the reflexive mode. Compare Deuteronomy 29,18: והתברך בלבבו, “he consoles himself by thinking, etc.” There are numerous examples of this. In the case of Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 2,3, the king was in two minds if to reveal the content of what he dreamt, fearing that if he did so, the soothsayers would exploit this to offer each his own interpretation so that he would be forced to choose which to accept without knowing which interpretation to accept. He therefore decided to act as if he had forgotten the content of the dream. Whichever of the soothsayers would both tell him what he had dreamt, and what it meant would surely have offered the correct interpretation. That interpreter must have been inspired by G-d Himself. Whatever that interpreter foresaw would happen as a result of having heard my dream, would surely occur in reality. Pharaoh, on the other hand, who revealed to all what he had dreamt, acted very foolishly, except that he did not threaten to kill the ones who interpreted his dream incorrectly, as did Nebuchadnezzar.
+ויספר פרעה להם את חלומו, Pharaoh told them the contents of his dream.” The reason why Nebuchadnezzar was bound to have forgotten the dream itself as opposed to Pharaoh, [seeing that as it turned out both had received messages. Ed.] was that implementation of Pharaoh’s dream would commence almost immediately, whereas that of Nebuchdnezzar’s dream was long delayed. He would not believe Daniel’s interpretation if he had remembered the dream and told it to Daniel. Only the fact that Daniel proved to even have been privy to his dream itself, convinced him that the interpretation was the true one. Joseph, when interpreting Pharaoh’s dream as being in two stages was that it foreshadowed immediate fulfillment of what he had seen symbolised in his dream. This is why he said: וממהר האלוקים לעשותו, “G-d will hasten to carry out what was in your dream. “
+ואין פותר אותם, “and there is no one who can interpret them.” The reason was that Pharaoh’s wizards considered the dreams as two separate dreams.
+
+Verse 9
+
+את חטאי, “my sins;” the plural mode the cupbearer chose here was to admit his sins against Pharaoh as well as his sin in not fulfilling his promise to Joseph through his forgetfulness.
+
+Verse 10
+
+
+
+Verse 11
+
+
+
+Verse 12
+
+נער עברי, עבד, “a Hebrew lad, a slave;” the chief of the cupbearers was afraid that he might become the cause of Joseph being promoted to an elevated status if he succeeded in interpreting Pharaoh’s dreams. Therefore, he mentioned two adjectives that should militate against any promotion for him, a) his youth and inexperience, b) his status as a slave. An alternate explanation: he wanted to protect himself against the accusation why he had not come forward before with the information he revealed now. This is why he explained that Joseph had two strikes against him; 1) youth, 2) status as slave.
+
+Verse 13
+
+
+
+Verse 14
+
+
+
+Verse 15
+
+
+
+Verse 16
+
+
+
+Verse 17
+
+
+
+Verse 18
+
+
+
+Verse 19
+
+דלות ורעות תואר מאד ורקות בשר, “very thin, badly formed, and meatless;” in verse 20,27, both the cows and the stalks that were inferior are described as רקות, instead of as דקות. The reason that Pharaoh’s dream is spelled out twice was as compliment to Joseph.
+
+Verse 20
+
+
+
+Verse 21
+
+
+
+Verse 22
+
+
+
+Verse 23
+
+
+
+Verse 24
+
+
+
+Verse 25
+
+את אשר אלוקים עושה, “that which G-d is about to do etc.;” what He wishes to do in His world He has revealed to Pharaoh, seeing that he is a king and has been charged with looking after his people, He has provided him with a means to do his duty.
+
+Verse 26
+
+
+
+Verse 27
+
+יהיו שבע שני רעב, “will be seven years of famine.” Joseph started with the prediction of the famine first, as he wanted to show him the problem before revealing the solution.
+
+Verse 28
+
+
+
+Verse 29
+
+
+
+Verse 30
+
+
+
+Verse 31
+
+
+
+Verse 32
+
+ועל השנות החלום, “and concerning the repetition of the dream (in a different guises);” you might ask that the dreams of Joseph that the Torah recorded for us are also repetitions, (and were not fulfilled immediately) but took 22 years to be fulfilled? Joseph’s dreams did not occur during the same night so that their interpretation was not subject to the same rules.
+
+Verse 33
+
+
+
+Verse 34
+
+וחמש את ארץ מצרים, “the overseer should collect a tax of 20% of the harvests of the next seven years to be put at the disposal for the King,” even though during normal years only 10% was set aside for the King’s use, as we know from Samuel I 8,1415. This advice of Joseph was carried out, as we know from Genesis 47,26: על אדמת מצרים לחומש, “all over the land of Egypt one fifth would be taxed for the king.” 
+
+Verse 35
+
+.את כל אוכל, “all the food;” as far as possible;” (compare verse 57)
+
+Verse 36
+
+
+
+Verse 37
+
+
+
+Verse 38
+
+
+
+Verse 39
+
+אחרי הודיע, “since G-d has informed;” this refers also to what follows, i.e. since G-d has granted Joseph so much wisdom: “you shall be in charge of My palace.”
+
+Verse 40
+
+ישק כל עמי, “my people will be mobilised for war at Joseph’s command.” The relevant rootword is נשק, “weaponry.” Compare Psalms 78,9: נושקי רומי קשת, “they rely on the bow and arrow.”
+
+Verse 41
+
+
+
+Verse 42
+
+ויתן אותה על יד יוסף, “he placed it on Joseph’s hand.” Pharaoh said to himself that maybe Joseph’s interpretation etc. was only designed to rid himself of Pharaoh’s supervision. This is why he entrusted him with executive power to observe whether he would work for the benefit of the state. If Joseph accepted this task, he would be convinced that he was loyal and upright, as he would know that failure would bring disastrous consequences for himself. 
+ בגדי שש , “garments made of the finest linen that only the highest dignitaries in the land were allowed to wear.
+רביד הזהב , “a golden chain of office;” the word רביד is familiar to us from Proverbs 7,16: מרבדים רבדתי ערשי, “I have decked my couch with covers;” [even more so from Proverbs.
+
+Verse 43
+
+
+
+Verse 44
+
+ אני פרעה ובלעדיך, “I am Pharaoh; but apart from this, you are (in charge of everything).” As an example of Joseph’s wide ranging powers, he added: “only by the height of my throne will I be bigger than you.” It was necessary to remind Joseph of this, since Pharaoh had handed over to him his signet ring.
+לא ירים איש את ידו, “no one will dare challenge your authority.” We find a similar expression in connection with (later King) Jerovam, who had dared to challenge the authority of King Solomon and had to flee to Egypt. (Kings I 11,27-28)
+
+Verse 45
+
+
+ויתן לו את אסנת בת פוטיפרע, “he gave him (as a wife) Ossnat daughter of Potiphera;” according to Rashi, this is the same Potiphar in whose house Joseph had served for a year before his incarceration. If Joseph had married someone of higher rank, he was afraid that his children would be claimed by his former master as slaves, seeing he had owned their father as a slave. When he married his former master’s own daughter, he would be ashamed to say that her children were slaves. A different exegesis: he married her to prove that he had never slept with her mother as claimed. Still another interpretation: Joseph’s wife was called: “the daughter of Potiphar,” only because he had raised her. There was no biological connection with Potiphar. We find something similar in Chronicles I 4,18: אלה בני בתיה בת פרעה, ”these were the children of Batyah, daughter of Pharaoh, as pointed out in Torah Shleymah by Rabbi Menachem Kasher item 111 on this verse, quoting Pirkey de Rabbi Eliezer chapter 38 according to which this was the daughter Dinah who had been raped by Sh’chem, her very name suggesting that she was the product of rape. Having been raised in the house of a high official such as Potiphar, and bearing his name, would help to remove any stigma from her. According to the Midrash, Yaakov, after her birth had expelled her, and placed a charm around her neck and hid her among some cactuses and similar prickly plants, so that when found she was named according to the location where she had been found, סנה, “thornbush.” The angel Gavriel brought her to Egypt, presented her to the wife of Potiphar where she was raised. When Joseph was paraded after his ascension to power and all the young women of Egypt crowded around him to admire his being so handsome (49,22), and throwing flowers at him, Ossnat, who had no flowers, threw her charm at him. When Joseph took a look at the inscription on that charm, he realised that she was the daughter of his half sister Dinah, and decided to marry her.
+פוטיפרע, according to Rashi, this was the same man as the one who had been Joseph’s master, but his name has been changed after he had become partially castrated so as to prevent him from carrying out his homosexual designs on Joseph. The word פריעה, almost identical with the name given Potiphar here, describes a condition permitting sexual intercourse with females but not with males. Unless you interpreted this in this way, we would not know how Potiphar was able to produce a daughter. Besides, according to the words of his wife who demonstrated to her husband how Joseph had supposedly raped her or tried to rape her, that line would make no sense. (39,19).
+
+Verse 46
+
+
+
+Verse 47
+
+
+
+Verse 48
+
+אוכל שדה העיר, “he stored inside each city the kind of food had had grown in the vicinity of that city.” By doing this it would be near at hand when the time came for drawing on these supplies.
+
+Verse 49
+
+
+
+Verse 50
+
+בטרם תבא שנת הרעב , “before the first year of the famine commenced.” Rashi explains the significance of this verse being that marital relations during a famine are prohibited under Jewish law. You could ask that his brother Levi certainly had had marital relations with his wife during the famine, else how could his daughter Yocheved have been born during the second year of the famine when Yaakov travelled down to Egypt? (According to our tradition) We must therefore presume that the reason that Joseph abstained during that period was because he realised that his family went through a difficult time, not having any supplies until they replenished them by buying grain in Egypt.
+
+Verse 51
+
+
+
+Verse 52
+
+
+
+Verse 53
+
+ותכילנה, “they came to an end;” this unusual expression for describing the end of something is based on כלולות יופי, “they were completely beautiful, because fully sated.”
+
+Verse 54
+
+ותחילנה, from חולניות, becoming weak, sickly; when the supply of available food ran out people naturally began to lose weight and become weakened as soon as the famine started. ובכל ארץ מצרים היה לחם, “but in the whole land of Egypt there was bread. (food),” as opposed to the countries adjacent to Egypt.
+
+Verse 55
+
+ויצעק העם לפרעה ללחם, “the people cried out to Pharaoh for food.” They wanted him to sell them food which they knew had been stored. It was below the king’s dignity to become a merchant selling food; in order to remain in good standing with his people, he sent them to Joseph who would tell them how to act. He would share out food according to prices determined by him, the proceeds being delivered to Pharaoh’s treasury.
+
+Verse 56
+
+
+
+Verse 57
+
+
+לשבור אל יוסף, “to buy grain from Joseph;” the unusual construction here, when we would have expected the Torah to write: לשבור מיוסף “to Joseph in order to buy food;” is similar to construction Genesis 30,39: אל המקלות where the word אל also means: “from,” “as a result of,” (seeing the sticks that had been peeled by Yaakov).
+
+Chapter 42
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+.וירא יעקב שיש שבר במצרים , “Yaakov heard (not saw) that there was grain in Egypt;” (this was not a spiritual revelation, but he had heard from people returning from there.) When telling his sons about it, he therefore used the words: “I have heard that there is grain to be had in Egypt.” The word ראה meaning “hearing,” instead of “seeing,” is not unique; we find it for instance in Exodus 20,15, where the Torah writes: וכל העם ראו את הקולות, “ all the people saw the thunder,” when the meaning clearly is that all the people heard the thunder.
+?למה תתראו, “why should you stand out (as being different)?” Why do you wish to create the impression that only you have plenty to eat and do not need to buy grain in Egypt? It would make everyone else jealous of you! This is the way the Talmud in folio 10 interprets this phrase. Rashi adds that he heard from others that the meaning of the word תתראו is “to be weakened,” and that it appears in this sense in Proverbs 11,25: ומרוה הוא יורא, “and he who waters (others) will also be irrigated.” According to this, both the words מרוה and יורא in that verse ought to be understood as having been written with the letter א at the end. The idea is that Yaakov did not want his sons to create the impression (erroneous according to some) that they had ample supplies which they had not shared with their neighbours. This is supposed to be so, although the two explanations are contradictions in themselves, one suggesting abundance, and the other, weakness for lack of food. (As a result one of these interpretations would appear to be wrong. Ed.
+
+Verse 2
+
+
+
+Verse 3
+
+
+
+Verse 4
+
+
+
+Verse 5
+
+בתוך הבאים, “they intermingled with others going to Egypt for the same purpose, disguising themselves so as not to draw attention to themselves as they had been commanded to do by their father, when he had said: למה תתראו, “why do you draw attention to yourselves?”
+
+Verse 6
+
+ויוסף הוא השליט על הארץ, “and Joseph was the onewho was the sole ruler of the land.” In spite of having such a demanding position, [which one would expect would force him to delegate the task of presiding over grain sales, he was the one who presided personally over all these sales. Ed.] He collected the money from all the customers. The reason that he did this was so that when, as he expected, his brothers would show up, he would immediately be aware of this.
+
+Verse 7
+
+ויתנכר אליהם, “he acted like a stranger to them.” His reasoning was that if he would reveal his identity, they would say to him: “if you expect us not to reveal your true identity, you are also sworn not to reveal our true identity.” Alternately, his reasoning was that he would frighten them into trying to flee. As a result, he would cause his father untold additional anguish. It would therefore be better that they would appear before him because they had no choice not to do so, as they needed the supplies that only he could provide. This would provide him with the chance to force them to bring Binyamin down to Egypt and he would detain him there. As a result, the fact that he was Joseph would become known.
+
+Verse 8
+
+ויכר יוסף את אחיו, “Joseph recognised his brothers;” because they addressed each other with their names, and he understood both their names and the language in which they spoke.
+והם לא הכירוהו, “but they did not recognise him;” one reason was that he had grown a beard that he did not have when he was sold. Secondly, his name had been changed. Thirdly, he now spoke Egyptian and he used an interpreter, making believe that he did not understand Hebrew.
+
+Verse 9
+
+
+
+Verse 10
+
+
+
+Verse 11
+
+
+
+Verse 12
+
+כי ערות הארץ באתם לראות, “for you came to seek out the country’s nakedness.” Rashi comments on this that the brothers had used ten different border crossing points when entering Egypt. If you want to know how Joseph knew all this, Midrash Tanchumah explains that Joseph had issued 3 decrees. 1) No slave was to be allowed entry into Egypt in order to buy grain on behalf of his master. 2) No person was allowed to walk behind two donkeys; 3) no one was to be allowed entry unless he registered with his own name and that of his father and grandfather. Moses collected this information day after day, and examined if any of his brothers had registered. Seeing his brothers had entered at ten different border crossings, he had knowledge of this, and could challenge them, so that they would reveal in self defense that they were all brothers of one father. Their father had instructed them not to draw attention to themselves; when each one came to the border crossing and the border guard would ask about his name and the name of his father and grandfather, he would answer truthfully: Reuven son of Yaakov and grandfather Yitzchok.
+
+Verse 13
+
+
+
+Verse 14
+
+
+
+Verse 15
+
+
+
+Verse 16
+
+
+
+Verse 17
+
+
+
+Verse 18
+
+
+
+Verse 19
+
+
+
+Verse 20
+
+.ויעשו כן, “they did so.” They agreed with Joseph’s conditions.
+
+Verse 21
+
+
+
+Verse 22
+
+ויען ראובן, “Reuven replied to them;” originally Joseph had intended to keep Reuven, who was the oldest, as hostage pending Binyamin’s coming to Egypt. It is customary that when a number of people are guilty of a crime that the senior member of the group is punished first. When Joseph overheard their conversation and found out for the first time that it had been Reuven who had tried to save him, he changed his mind and kept Shimon as a hostage instead, as he was the second oldest.
+
+Verse 23
+
+
+
+Verse 24
+
+
+
+Verse 25
+
+
+
+Verse 26
+
+
+
+Verse 27
+
+
+
+Verse 28
+
+מה זאת עשה אלוקים לנו, “what is the meaning of this that G-d has done to us?” They could understand that their brother had been incarcerated as punishment for what they had done to Joseph, when they had not responded to his pleas. They knew that it is the custom of G-d to match the punishment to the crime/sin. But they could not figure out how G-d could punish them by having their money returned to them. This would be the reverse of punishment, as the sinner goes rewarded instead of punished.
+
+Verse 29
+
+
+
+Verse 30
+
+
+
+Verse 31
+
+
+
+Verse 32
+
+
+
+Verse 33
+
+
+
+Verse 34
+
+ואת הארץ תסחרו, “and then you can carry on trade freely.” This is not what Joseph had said to them, but this is what they added in order to induce Jacob to send Binyamin back with them.
+
+Verse 35
+
+את צרורות כספיהם, “each man’s bundle of money;” this is the only time that either silver (money) or gold (coins) are described in the plural mode.
+
+Verse 36
+
+
+
+Verse 37
+
+
+
+Verse 38
+
+וקרהו אסון, “and some mishap would befall him;” the letter ו in the word קרהו has the vowel shuruk, whereas the letter ק has the semivowel sh’va.
+
+Chapter 43
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+
+
+Verse 2
+
+
+
+Verse 3
+
+
+
+Verse 4
+
+
+
+Verse 5
+
+
+
+Verse 6
+
+
+
+Verse 7
+
+הידוע נדע, “were we supposed to have known?
+
+Verse 8
+
+
+
+Verse 9
+
+
+
+Verse 10
+
+
+
+Verse 11
+
+מעט צרי, “a little balsam;” something not available in Egypt. We have read that caravans used to transport this material to Egypt in Genesis 37.25.
+בטנים, “pistachios;” the letter ב is vocalised with a chataf kametz, an abbreviated vowel kametz.
+
+Verse 12
+
+
+
+Verse 13
+
+
+
+Verse 14
+
+
+
+Verse 15
+
+ויעמדו לפני יוסף, “they stood facing Joseph.” They did not speak to him at all at that time, but they saw him from a distance. Joseph did not speak to them as he was emotionally overcome with compassion when seeing Binyamin. The brothers mistakenly interpreted Joseph’s silence as anger over the money which had been found in their bags (and which would have been interpreted as having been stolen from him or his servants.) This is why they were frightened and interpreted Joseph’s behaviour as a prelude to new accusations and worse, as spelled out with the words: להתגולל עלינו ולהתנפל עלינו, “to turn it against us and to attack us.”
+
+Verse 16
+
+
+
+Verse 17
+
+
+
+Verse 18
+
+.להתגולל, an expression similar to: בגלל, i.e. “to turn around” the fact that our money had been found in our bags as a pretext to attack us.
+ואת חמורינו, “together with our donkeys.” They reasoned that if only we had been brought to Joseph’s private residence we would not be so worried; but the fact that we were brought here together with our donkeys, is proof that something else is afoot, i.e. an accusation.
+
+Verse 19
+
+
+
+Verse 20
+
+לשבר אוכל, “to buy food;” the letter ב here is vocalised with the vowel chataf kametz, an abbreviated vowel kametz.
+
+Verse 21
+
+
+
+Verse 22
+
+
+
+Verse 23
+
+
+
+Verse 24
+
+
+
+Verse 25
+
+ויכינו את המנחה, “they set about to arrange the gift in a presentable fashion.”
+
+Verse 26
+
+
+
+Verse 27
+
+
+
+Verse 28
+
+וישתחו, “they prostrated themselves;” the word is written as if in the singular mode, with the last letter ו missing. (Actually it is missing in our editions of the Torah, but is meant to be read as if it were not missing.) [Compare comment by minchat shay according to whom it is spelled in the singular mode, but is to be read in the plural mode. Ed.]
+
+Verse 29
+
+אלוהים יחנך בני, ”may G-d show you favour my son!” the letter י is vocalised with a kametz, and the letter ח with a sh’va.
+
+Verse 30
+
+
+
+Verse 31
+
+וירחץ פניו, “he washed his face;” seeing that he had to sit with them and to stand up after the meal, and they would otherwise see that he had been crying, unless he washed his face immediately. But earlier, in 42,24, where he did not have to face his brothers except very briefly, he did not feel the need to wash his face.
+
+Verse 32
+
+כי תועבה למצרים, “for it was something detestable for Egyptians;” Egyptians detested eating at the same table as aliens, as they felt that they were a superior race and everyone else was way inferior. We have an example of this in Isaiah 30,7 as well as in verse 39(?) here, i.e. ומצרים הבל וריק יעזרו לכן קראתי לזאת רהב לשבת, the help of Egypt I call empty and vain, I call this a disgrace and chagrin to dwell alongside them.”
+
+Verse 33
+
+הבכור כבכורתו, “the firstborn according to the mother he was the firstborn of.” Rashi explains: when it came to seating Binyamin, seeing that he did no longer have a mother, he seated him according to his being the youngest as the brothers had told him on their first visit. Joseph thought that the mothers of the others were still alive, [although we know from Yaakov’s remarks on his deathbed that Leah had already been buried by him in the cave of Machpelah (Genesis 49,31). The brothers who were not firstborns seated themselves in the order of their seniority, seeing that it does not say concerning them that ויושיב אותם, “he seated them.”. Ed.]
+ויתמהו האנשים, “the men were amazed;” clearly this does not refer to the line: וישבו לפניו, “they sat before him;” their amazement was at the separation between the separate seating arrangement between 1) himself, 2) the Egyptians, and 3) themselves, the Hebrews. What they could not understand was why Joseph was seated by himself seeing that in their opinion he was also an Egyptian. They concluded that he must be of a different people or religion altogether.
+
+Verse 34
+
+וישא משאת מאת פניו, “portions were brought from him to them;” they were all served portions approved by Joseph as appropriate;ותרב משאת בנימין, “it turned out that Binyamin’s portion was greater than that of the other brothers as Joseph had so instructed the waiters.”
+וישכרו עמו, “they drank wine with him and got drunk;” at that time drinking wine with gentiles if that wine had not specifically been prepared for idolatrous purposes was not yet forbidden for Hebrews.
+
+Chapter 44
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+
+
+Verse 2
+
+תשים בפי אמתחת הקטן “place at the top of thetravelling bag of the junior brother!” The reason that Joseph prepared to indict Binyamin as being guilty of theft, was because he had not recognised him as his brother, seeing that at the time Joseph had been sold he was only about 10 years old and had not yet grown a beard. He said to himself: “maybe this lad is not even my brother and they brought some orphan they picked up somewhere in order to deceive me. If I indict him and he is not their brother they will not interfere and will abandon him.”
+
+Verse 3
+
+הבקר אור והאנשים שולחו, “it was already bright daylight, and the men had been sent off;” even though most of the people who had come to buy grain rose very early in the morning to start on their return journey, Joseph did not see them off until was daylight, as he was afraid they would kill the official he sent after them in order to search their belongings. If this would occur when nobody was about yet, they would be able to get away with this without fearing detection.
+
+Verse 4
+
+לאשר על ביתו, “to the manager of his household;” according to a comment in Bereshit Rabbah, this was Menashe, Joseph’s older son, and seeing that the brothers rent their garments on account of the false accusations leveled at them by Menashe, the latter’s ancestral territory in the land of Israel was also torn apart, most of it being on the east bank of the river Jordan.
+
+Verse 5
+
+והוא נחש ינחש בו, “and he also uses it to divine by means of it;” this is why he left it on the table and acted as if he had forgotten it, in order to test you and find out if you would steal it. (Ibn Ezra) A different exegesis: the words: והוא נחש ינחש בו mean that you should have realised that Joseph would enquire from diviners what had happened to his goblet. A man of his stature has many diviners at his beck and call, and would find out quickly who had taken it. Still another explanation for these words: the expression describes an omen. An example of it being used in that context is found in Genesis 30,27: נחשתי ויברכני, Lavan saying to Yaakov: “I have found out that I have been blessed through your presence, by having resorted to divination.” In this instance the reverse was true, i.e. Joseph claimed that it seemed as a bad omen for him to have lost such a precious goblet. The word should not be explained as Joseph having used magic, as this would not be fitting for a man of his stature.
+
+Verse 6
+
+
+
+Verse 7
+
+
+
+Verse 8
+
+
+
+Verse 9
+
+
+
+Verse 10
+
+כדבריכם כן הוא, “you are quite correct, i.e. the thief will be guilty of the death penalty. You yourselves have condemned him as such. However, I do not wish to apply such a harsh penalty. Seeing that only one of you is guilty, the others will not become slaves. The thief will, however, become a slave as his penalty. This was the accepted penalty for stealing in those days before the Torah had been given. Compare Genesis 43,18, where the brothers had been afraid of just that when thinking they had been framed by having had their money restored to them. After the Torah was given, the standard penalty for stealing was for the thief to pay compensation worth twice the value of the stolen object. (Exodus 22,2) If he did not have the money to pay such compensation he would become indentured as a servant for 6 years, the victim being paid by the court from the monies it had received from the indentured thief’s owner.
+
+Verse 11
+
+
+
+Verse 12
+
+וימצא הגביע, “the goblet was found;” as far as the money found in the bags also is concerned this was not part of the accusation of thievery, as it could not be proven that it was not excess money that the brothers had had with them not knowing the price of their purchase in advance.
+
+Verse 13
+
+
+
+Verse 14
+
+
+
+Verse 15
+
+
+
+Verse 16
+
+מה נאמר לאדוני, “what can we say to my lord?” This question referred to the return of their money after the first trip. מה נדבר, “what can we speak?” this question referred to the money found in their bags during the search now. מה נצטדק, “how can we justify ourselves?” This referred to the goblet being found in the bag of one of them.
+גם אנחנו גם אשר נמצא הגביע בידו, “both we and the one in whose hand the goblet has been found etc.;” why did Yehudah use the word גם, “also” twice in this verse? This was to teach us that also those of us against whom there is no evidence or suspicion at all, are prepared to remain as your master’s slaves, not to mention our brother in whose bag the goblet has been found. The difference between what Yehudah says now and what he had said in verse 9 is that in that verse he had accepted the death penalty for the person in whose bag the goblet would be found, as he had been so sure that none of their bags would contain it. When the brothers saw that it had been found in Binyamin’s bag, they offered themselves as slaves also, but backtracked on acknowledging that Binyamin would be sentenced to death. They hoped that their offer would save Binyamin from being convicted of the death penalty.
+
+Verse 17
+
+
+
+Verse 18
+
+ויגש אליו יהודה, “Yehudah approached him;” seeing that he could not remove every official surrounding Joseph, as Joseph did later on, he had no choice but to approach him face to face.
+יהודה, the reason why Yehudah was the one carrying on this dialogue was that it was he who had guaranteed Binyamin’s safe return to their father.
+באזני אדוני, “for the ears of my lord only.” ואל יחר אפך בעבדך, “so that you will not become angry at your servant.” I have reason to fear this as you are just like Pharaoh in stature and your anger is something that is feared by everyone. Who else is there for me to lodge a complaint to if I feel I have been wronged?
+כי כמוך כפרעה, “for you are just like Pharaoh.” Compare a similar expression in Kings II 3,7: כמוני כמוך, “me and you .” Or Hoseah 4,9: כעם ככהן, the common people just like the priests.” Or, Kohelet 9,2: כטוב כחוטא, “the sinner just as the good one.” Or, Psalms 139,12: כחשיכה כאורה, “darkness and light are the same.”According to Rashi, what Yehudah meant was that “just as Pharaoh issues decrees and does not keep his promises, so you decree and do not keep your promise.” According to a Midrash, what Yehudah referred to was that Joseph had only demanded to “see” Binyamin before releasing Shimon and letting us buy food and return to the land of Canaan. Instead he had detained them, invited them. caused them to become drunk with him, etc., as a result of which they found themselves in their present predicament. Another Midrash quotes Yehudah as saying: just as Pharaoh violated the Egyptian law that a slave cannot be appointed ruler and he appointed you, so you too act illegally. Furthermore, Pharaoh had announced to the whole world that everybody was welcome to buy grain in Egypt, whereas his family had been discriminated against by having to bring his youngest brother all the way from the land of Canaan in order to buy grain for their starving family.
+
+Verse 19
+
+אדוני שאל, “my lord had asked: etc.; actually, we do not find that Joseph had asked if they had a father or brother. They had volunteered this information without having been asked for it.
+
+Verse 20
+
+
+
+Verse 21
+
+ותאמר אל עבדיך הורידוהו אלי, “You said to your servants: ‘bring him down to me.!’” The reason why I, Yedudah, am now speaking up on his behalf, is that I have guaranteed him.”An alternate explanation: when you said: ואשימה עיני עלי, “I will put my eye on him,” I thought that you meant that you will personally protect him. Instead you are doing the reverse and accuse him of having committed a crime. You are looking for ways to detain him.
+
+Verse 22
+
+
+
+Verse 23
+
+
+
+Verse 24
+
+
+
+Verse 25
+
+
+
+Verse 26
+
+
+
+Verse 27
+
+
+
+Verse 28
+
+
+
+Verse 29
+
+
+
+Verse 30
+
+
+
+Verse 31
+
+
+
+Verse 32
+
+
+
+Verse 33
+
+ישב נא עבדך, “let your servant (myself) remain;” (of his own free will) Yehudah’s proposal sounds strange, seeing that he feels Joseph’s charges are all trumped up and without substance. He claims that Joseph has no legal right to detain any of them and is acting like a kidnapper.
+
+Verse 34
+
+
+
+Chapter 45
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+
+
+Verse 2
+
+
+
+Verse 3
+
+כי נבהלו מפניו, “for they were frightened of him.” They were afraid of what he might do to them as reprisals for what they had done to him.
+
+Verse 4
+
+גשו נא אלי “please come closer to me.” He told them about the subject of how he had been sold, in a whisper, so that bystanders could not hear him. A different exegesis of these words: they were asked to approach him as they could do so; he, Joseph, being only one, could not come closer to some of them without at the same time distancing himself from some others. Besides, he was not concerned about his dignity but more about theirs. According to Rashi, he asked them to come near, so that he could show them, and them only, that he had been circumcised. There was no chance that this could have been misinterpreted as causing the brothers to believe that he was a Yishmaelite, who also perform the rite of circumcision on themselves, as they only performed this rite at the age of 13, as had their forefather Yishmael, and who leave a membrane around the glans untouched as distinct from the Hebrews who through being circumcised at an early age remove it when the fact that it has been removed remains clearly visible. Even though, according to Rashi, the Egyptians at that time also had been circumcised by a decree from Joseph, but this was done primarily by the poor who needed to purchase grain from him, but since Joseph was wealthy, the only reason why he was circumcised would be because he was a Hebrew. Another exegesis, since the brothers did not know that the Egyptians had been circumcised by Joseph, this mark would identify him as a Hebrew beyond doubt.
+
+Verse 5
+
+
+
+Verse 6
+
+
+
+Verse 7
+
+
+
+Verse 8
+
+
+
+Verse 9
+
+רדה אלי, “come down to me!” he did not say: רד “come down”, which has the the numerical value of 204, but said רדה is the numerical value of 209, to indicate that the 210 years decreed for the Israelites stay in Egypt had already started i.e. we are already within the 210 years decreed for the Israelites stay in Egypt so that the exile would not be lengthened by Yaakov and family resettling in Egypt without delay. There are only 209 of these years left.
+
+Verse 10
+
+
+
+Verse 11
+
+
+
+Verse 12
+
+ועיני אחי בנימין, “and the eyes of my brother Binyamin;” if you do not wish to reveal the fact that I had been sold on account of the oath to that effect that you have sworn, my brother Binyamin was not present at that time, nor has had any knowledge of it, he can reveal the details to my father. Another explanation for the relevance of what Binyamin saw at that time: Binyamin had much more reason to have assumed that I must be dead, seeing that he was not present and had not subsequently become aware of my having been sold, and he therefore needs convincing more than you do. Besides up until now when I only communicated with you through an interpreter, you could have doubted this. Now that you hear me speak in Hebrew, you should no longer doubt that I am who I claim to be.
+
+Verse 13
+
+את כל כבודי, “all the honour I enjoy;” he assured Yaakov that he had the wish and the power to make life comfortable for him in Egypt.
+
+Verse 14
+
+על צוארי (he embraced him) around his neck; both sides of his neck. Seeing he embraced him from both sides, the word for “neck” appears in the plural mode.
+
+Verse 15
+
+
+
+Verse 16
+
+
+
+Verse 17
+
+
+
+Verse 18
+
+
+
+Verse 19
+
+
+
+Verse 20
+
+
+
+Verse 21
+
+
+
+Verse 22
+
+לכלם נתן לאיש “to all of them he gave,” i.e. to each: the letter ל preceding the word: איש is vocalised with the vowel patach.” [Not so in all our editions. Ed.]
+חליפות שמלות, “changes of clothes;” shirts, pants, the undergarments people change frequently. In other words: garments that are worn directly on the skin. Alternate explanation: outer garments. The reason why Joseph gave them these garments as presents was that he had been the cause that made them tear up their clothing when they found out that the goblet had been found in Binyamin’s bag. They had been deeply embarrassed to be walking around in torn garments. ולבנימין, “and to Binyamin;” seeing that he had not participated in his sale, he gave him three hundred silver pieces. As a result of this each of the other ten brothers had been treated as worth a slave, (according to the Torah, 30 pieces of silver. Compare Talmud Gittin 44, where it is stated that if someone sells his slave to a gentile he is penalised ten times his value.) Three hundred silver pieces are ten times the value of an ablebodied slave.
+וחמש חליפות שמלות, “and five sets of garments.” One on account of the garments that he had caused him to tear, the second one because he was his full brother, son of his mother. The third set as compensation for having made him, appear like a thief. The last two sets as the penalty a thief has to pay, i.e. twice the value of the goods he has stolen. An alternate explanation: The gift Binyamin received was worth five times as much as that given to his brothers.
+
+Verse 23
+
+שלח כזאת “he sent a corresponding amount;” he sent his father ten sets of garments of the best quality available in Egypt ten donkeys, ten sheasses, for his ten brothers. Each one was to lead two animals. Even though Binyamin would also travel with them, he did not want to burden him with this.
+
+Verse 24
+
+וישלח את אחיו, “he sent off his brothers;” [the following refers to the difference between vayishlach and vayeshalach. Ed] the former means “to send something along,” whereas the latter means simply: “to send someone, or something.” In order to identify which is which, the former has a dot, dagesh in the letter ל. (based on Rash’bam)
+אל תרגזו בדרך, “do not worry of dangers on the way;” Joseph reassured the brothers that although they would migrate with great herds and flocks, something that would draw attention to them all over, his status in the region was such that no one would dare to attack them as they were his brothers. We have encountered the meaning of “nervousness” as being רגז, also in Deuteronomy, 28,65, לב רגז. An alternate exegesis: even though I have loaded you with great wealth in a time of famine when everyone else suffers from possessing very little, you have no reason to be nervous about its implications.
+
+Verse 25
+
+
+
+Verse 26
+
+ויפג לבו, “Yaakov’s heart was standing still, stopped beating; (as in Lamentations 2,18, פוגת לך) he could not even react as he refused to believe the brothers. He only reacted after seeing the carriages that Joseph had sent along. An alternate exegesis: the words: ויפג לבו, mean that he reacted joyfully, seeing that in the Talmud we see it used in this sense in tractate Yuma, folio 19, אישי כהן גדול עמוד והפג אחת על הרצפה, “my lord the High Priest, arise and demonstrate joy,” (according to Rashi there). [According to this the High Priest rejected the implication that he was going to sleep as ridiculous; Ed.] In our case, Yaakov considered the claims by his sons as ridiculous, not worth even thinking about. The latter explanation is supported by Onkelos, who writes: פיגו.
+
+Verse 27
+
+את כל דברי יוסף, “all that Joseph had said.” According to Rash,i the reference is to Joseph having sent the carriages, not to Pharaoh having sent them. Only before the arrival of the family in Egypt, were these carriages attributed to the generosity of Pharaoh. (46,5.)
+.אשר שלח יוסף, “that Joseph had sent.” Yaakov reasoned that if the sender had not been my son, no one else would have gone to the trouble to send me carriages to be riding in on my journey . Rashi adds that the consonants in the word עגלה have a dual meaning; they can mean eglah, “a heifer,” or they can mean agalah, “carriage.” Joseph wished to remind his father that the last subject that they had discussed together were the laws pertaining to the heifer that is thrown off a cliff to atone for a murder committed by persons unknown. (Deuteronomy chapter 21) If you were to ask how these carriages were a memorable symbol of their discussion? When the Torah reports Yaakov as having accompanied Joseph part of the descent from the mountain on which Chevron is situated, Joseph is reported to have said to him that he should go back. In other words, there could not have been a connection to the subject of the eglah arufah, where our sages assume that the murdered person had not been accompanied, or he would have become the object of murder. His father had then told him that the subject of accompanying a departing guest would rank highly in the Torah in the future. The reason that Joseph reminded him of that was that it was something to which no one else could have been privy. The almost unbelievable text in Deuteronomy has the Supreme Court members proclaiming that it was not they who had murdered the unknown victim. Who could have dared to accuse them of having done so? No one could have dreamt up such a paragraph in the Torah! Joseph made use of the play on words: eglah/agalah. A different explanation: Joseph had placed heifers on the carriages, which would remind his father of their last conversation in case he had forgotten. Concerning the carriages being once described as Pharaoh’s, and once as Joseph’s: it was forbidden to export cows unless their wombs had been removed so that they could not multiply in other countries. (Talmud, Bechorot, 28). In this instance, an exception was made and express permission from Pharaoh was granted. When the carriages were described as having been sent by Pharaoh, the meaning is that Pharaoh had given his permission, but the animals were owned by Joseph.
+ותחי רוח יעקב, “the holy spirit which had departed from Yaakov since Joseph’s disappearance now returned to him.” (Compare Midrash Hagadol 47,47.) As a result, although Joseph was only four or five days’ journey away from them they had no clue where he was for 22 years.
+
+Verse 28
+
+רב, עוד יוסף בני חי, “it is plenty;” Yaakov meant that when the brothers told him that Joseph was alive, and that he was a ruler in Egypt, the second part of the sentence was unnecessary, as long as he knew that Joseph was alive. He was totally unconcerned with Joseph’s standing politically.
+
+Chapter 46
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+לא־לוהי אביו יצחק, “to the G-d of his father Yitzchok. His father Yitzchok had offered a sacrifice at the same altar, as we know from Genesis 26,28.
+
+Verse 2
+
+
+
+Verse 3
+
+אלוקי אביך, “the G-d of your father.” G-d appeared to Yaakov in the same mode as Yaakov had addressed him, i.e. this is why He describes Himself as “the G-d of your father “
+אל תירא מרדה מצרימה, “do not fear descending to Egypt;” no one in the Bible had ever been told by G-d not to be afraid, unless he had already been afraid. Yaakov’s reasoning for being fearful was his knowledge that being strangers in a foreign land and being slaves which had been decreed already in the lifetime of his grandfather Avraham would most likely commence now that he was moving to Egypt. G-d answered him that although He had warned his father and grandfather of this, He appeared to him in order to give him reassurance. He hinted that although he was correct in assuming that the warning would soon be fulfilled, but by the same token, the promise made to all the three patriarchs that they would develop into a great nation, came closer to its fulfillment.
+
+Verse 4
+
+גם עלה, the word גם “also,” which appears superfluous, means that not only would his bones be buried in the cave of Machpelah, but that all the bones of his children would also find their eternal resting place in the Holy Land. He also assured him that Joseph would be present when it came time for him to die.
+ויוסף ישית ידו על עיניך, “and Joseph will place his hand on your eyes (and close them forever.)” This was an accepted custom in those days. It implied that Joseph would also be instrumental in his remains being transferred to the cave of Machpelah. A different interpretation of this verse: the words: על עיניך, are not to be understood literally, but are derived from the word עין being used as referring to someone’s or something’s, fountain, essence, as in עין יעקב, (Deuteronomy 33,28) where it refers to the personification of what Yaakov stood for. According to this interpretation, G-d assured Yaakov that in Joseph he will have a suitable successor. He will take care ably of all his needs.
+
+Verse 5
+
+
+
+Verse 6
+
+
+
+Verse 7
+
+בנותיו, “his daughters;” the plural mode is used although Yaakov had only one daughter. This is a customary way of the Torah referring to descendants, and we find a parallel in referring to male descendants in verse 23 of our chapter i.e. ובני דן חושים, “Dan’s sons were called Chushim,” as well as in Numbers 26,8 where the children of Palu are called Eliav, even though each of the fathers had only one son.
+
+Verse 8
+
+ואלה שמות, “and these are the names, etc.” the Torah enumerates them once more in order to highlight the miracles of the Lord showing how seventy souls who migrated to Egypt developed into nation of at least 2,5 million souls within the space of 210 years.
+
+Verse 9
+
+
+
+Verse 10
+
+בן הכנענית, “the son of a Canaanite woman.” This verse testifies to the fact that the respective wives of Yaakov’s sons were of Egyptian, Edomitic, and Midianite descent; the reason that this particular son of Shimon has been singled out as having been born of a Canaanite mother, is that his father is criticised for having married a Canaanite woman, something that had not been considered appropriate already since Avraham’s time. This is also why the premature death of Er and Onan, sons of Yehudah, had been mentioned. According to another interpretation, the reason why Er and Onan have been mentioned here altogether, although they died before the family descended to Egypt, is that if Yehudah had objected to Joseph’s sale, his brothers would have listened to him. [This leaves open the question of what happened to Yehudah’s third son Sheylah, who though apparently not having descended to Egypt, is not listed here by name, though he had the same two parents as Er and Onan. Ed.] G-d’s reasoning had been: you, Yehudah have not taken into account that you caused your father terrible grief by depriving him of Joseph, I will cause you grief at the time when he will rejoice by reminding you of two of your sons and their depriving, and mentioning this here in order to rekindle your pain.
+
+Verse 11
+
+
+
+Verse 12
+
+
+
+Verse 13
+
+
+
+Verse 14
+
+
+
+Verse 15
+
+אלה בני לאה, “these were the sons of Leah. Rashi comments on this that from here we learn that when a woman orgasms first she will give birth to a male child. The rationale is that the woman’s seed in such a situation has already started to disperse, whereas the man’s seed ejaculated later is still in its original strength. The reverse is true when the man ejaculates earlier, i.e. that the woman’s seed being last is still in its original strength, resulting in its immediate conception. (Compare Talmud, tractate Niddah folio 31)
+
+Verse 16
+
+
+
+Verse 17
+
+
+
+Verse 18
+
+
+
+Verse 19
+
+
+
+Verse 20
+
+
+
+Verse 21
+
+בלע ובכר, we must not make an issue of the number of Binyamin’s sons, as according to the report in Chronicles I 8,15 there were 11 sons. We must simply assume that at the time when Binyamin descended to Egypt the eleventh son had not yet been born. The difference in some of their names may also be accounted as due to their being listed once more. This is something we find also in other instances where the Bible records the same people more than once.
+וארד, the letter ו in this word is vocalised with the vowel kametz.
+
+Verse 22
+
+
+
+Verse 23
+
+ובני דן חושים, and the name of Dan’s children: Chushim. There were two, one of them died and his name has not been mentioned.
+
+Verse 24
+
+
+
+Verse 25
+
+
+
+Verse 26
+
+כל נפש ששים ושש, “The combined total of souls were 66.” They were made up of 33 children of Leah including Dina, Chetzron, Chamul and Yocheved who was born at the border of Egypt, included. Zilpah had a total of 16, including Chever and Malkiel. Rachel’s descendants at that time were 14, and Bilhah’s were seven. You have to deduct Joseph and his two sons as well as Yocheved, [who did not descend. Ed.], as explained by Rashi. Compare verse 46 according to which the number is made up of people having left the land of Canaan. The words: יוצאי ירך יעקב, “biological offspring of Yaakov,” have been added to tell us that the wives of both Yaakov and his sons were not included. [Our author may have added these words as otherwise we would have to assume that both Bilhah and Zilpah had already died. Ed.]
+
+Verse 27
+
+הבאה מצרימה שבעים, “who had arrived in Egypt, (were) seventy.” This number includes Joseph, his two sons, and Yocheved, (Moses’ mother). The Torah does not worry about minor inaccuracies as it concerns itself with the overwhelming majority. There are many examples of this rule having been applied. [Perhaps the best known examples are when Moses refers to the Jewish people comprising six hundred thousand men of the ages 2060, as well as when during the census, each time with a single exception, the total of the numbers of each tribe always ends with the digit zero, i.e. have been rounded off. Ed.] The only females in the count above are: Dinah, Yocheved, Serach. [In the author’s text which this editor works from, there appear four more names of males at this point, all grandsons of Yaakov. I have not been able to figure out why these names appear there. Ed.] According to a view expressed in the Midrash, that twin sisters were born with all of Yaakov’s sons, we would have to assume that they had all died before the family’s descent to Egypt, with the exception of twin of Dinah.
+
+Verse 28
+
+ואת יהודה שלח לפניו אל יוסף, “and he (Yaakov) had sent Yehudah ahead to Joseph;” so that he would be informed about which route to travel to the province of Goshen and thus to avoid entering Egypt proper. Joseph had already told him that he would live there in order to be close to Joseph (Genesis 45,6).
+
+Verse 29
+
+ויבך על צואריו עוד, “he (Joseph) still continued weeping while embracing his father,” in addition to when he had wept when being reunited with his brother Binyamin.” (45,10; 45,14) An alternate exegesis of this verse: the word: עוד refers to the weeping being in addition to embracing each other around their necks.
+
+Verse 30
+
+
+
+Verse 31
+
+
+
+Verse 32
+
+וצאנם ובקרם וכל אשר להם, “and their flocks and herds and all that they owned;” they need to tend these so that they do not have time to become professional soldiers.
+
+Verse 33
+
+
+
+Verse 34
+
+ואמרתם אנשי מקנה, “you’ll say: ‘we are cattle growers by vocation.’” Joseph was worried that if his brothers would occupy senior positions in Pharaoh’s Palace, this would result in jealousies and they would use this to reduce his status. He remembered that the “uniform” indicating rank, i.e. the striped coat had had worn, had led to all these jealousies once before.
+כי תועבת מצרים, “for it is something that the Egyptians detest;” Rashi understands the line as “for it is a deity of Egypt;” i.e. it is something that G-d detests, i.e. an idol. Their favorite astrological constellation was that of the lamb, which they worshipped. [“Worshipping” in the language of pagans means “to be afraid of.” Ed.] We find a similar expression concerning the favorite idol of the Moabites, (Kings II 23,14) i.e. שקוץ מואב ולמלכום תועבת בנימין, “kemosh the abomination of Moav, and Milcom, the abomination of the Ammonites.”
+
+Chapter 47
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+
+
+Verse 2
+
+
+
+Verse 3
+
+
+
+Verse 4
+
+לגור בארץ באנו, “we came here for only a temporary stay, sojourn;” At that time they did not entertain the idea of becoming permanent residents of Egypt. (Pessikta Zutrata)
+כי אין מרעה “for there is no grazing land;” they emphasised this aspect so that Pharaoh should not think that they had come to sponge on Joseph. They asked permission to stay in Goshen, עתה for now, until the Lord in His wisdom, will end the famine so that we can return to the land of Canaan.
+
+Verse 5
+
+
+
+Verse 6
+
+במיטב הארץ הושב את אביך, “in the most fertile part of the land settle your father!;” seeing that he is aged and is only looking for peace and quiet and clean air, let him dwell in that part of the land; as far as your brothers are concerned, let them settle in the region of Goshen which has excellent grazing land. Our author continues with: “Do not tell me that the cantillation mark etnachta under the words: ואת אחיך clearly contradicts this interpretation.” This is not the only time that an etnachta, divisive cantillation mark, does not override the plain meaning of the verse. To mention just one:Judges 5,18 זבולון עם חרף נפשו למות ונפתל על מרומי שדה; “Zevulun is a people that mocketh at death; Naftaly on the open heights.” The etnachta under the word Naftaly in that verse is not meant to be divisive. Devorah surely lauded both those tribes as partners.
+אנשי חיל, “able and astute people.” According to Rashi, Joseph described his brothers as not only intelligent but as loyal and trustworthy. Examples of the use of that word in that sense are: Proverbs 31,10: אשת חיל מי ימצא, “who is fortunate enough to find a truly wise woman?” Clearly Solomon did not speak about a woman who prepared for battle as a soldier! [Except in modern day Israel, where do women serve in the army in battle formations? Ed.]
+ושמתם שרי מקנה, “you will appoint them as being in charge of livestock.” (Pharaoh speaking to Joseph concerning his brothers) The livestock that Pharaoh was most interested in were camels, mules and horses. If we needed proof that this interpretation is correct, it can be found in Chronicles I 28,1: ויקהל דוד את כל שרי ישראל ושר כל הרכוש ומקנה, “David assembled all the chieftains of Israel as well as the chieftains in charge of inert possessions, and the chieftains in charge of livestock, etc.; immediately before this verse, the previous chapter speaks of camels and sheasses (27,30) and the officers in charge of them. An alternate exegesis: Seeing that the areas in which defenseless sheep, goats and cows graze in the desert, an area where there are wild animals and robbers, the shepherds looking after them must be strong, able and capable of defending them.
+
+Verse 7
+
+
+
+Verse 8
+
+?כמה ימי שני חייך, “how old are you?” Pharaoh was under the impression that Yaakov was extremely old, as he bore the marks of his sorrow filled life marked on his facial features. Yaakov replied: “do not be surprised that I look so old, the experiences that I have undergone during my life thus far have left their mark on me.” A Midrash quote G-d as responding to Yaakov describing his life as a series of harsh experiences by pointing out that no one before had been protected from as many dangers facing him as had Yaakov. According to these Midrash, the reason why Yaakov lived 33 years less than his father and 28 years less than his grandfather was onaccount of his not having appreciated all that G-d had done for him. The number 33 is arrived at by counting the number of words in verse 8 of our chapter commencing from the word: ויאמר up to and including the word: מגוריהם in verse 9.
+
+Verse 9
+
+
+
+Verse 10
+
+
+
+Verse 11
+
+
+
+Verse 12
+
+ויכלכל יוסף את אביו, “Joseph sustained his father;” Yaakov had become dependent on Joseph’s economic support, as according to what we read in verse 13, the amount of grain available in Egypt during those years for the general population was just enough for bread for each individual.
+לפי הטף, “the rations Joseph handed out were not based on the price of bread, but on the number of children each family head had to support.”
+
+Verse 13
+
+
+
+Verse 14
+
+
+
+Verse 15
+
+
+
+Verse 16
+
+
+
+Verse 17
+
+
+
+Verse 18
+
+בשנה השנית, “during the second year;” according to the plain meaning of the text, this refers to the second year after Yaakov had arrived in Egypt, which was the fourth year of the famine. The food which had been stored up during the seven years of plenty plus the financial savings of the population had sufficed to see them through the first three years. In the fourth year the people tendered their livestock for food, and in the fifth year they tendered their land holdings. In the sixth year they agreed to become slaves of Pharaoh in return for receiving rations from Joseph’s stores. In the seventh year, Joseph gave them seed to plant and they planted it, collecting a harvest in the eight’s year, and the famine was over.
+לא נכחד, “we cannot hide, etc.” i.e. “we have nothing left that we could hide instead of offering it to you.”
+
+Verse 19
+
+גם אדמתינו, “also our land holdings.” The words מיתה, “death,” and חי, “live,“ are here used when speaking of inanimate objects, such as land. Our author points out that such usage of the Hebrew language. He cites as examples: Nechemyah 9,6: ואתה מחיה את כולם, “and You keep them all alive.” If G-d’s creatures do not plough the earth and grow things for themselves, they will not stay alive. In other words, they will be no better than dead. [Manna will not fall from heaven. Being given life is not an end in itself, but only a means to staying alive. Ed.]
+אנחנו ואדמתנו עבדים לפרעה, “both we and our soil will be slaves to Pharaoh.” We will be his slaves, and the soil will he will hand over to us is to be taxed from its yield.
+
+Verse 20
+
+
+
+Verse 21
+
+ואת העם העביר אותו, “as far as the people were concerned, Joseph transferred them wholesale (to new locations).” Joseph transferred the people to new locations so that they would no longer be attached to their soil, since he had bought it. This would prevent them from returning to their land after some time and claim that this is what they had inherited from their fathers. Once they were settled in the new location on soil which had never been theirs, they could not make such a claim since everyone lived on land that had once belonged to somebody else.
+
+Verse 22
+
+רק אדמת הכהנים, “only the soil belonging to the priests (Joseph did not transfer to Pharaoh).” The priests are the like the ministers, as the כהן מדין the priest of Midyan. Joseph did not transfer to Pharaoh so they would not have any reason to start a rebellion against Pharaoh. A different reason given for Joseph’s preferential treatment of the priests is as we explained already, that the priests had suggested a method by which to test if Joseph or the wife of Potiphar had spoken the truth, as a result of which, Joseph instead of being hanged had only been put in ;jail.
+
+Verse 23
+
+
+
+Verse 24
+
+ונתתם חמישית לפרעה, “and you will hand over 20% of the harvest to Pharaoh as his share. The harvest was divided into five equal portions. 1) to serve as seed; 2) to provide food for the grower; 3) to provide for his slaves and maidservants; 4) to provide for his young children; and 5) to go to Pharaoh as a tax.
+
+Verse 25
+
+
+
+Verse 26
+
+
+
+Verse 27
+
+ויאחזו בה, “they became totally attached to it.” They acquired land that served as the ancestral heritage.
+ויפרו וירבו. “they became fruitful and they multiplied.” Thus G-d’s promise to the Yaakov in Genesis 46,3, became fulfilled.
+
+Verse 28
+
+ויחי יעקב, “Yaakov lived;” according to Rashi, the reason why this portion has not been separated from the preceding portion by as much as the space of a single letter, is because with the death of Yaakov the “eyes and the heart” of his descendants were as if closed to the spiritual mission they were to bring to the world, as they were being enslaved. You might well ask that seeing that Joseph his son ruled in Egypt for another 54 years during which all of his descendants enjoyed complete freedom, how is that possible? The answer is that this was not quite so. [His family had become culturally too dependent on Egypt. Ed.] When Jacob died, slavery started very, very slowly without anyone taking notice. Another interpretation for the omission of even a minimum amount of blank space in the Torah before the commencement of this portion is that the subject dealt with here was inextricably interwoven with what preceded it, i.e. the Torah’s description of the years during which Yaakov lived thus far.
+ויחי יעקב בארץ מצרים, “Yaakov lived in the land of Egypt;” all the years of Yaakov until he settled in Egypt could not truly be described as חיים, “life,” seeing that they were all clouded by different kinds of anguish. It was only during his last seventeen years in Egypt that his mind was at rest and not beset by serious worries of one kind or another. In fact, this whole verse has been inserted in the Torah as a compliment to Joseph who was the cause of Yaakov’s last seventeen years being happy years. During those 17 years he repaid his father who had sustained him for the first seventeen years of his life, by providing for him during the last 17 years of his life. He had been seventeen years old when he had been sold. 
+
+Verse 29
+
+ויקרא לבנו ליוסף, “he called for his son, for Joseph.” He did so, seeing that G-d had told him while he was on his way to Egypt that Joseph would be present when the time came for him to die, and that he would close his eyes for the last time. (46,4) Another reason was that the only reason why Yaakov had undertaken the journey down to Egypt had been in order to be near Joseph. It would therefore be appropriate that Joseph would accompany him on his ascent to the Holy Land to be buried with his ancestors.
+שים נא ידך תחת ירכי, “please put your hand beneath my hip.” This method of swearing an oath was the equivalent of what a handshake is in our days.
+ועשית עמדי חסד ואמת, “and perform for me an act of kindness and truth.” Wherever we find the expression חסד ואמת, it refers to giving someone more than he is entitled to expect, or asking him to do something beyond what he is entitled to demand. One such example is found in Samuel II 15,20: שוב והשב את אחיך עמך חסד ואמת, “go back and take your kinsmen with you and perform an act of loyalty and kindness (with them).” [David was in dire straits and staying with him was likely to result in the death of Ittai and his men. He was not obligated to remain faithful to David. Ed] Yaakov reminds Joseph that while it is his duty to bury his father, he is not entitled to demand of him to bring him to burial in the cave of Machpelah. He therefore pleads with him not to bury him in Egypt.
+
+Verse 30
+
+ושכבתי עם אבותי, “I wish to have my last resting place with my forefathers;” he referred to his grave. He realised that this could be done only if Joseph would transport his remains all the way to the cave of Machpelah. An alternate explanation: When using the words ושכבתי עם אבותי, Yaakov referred to being buried in Egypt, temporarily, whereas when adding: אל נא תקברני במצרים, he asked Joseph not to make his permanent grave in Egypt. This corresponds to what we have learned in the Talmud tractate Nazir 64: “if someone is found buried in a normal fashion, (but not in a graveyard) when transferring the corpse to a Jewish graveyard, he should take along a certain amount of the earth surrounding the corpse with it. When applied to Yaakov, this means that some Egyptian soil was taken with his corpse on his way to be deposited also in the cave of Machpelah. The Talmud there defines how much soil, (approx 3 fingers deep of earth). Yaakov too referred to this amount of Egyptian soil, when he said: ונשאתני ממצרים, “and carry me up from Egypt.”
+כדברך, “as you have said.” The word is spelled without the letter י, i.e. in the singular mode.
+
+Verse 31
+
+על ראש המטה, Yaakov gave thanks to Hashem Who had made Joseph’s heart decide to bury his father with his forefathers. This is how Joseph’s dream about the sun bowing down to him, was fulfilled, i.e. he had bowed to the Presence of G-d, not to his son. [The “sun” in the dream, had been Yaakov. Ed.]
+
+Chapter 48
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+ויהי אחר הדברים האלה, “it was after these events, etc;” ever since the universe had been created it had never happened that someone after having sneezed recovered from his illness. He would have died immediately, regardless of where he had been when he sneezed. Yaakov asked G-d to change this, so that he would be able to make his last will and testament before dying. G-d answered his prayer. This is the reason why this paragraph commenced with the words: ‘”It was after these words,“ after G-d had consented to give Yaakov enough time to prepare for his departure from earth. Not only this, but all the kings of the earth became very agitated, when they heard that Yaakov had died only after having made all these arrangements about his forthcoming demise. Ever since that time, not only Jews, but believing people everywhere, pronounce a benediction when they hear someone sneeze. G-d had transformed what used to be a signal of death to continued life, (compare Pirkey de Rabbi Eliezer, (earliest kabbalistic text) chapter 52.
+
+Verse 2
+
+
+ויתחזק ישראל, “Israel recovered his strength.” He decided to look upon himself as if healthy, seeing that the gifts bestowed by someone close to death, as long as he is able to stand, are considered in Jewish law as having been bestowed by a person healthy in body and mind. Israel was very anxious for the blessings he was about to bestow as being viewed as the blessing of a person completely healthy. Such a person’s gifts are irrevocable in law whereas presents by a person who is on the verge of death but later recovers are considered to be revoked.
+
+Verse 3
+
+
+
+Verse 4
+
+ונמתין לקהל עמים, “and I will make you into a community of nations.” Even though G-d had used the plural mode, only Binyamin had been born for him after that. This being so, Yaakov said: “I must transfer the unfulfilled part of that blessing as belonging to one of my sons and I hereby designate you (Joseph)”. Ephrayim and Menashe, each being one of the 12 tribes of Israel, are viewed as representing fulfillment of that part of G-d’s blessing.
+
+Verse 5
+
+ועתה, שני בניך וגו, “and now, as far as your two sons are concerned, etc.;” according to the Talmud in Baba Batra 123, the reason why Yaakov appointed both of Joseph’s sons as becoming founders of the twelve tribes, something he did not promise to any of his other sons, was because Joseph had sustained the whole family during the years of famine. Further more, Joseph had been the firstborn of Rachel who had been his principal wife, as opposed to the respective firstborn sons of Zilpah and Bilhah. Another explanation: Yaakov felt that this was one way he could honour the memory of Rachel versus the concubines by increasing the heritage of the sons of Rachel. Reuven had already forfeited his original claim to extra rights of the firstborn, having been guilty of a major indiscretion.
+
+Verse 6
+
+ומולדך אשר הולדת אחריהם, “and any sons that you will beget after them, etc.” sons of Ephrayim and Menashe that will be born while you are alive, will be considered as yours, founders of tribal families. They will rank on a par with the sons of Yehudah and Asher.
+על שם אחיהם, “their names will be subcategories of their fathers’ (who are part of the original twelve brothers) ancestral shares (when it comes to the distribution of the land of Israel)”. The formulation על, here, is similar to: Leviticus 25,31, על שדה הארץ יחשב, “they shall be classed as open country.” This is also reflected in what the Torah writes in 50,23: 'וירא יוסף לאפרים בני שלשים וגו, “and Joseph lived to see the third generation, i.e. children and grandchildren of Ephrayim.” What the Torah tells us there is that although neither of them had been born in the land of Canaan, seeing they had been born during the lifetime of their father or grandfather who had been born in the Holy Land, they were included in the founding families, בתי אבות, of their respective tribes. Other such grandchildren were considered founding families of their respective tribes as they were born in the Holy Land. For instance: grandchildren of Asher, through Briyah. (46,17). According to the Talmud referred to earlier (Baba Batra, 123), it is not clear precisely according to which criteria the distribution of parcels of land during Joshua’s time proceeded.)
+
+Verse 7
+
+ואני בבואי מפדן ארם, “as far as I a am concerned, when I came from Padan Aram , etc.” (Yaakov, who insists on being buried in the cave of Machpelah, owes Joseph an explanation for why he did not bury Joseph’s mother Rachel there, when he was much closer).“Rachel died on me suddenly at a time when I did not yet possess undisputed entitlement to that burial ground, since your uncle Esau had not yet ceded it to me by leaving the Land of Canaan with his whole family, so that an attempt to do so would have involved me in a confrontation with Esau, and it would have been most unseemly for your mother remaining unburied at that time. When I buried my wife Leah in the cave of Machpelah, Esau had already vacated the land of Canaan.”
+ואקברה שם, “I buried her there,” (where she had died) I knew that the piece of land where I buried her would in the future be still part of the ancestral heritage of Binyamin, and it would be fitting for her to have her last resting place in soil that would be part of her children’s heritage. We find an interesting verse in Samuel 10,2, where Samuel has just crowned the first Jewish King, Shaul, a descendant of Rachel from the tribe of Binyamin, and says to the newly crowned King: “when you leave me this day, you will meet two men near the tomb of Rachel in the territory of Binyamin, at a place called Zeltzah;” Yaakov, added that if he had buried Rachel in the cave of Machpelah, which is in the territory of Yehudah, a son of Leah, this would not have been appropriate, seeing that she and Leah had been rivals during their lifetime. An alternate exegesis of this paragraph, quotes Yaakov as follows: “the reason that I have buried your mother where I did, at the time, was that seeing that she had died in childbirth and having to transport her any distance would most likely have resulted in her blood becoming putrid after having soiled her shroud. Seeing that I wanted to at least bury her in the holy soil of the land of Israel, I buried her where I did, just inside that land.”(Compare Rashi’s commentary on this verse, according to whom Rachel’s tomb was outside the Holy Land.)
+
+Verse 8
+
+ויאמר, ״מי אלה?״, he said: “who are these?” According to the plain meaning of the text, Yaakov’s eyesight had been dimmed so that he could not recognise their facial features; This is why the Torah added that his failing eyesight was due to old age, (verse 10) If you were to counter that the Torah had described Yaakov just before as “seeing the sons of Joseph,” (verse 8) this was not sufficient to be able to identify them individually. He had no trouble indentifying Joseph as he recognised him by his voice.
+
+Verse 9
+
+אשר נתן לי אלוקים בזה, “whom G-d has given me in this land.” They were born to me before you came down to Egypt so that you should include them in the list of the twelve tribes. This is why Yaakov responded by telling Joseph that as far as he was concerned Joseph’s sons Ephrayim and Menashe would be just like Reuven and Shimon for him (Verse 5). Joseph explains that this is why he brought them with him.
+
+Verse 10
+
+
+
+Verse 11
+
+לא פללתי, an expression describing prayer as a request from G-d. We find this word in this sense also in Psalms 106,30, where it quotes Pinchas as having prayed. Yaakov says that he had not even prayed to see Joseph again, as it would have been inappropriate seeing that he thought he had seen evidence that Joseph had been the victim of a wild beast. (Genesis 37,33) An alternate explanation: whenever this word occurs it refers to making a judgment, i.e. arriving at a definitive conclusion. Yaakov would have been saying that he had never even entertained real hope to see Joseph again. (Rash’bam)
+
+Verse 12
+
+
+
+Verse 13
+
+ויקח יוסף, “Joseph had already taken.” [Contrary to the past tense mode with the vav hahippuch . Ed] This verse ought to be understood as following verse 9.
+
+Verse 14
+
+וישת על ראש אפרים, “he placed it (his right hand) on the head of Ephrayim.” He did so with the intent of including them in the 12 tribes. We find a similar expression when Moses placed his hands on Joshua appointing him as his successor (Numbers 27,23).
+שכל את ידיו, “Yaakov placed his hands by using his intelligence, i.e. sechel. One could have thought that instead of crossing his hands, Yaakov should have asked that the sons of Joseph switch their position in front of their grandfather, but that is precisely what Yaakov did not want them to do. He did not want to embarrass Menashe by relegating him to his left side, seeing that after all he was Joseph’s firstborn, and he deserved to be treated with respect on account of this. The only reason he had not placed his right hand on the head of Menashe, was that he had seen through his holy spirit that his younger brother would historically be of greater importance than the first born. It occurs frequently that the word “כי,” means “although;” for instance: Psalms 41,5: כי חטאתי לך, “although I have sinned against You.” Or, Psalms 25,11: כי רב הוא, “although it is great.” Or, Exodus 13,17: כי קרוב הוא, “although it is nearby.” The author states that he could have quoted many more examples.
+
+Verse 15
+
+ויברך את יוסף, “he blessed Joseph.” A blessing given to the sons is automatically also a blessing for their father. (Rash’bam)
+
+Verse 16
+
+המלאך הגואל אותי, “the angel who redeems me;” in verse 15 Yaakov had commenced the blessing by referring to G-d by His name of “האלוהים,” whereas in this verse he has switched to an angel as the source of the blessing. How are we to account for this?The two verses have to be understood as follows: “The G-d before Whom I and my forefathers have walked by means of His angel who protected me against all harm; may He arrange for that same angel also to protect the lads who are your sons.”
+
+Verse 17
+
+
+
+Verse 18
+
+לא כן אבי, “not so my father!” He meant: “they are not lined up in the order that you thought they were lined up.”
+
+Verse 19
+
+
+
+Verse 20
+
+וישם את אפרים לפני מנשה, “he positioned (in the blessing) the name of Ephrayim before the name of Menashe.” He had done so already in verse 5, before the sequence of the blessing had become an issue. By making a comparison with Reuven and Shimon in that order, his intention had been unmistakable.
+
+Verse 21
+
+
+
+Verse 22
+
+שכם אחד, “one portion;” the letter א in the word אחד is vocalised with the vowel patach. (as if it were in the construct mode)
+אשר לקחתי, “which I have taken;” he meant that he would take this (accept this) in the days of Joshua when the tribes would receive their shares of the Holy Land. In those days all of this would be conquered with the sword and the bow and arrow. The use by Yaakov of the past tense here is parallel to the use of the past tense concerning the money for the purchase price of the cave of Machpelah, when Avraham had said: נתתי כסף השדה קח ממני, “I have already given the money for the field, accept it from me.” (Genesis 23,13) Just as Avraham at the time was certain that Efron would finalise the negotiation, so Yaakov was certain that G-d would keep His promises concerning the Israelites receiving their ancestral land in due course. The reason why Yaakov singled out the Emorite and no other Canaanite tribe is that this was by far the strongest of the Canaanite tribes. We find proof of this in Amos 2,9: ואנכי השמדתי את האמורי מפניהם אשר כגובה ארזים גבהו וחסון הוא כאלונים, “yet I destroyed the Emorite before them, whose stature was like that of the cedars amongst the trees and who was as stout as oak trees.”Another interpretation: when Yaakov speaks of “my sword and my bow,” he quotes G-d, just as we have the line said by Moses in Deuteronomy 33,29: בה' מגן עזרך ואשר חרב גאותך, “by G-d your protecting shield, your sword is triumphant.”Rashi here understands our verse as Yaakov referring to the surrounding tribes making a joint effort to avenge the male inhabitants of Sh’chem whom Shimon and Levi had killed, as abstaining from their intention, i.e. “they did not pursue the sons of Yaakov.” (Genesis 35,5)
+
+Chapter 49
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+אשר יקרא אתכם, “what is going to happen to you;” here Yaakov intends to foretell the future; these were not meant to be blessings, as we do not find that he blessed Reuven, Shimon, and Levi. When the Torah writes in verse 28 of this chapter: וזאת אשר דבר להם אביהם, “and this is what their father had said to them,” (followed by “their father blessed them”) we have to understand that verse as follows: “this was what he foretold them.” The details of his blessing were not spelled out by the Torah.
+באחרית הימים, seeing that Yaakov did not say: ימים, “years,” but הימים, “the years,” it is clear that he spoke of years that we have already heard about. He referred to the 400 years which G-d had already revealed to his grandfather Avraham as the period his descendants would be strangers, and part of this time even slaves, in a country not their own.
+
+Verse 2
+
+
+
+Verse 3
+
+וראשית אוני, “and the first product of my virility.” Even though we have a tradition that a woman never conceives as a result of the first time she has engaged in sexual intercourse, it is possible to achieve such conception by means of what is called: מעיכה, “squeezing,” in the Talmud tractate Yevamot, folio 34.[It is quite difficult to accept this interpretation as the Torah makes plain that Leah did not get pregnant from the first time she slept with Yaakov, seeing that in Genesis 29,31 it states clearly that G-d helped her get pregnant when He observed that Yaakov “hated” her. Clearly this was not before the first night. Ed.]
+כחי וראשית אוני יתר שאת, “my might and first fruit of my virility, exceeding in rank;” Yaakov refers to what Reuven would have been entitled to, i.e. an extra share in the inheritance as a result of being the first born. ...
+The word אוני refers to financial strength. As in Hoseah 12,9: מצאתי און לי, “I have become rich!” 
+The meaning of the word שאת is as in לשאת, “bearing,” self assured posture.
+
+Verse 4
+
+כי עלית, “when you mounted;” “you desecrated Him Who is present even when I have intimate relations with my wife.” Yaakov accuses Reuven that as of the day when he invaded his privacy, he no longer had marital relations with Bilhah. Furthermore, when you desecrated my couch, you desecrated yourself and removed the sanctity of the kingship and the first-born status from yourself. Thus Jacob transferred the first-born status to Joseph. There are commentators who explained that Jacob said all of this to his other sons so that they should not wonder why he spoke so harshly to Reuven who had sinned gravely. The word עלה occurs in the sense of “departing, withdrawing its presence,” also in Psalms 102,25: על תעלני בחצי ימי, “do not take me away in the midst of my days.”
+
+Verse 5
+
+שמעון ולוי אחים, “Shimon and Levi are full brothers.” This point is recorded by Yaakov to inform us that these two were always of the same mind, as opposed to the other brothers. However, while generally speaking, this is laudable, it could become dangerous when their wrath is aroused.
+כלי חמס מכרותיהם, “their weapons are lawlessness.” (JPS) Their very close relationship is a dangerous weapon.
+The word מכרה is familiar to us from Kings II 12,6, where the expression: איש מאת מכרו, means: “each from his buddy.”
+
+Verse 6
+
+בקהלם, “in their counsel,” (may my soul not take part) there is no prefix letter ו here as we find in the word וברצונם, “and when they are well disposed;” Yaakov shuns being associated with their plans under any circumstances.
+עקרו שור, “they uprooted an ox;” according to the Targum Yerushalmi, this is an allusion to their having sold Joseph. Joseph had elsewhere been compared to an ox, as opposed to his brother Yehudah, who had been likened to a lion. (Deuteronomy chapter 33) An alternate exegesis: according to Onkelos, the word שור here symbolises a חומה, wall, this was accomplished by exchanging the vowel cholem for the vowel shuruk. The wall referred to would be that around the city of Sh’chem.
+
+Verse 7
+
+ארור אפם, “cursed be their anger;” this is not a curse, but a blessing. How so? Yaakov wishes them that whatever they will plan in anger should not succeed, so that they will learn the lesson not to act out of anger. An alternate exegesis of these words: Yaakov exclaims: “how disgraceful and despicable is their anger!”
+אחלקם ביעקב, “I will separate them between the tribes of Yaakov and disperse them.” We find that indeed the ancestral share of Shimon became an enclave within the ancestral portion of Yehudah. Levi’s share was divided into 48 cities between the twelve tribes.
+
+Verse 8
+
+יהודה אתה יודוו אחיך, as to Yehudah, “your brothers will acknowledge you (as leader);” we have a play on words here, using Yehudah’s name as synonymous with the owner’s position amongst this brothers. The word יודרך, is equivalent to ישבחוך ויכבדוך, “they will praise you and honour you.” This will happen when they see you subduing your enemies, i.e. ידך בעורף אויביך, ”your hand will be around the neck of your enemies.” When this happens, they will prostrate themselves before you.
+
+Verse 9
+
+מטרף בני עלית, “you removed yourself from the temptation to treat my son as your prey.” According to Rashi here; “you did not consider that killing my son Joseph would be an achievement.” Yaakov admits that he had once suspected him of having killed Joseph. In the Talmud Sanhedrin 6 and 7, the expression בצע used by Yehudah when persuading his brothers not to kill Joseph (37,26) is not understood as Yaakov praising Yehudah for not killing; rather it is a compliment to him for admitting to have been wrong when he accused his daughterinlaw Tamar of harlotry when it had been he who had sought out an assignation with someone whom he thought of as a harlot. He had cancelled the decree to execute her and the two fetuses she was carrying, thereby publicly shaming himself. (Genesis 38,26)
+
+Verse 10
+
+לא יסור שבט מיהודה, “the rod (mace) will never leave Yehudah;” once the crown will be placed on a member of the tribe of Yehudah (King David), it will never be placed on the head of someone belonging to another tribe; (as opposed to the first King of Israel, Shaul, who had been unable to establish a dynasty.)
+ומחוקק מבין רגליו, “nor will scribes be absent from sitting at his feet.” In those days it was the custom for the royal scribes to sit at the feet of the ruler.
+עד כי יבא שילה, “until the arrival of Shiloh, when the kingdom will be split, and Jerovam will be appointed to rule over ten of the twelve tribes. Yaakov refers to the people after the death of Solomon assembling to appoint Jerovam and to dissent from Rechavam, Solomon’s son and successor. [There is no verse in the Bible stating that this occurred at Shiloh;] perhaps our author understands “shiloh” as a reference to the prophet Achiyah Hashiloni, who had first informed Jerovam that he would become king over the ten tribes in Kings I 11,29, and who resided in Shiloh, as we know from Kings 14,2. Ed.] An alternate explanation: Yaakov simply referred to Achiyah the prophet who stemmed from Shiloh, and who told Jerovam who was at the time fleeing from the wrath of King Solomon that he would become King over ten tribes, but at the same time warning him not to interfere with the Kingdom of Yehudah, a remnant of David’s empire. (Kings I 11,2931.)
+ולו יקהת עמים, “and to whom the gathered nations will belong.” The ten tribes will congregate at Shiloh to crown Jerovam as their head. This has all been spelled out in Kings I 12,1. The crowning took place at Sh’chem, but Shiloh and Sh’chem were practically next door (about 10 k.m.) to one another. Compare Joshua 24,1, and immediately after that Joshua 24,26 where Joshua is reported as recording all this “at the Temple of the Lord,” (which was at Shiloh) without any mention of Joshua having had to move to there to do this. This comment is mentioned here only as a reply to heretics who insist that Shiloh cannot be the name of a town, as a town is always feminine in Hebrew, so that the masculine יבא, “he will come,” would be inappropriate. Essentially, Yaakov describes the greatness of Yehudah as lasting from when David ascended the throne until his grandson Rechavam forfeited most of his kingdom. Seeing that Yaakov did not want to spell out the decline of Yehudah, he worded it in a manner that lets us draw these conclusions ourselves.
+
+Verse 11
+
+סותה, a variant of the word: מסוה, “veil, or mask.”
+
+Verse 12
+
+
+
+Verse 13
+
+זבולון לחוף ימים ישכון, “Zevulun (his territory) will border on the ocean.” The sons of Yaakov are listed here in the order of their births. The only exception is that Zevulun although younger, is mentioned ahead of his brother Yissachar. The reason is that the territory of Yissachar was located between that of Dan and that of Zevulun. An alternate explanation: the reason why Zevulun here appears before his senior brother Yissachar was because Yaakov foresaw that in the future it would be thanks to the financial support of that tribe, that the Tribe of Yissachar could devote themselves to intensive Torah study.
+על צידון, “as far as the city of Tzidon.” This city was an international trading center, as is known from Isaiah 23,2: דומו יושבי אי, סחר צידון, “moan you dwellers of the coastland, you traders of Tzidon, once thronged by seafarers over many waters.” This is also why some hundreds of years later, Moses blessed that tribe by saying: שמח זבולון בצאתך ויששכר באהלך, “rejoice Zevulun when you set out, and you, Yissachar, in your tents.” Moses referred to Zevulun setting out on ocean voyages for trading purposes. 
+The word: על, before the word: צידון, means “close by.” Another example of that word being used in this sense is in Exodus 40,3: וסכות על הארון, “you will make the Dividing curtain screen it.”
+
+Verse 14
+
+רובץ בין המשפתים, “crouching between boundaries.” His territory was hemmed in on both sides between his tribal brothers as spelled out in Joshua 19,10-23.
+
+Verse 15
+
+וירא מנוחה כי טוב, “he realised that reposing is good;” [Compared to the stormy seas that his brother Zevulun had constantly to contend with? Ed.] Our author sees in this expression a parallel to Proverbs 23,31, אל תרא יין כי יתאדם, which he translates as “do not praise wine though it is red,” i.e. it has hidden features which are far less appealing. Yissachar is conscious of the advantages of residing peacefully on his land, as opposed to his brother Zevulun, who, though in search of great riches, faces many stormy seas and potential pirates before bringing home his spoils. Moses reflects the same thoughts when blessing the two tribes in his parting address to the nation, saying: “rejoice Zevulun at the beginning of your quest, but you, Yissachar באהלך, are content in your tent.”
+ויט שכמו לסבול, “he (Yissachar) willingly bent his shoulder to become a tributepayer.” (agricultural work is deemed the same as paying a tax). The words bracketed refer to the farmer having to fork over a tenth of his hard worked for harvest to the Royal treasury. (Compare Samuel I 8,14-15, where the prophet warns the people that they will have to pay taxes to the king that they so dearly wish to be ruled by.) An alternate exegesis on the line: ויט שכמו לסבול: Yissachar puts up with any of his brethren that pass through his territory on the way elsewhere. This is an exceptional virtue. The result of his tolerance of these inconveniences turns him into a tax paying servant.
+
+Verse 16
+
+דן ידין עמו, “Dan will judge his people.” This tribe had always marched in the rear of the camp in the days of Moses as well as of Joshua as testified to in Joshua 6,9: והמאסף הולך אחרי הארון, “and the rearguard walked behind the Holy Ark.” It was this tribe’s task to ward off any attacks from the rear. They had been assigned this task as they were considered exceptionally brave. The word ידין, may therefore best be translated as: “he will avenge.” Compare Deuteronomy 32,36: כי ידין ה' עמו, “for the Lord will avenge His people.”
+
+Verse 17
+
+יהי דן נחש, “may Dan be like a snake lying in ambush on the way” to kill potential attackers of the gentile nations; his bravery will use the most unlikely weapons, such as when Samson used a jawbone to kill 1000 Philistines (Judges 15,16.)
+שפיפון, “a viper;” closely related to the expression: in Genesis 3,15: הוא ישופך ראש, “man will crush the serpent’s head;” (in response to the serpent attacking his heel)ויפול רכבו אחור, “so that its rider will fall off backwards.”
+
+Verse 18
+
+לישועתך קויתי ה, “I have always hoped for Your salvation, Hashem” Yaakov addresses the tribe of Dan when saying this; in other words: Yaakov prayed that Dan will be successful in his defense of the Jewish people. An alternate explanation: “I have hoped to G-d that your (Dan’s) efforts at saving his people will succeed.” (as predicted by the angel who told the wife on Manoach of the forthcoming birth of Samson, and that he would be the first to save the people from the Philistines. (Judges 13,5)
+
+Verse 19
+
+גד גדוד יגודנו, “Gad’s soldiers will troop after the armies of Israel when they go out to war (to conquer their ancestral heritage) during the battles under Joshua; they will be in the forefront as we know from Deuteronomy 3,18, where Moses commanded them to march as the vanguard of the Israelite army.
+והוא יגד, “he shall raid at the heels of their enemies.” (When returning from battle) (They will not only be the vanguard at the beginning of the battle, but also the mopping up operation at the tail end of the battle.) Another exegesis for the line: והוא יגוד עקב: this tribe will always be in pursuit of enemies remaining, thus finding himself at the heel of their enemies. Compare: 49,8: ידך בעורף אויביך, “your hand will be around the neck of your enemies (Yehudah)”
+
+Verse 20
+
+מאשר, שמנה לחמו, as to Asher: “the food (Gad) he will produce will be richer than that of Asher.” Seeing that Yaakov had not blessed Gad with material blessings, when turning to Asher by saying that its food would be richer than that of Asher, since the soil of its ancestral portion is excellent grazing land.
+והוא יתן מעדני מלך, “and he will provide royal delicacies.” Yaakov does not imply that the land that Asher resides on will be inferior; but he says that Gad too will provide royal delicacies seeing that its soil is better than Asher’s. An alternate exegesis: the richest food in the land will originate from the soil of the tribe of Asher. It will be even richer that that provided by the tribe of Gad, which was well known for its quality. Cooking oil used to be provided primarily from the olive trees on the territory of Asher. This is also reflected in Moses’ blessings in Deuteronomy 33,24: ברוך מבנים אשר, “the Jewish people will bless Asher thanking him for providing such abundant and high quality oil.”
+והוא יתן מעדני מלך, “and he will provide the king with taxes in the form of oil.” It was this oil that was used to anoint Jewish kings from the tribe of Yedudah. [As this was not necessary after David had been crowned, and his dynasty was inherited automatically by his successors who did not need to be anointed, this editor does not understand this interpretation, as the quantity of oil required was minute and used only a single time. Ed.] According the Talmud in Menachot 86, and the commentary there by Rash’bam, the function of that oil was to act as a body hair remover and as a skin lotion.
+
+Verse 21
+
+נפתלי אילה שלוחה, “Naftaly is like a free running doe,” Members of that tribe being fast long distance runners, used to be dispatched to inform the civilian population of whether a battle had been won [or lost, so that they would be prepared for what would follow. Ed.] This is the meaning of the words following: הנותן אמרי שפר, “bearer of good news.” Compare Judges 5,18 ונפתלי על מאומי שדה, “Naftaly running swiftly across the open heights.”There is an opinion according to which the word: אילה does not refer to a doe, but means: “the plain,” as in Genesis 14 6; yet another opinion relates the word to אילן as in אילי הצדק in Isaiah 61,3: “oaks of righteousness.” 
+The word שלוחה is best rendered as נטועה, “planted.” An example of this use of the word is found in Isaiah 16,8: שלוחותיה נטשו עברו ים, “their shoots spread and crossed the sea.”
+אמרי שפר, “words of praise.” This is an allusion to branches, ענפים, as in שנים, שלושה גרגרים בראש אמיר, “two or three berries on the topmost branch.” (Isaiah 17,6). The meaning of the verse then is: “the highest plains of his land will be planted with branches that bear beautiful fruit.”
+
+Verse 22
+
+בן פורת יוסף, also a variant of the word ענפים, “branches.” Joseph is viewed as the son whose branches grow profusely as if planted along abundant waters.
+עלי עין, “by a fountain; it is the custom of poetry in the Holy Tongue to engage in such (apparent) repetitions of similar sounding words. Examples are Psalms 93,3 נשאו נהרות ה', נשאו נהרות קולם, “the oceans sound, o Lord; the oceans; sound their thunder.” Or, Judges 5,3: אנכי לה', אנכי 1“ ;אשירה will sing; I will sing to the Lord;” (Victory hymn by Devorah). There are many more such examples in the Bible.
+בנות, the branches growing out of the trunks of trees. Yaakov is saying that they grow beyond the highest points of the walls surrounding them, i.e. צעדה עי שור, “girls stepped up to the wall” (to get a glimpse of him).
+צעדה, plural form of the feminine mode of the verb צעדו in the parallel masculine version. Another example of a similar construction can be found in Isaiah 59,12: וחטאתינו ענתה בנו, “and our sins testify against us;” or in Exodus 17,12: ויהי ידיו אמונה, “His hands remained steady.” A third such example would be in Exodus 9,31: והפשתה והשעורה נוכתה, “but the flax and the barley had been struck” (by the hail.) The parable here deals with Joseph increasing more so than his brothers, seeing that both his sons became recognised as fully fledged tribes. The sons of Joseph are quoted as saying to Joshua: “And I have become a numerous people as the Lord has blessed me that much” (Joshua 17,14.)
+
+Verse 23
+
+וימררוהו ורבו, “they embittered him and they quarreled. This was the result of the arrow tongued brothers hating him already.
+
+Verse 24
+
+ותשב באיתן קשתו, “Yet his bow stayed in its original position;” Yaakov illustrates how Joseph restrained himself not taking revenge on his brothers when he had the opportunity to do so.
+ויפוזו זרועי, “the arms of his hands were ornamented with fine gold by the hands of the Mighty One of Yaakov;” when pulling at the strings of his bow, his arms would display these ornaments. The word: ויפוזו is a synonym for רקוד, “dance;’ According to Rash’bam, it denotes movements by the arms, whereas כרכור describes the parallel movements with one’s legs. An alternate explanation: the words: ותשב באיתן קשתו, mean that he did not respond to his enemies in kind, but restrained himself and, on the contrary, spoke to them in a friendly manner. According to that interpretation, the words ויפוזו זרועי ידיו mean that although being a powerful king and having at his disposal many means of avenging himself for wrongs done to him, he did not display this characteristic. If you were to ask whence he had learned such self control and forbearance, the answer is: from none other than his father Yaakov, אביר יעקב, who served as his model.
+משם, from this model he also learned to look after the economic needs of the different families of the numerous family of Yisrael. (his cousins and second cousins)
+
+אבן, a word related to אב, father, in the sense of family; the letter ן at the end is not an integral part of the word. We have other examples of such apparently unnecessary letters ן in שגעון or רצון, חרון, רעבון, ,עורן and ערבון. (Based on Rash’bam)
+
+Verse 25
+
+ברכות שדים ורחם, “the blessings of the breasts and the womb.” Yaakov paraphrases the blessings emanating from a celestial source, i.e. שמים, and emanating from earth, i.e. ארץ. An alternate explanation: the “blessings of the breasts,” are a simile for stilling thirst, whereas “the blessings of the womb,” are that the fetus will not be stillborn. (Based on Rash’bam) In this instance, the breasts appear first before the womb, although they are not needed until after the baby has been born, seeing that a mother begins to feel that she has a supply of milk even before the baby has been born. On the other hand, the prophet Hoseah, in Hoseah 9,14, says: תן להם רחם משכיל ושדים צוצקים, “give to them a womb that miscarries and shriveled breasts, in that order. (When he lambasts his countrymen for their disloyalty to G-d, and prays to G-d not to allow such people to develop normally.)
+
+Verse 26
+
+נזיר אחיו, “the one who had been separated from his brothers.” Our author understands the word נזיר here as “the prince among his brothers.” He uses Lamentations 4,7, זכו נזיריה משלג, “her elect were purer than snow, ”as the source where the word is used in that context.
+
+Verse 27
+
+בנימין זאב, “Binyamin is like wolf;” a metaphor implying that the kingdom of Shaul, a descendant of Binyamin, would not endure, just as a wolf does not spend time with his prey. On the other hand, the Kingdom of David is compared to that of a lion, which does spend time with its prey, not being afraid of anyone challenging it. (Compare Torah Shleymah on this verse)
+זאב יטרף, “a wolf that will attack and kill most domesticated animals.” The wolf consumes in the morning sufficient parts of his prey to last him until evening, after which he distributes the remains to its young. The blessing has been worded as a parable. The letter ו at the beginning of the word: ולערב, is unnecessary; there are many such unnecessary letters in the Torah, and especially when the text is not prose but poetry. There is no point in arguing that from the cantillation mark etnachta under the word עד that it is divisive; I have already explained this in Genesis 47,6 in connection with the words: במיטב הארץ, under the word אחיך where I listed a number of examples that the etnachta is not always a divisive cantillation mark, or rather, that it does not always override the plain meaning of the verse.
+ולערב יחלק שלל, “and at night he divides the plunder.” I have already mentioned that this is the habit of wolves as per Tzefaniah 3,3: זאבי ערב לא גרמו לבקר, “wolves of the evening; they leave no bone until morning.”
+
+Verse 28
+
+אשר כברכתו, “in accordance with the individual blessing that each tribe.” will experience in the future.
+
+Verse 29
+
+ויצו אותם, “He commanded them;” that they should all accompany Joseph in the funeral cortege all the way to the cave of Machpelah.
+אל אבותי, same as if it had said: עם אבותי, “with my forefathers.”
+
+Verse 30
+
+לאחוזת קבר, “as a burial property.” Yaakov reminds Joseph that there is no legal way to dispute that he is entitled to be buried there.
+
+Verse 31
+
+
+
+Verse 32
+
+מאת בני חת, “from the Hittites.” Yaakov repeats this although he had already spelled out that the individual from whom his grandfather purchased this field was Efron the Hittite, as Efron himself was no longer alive to confirm his claim. Seeing that Joseph also had not been present at the time when this transaction had taken place, he went into great detail so that he would know how to answer anyone of Efron’s heirs if he would dare to dispute his father’s claim.
+
+Verse 33
+
+ויאסוף רגליו אל המטה, “he retracted his feet into the bed.” Originally, he had been sitting on the edge of the bed as mentioned at the beginning of the paragraph his feet having been in contact with the floor.
+
+Chapter 50
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+
+
+Verse 2
+
+...לחנוט את אביו, “in order to embalm his father.“ According to a commentary quoted by Rash’bam, some commentators understand the word לחנוט as derived from חנטה, blossoming, i.e. the oil for this embalming would have been taken from the plant when it had grown only one third to its ultimate height. The expression is familiar from Song of Songs 2,13, התאנה חנטה פגיה, “the fig tree has formed its small figs.” Accordingly, embalming (olive) oil is derived from as yet unripe olives. Compare also the Talmud in Megillah 13 on this subject.
+
+Verse 3
+
+ויבכו אותו מצרים, We find numerous words in the Torah where the prefix ב is missing. This is one of these words, and the phrase means: “Yaakov’s death was mourned with weeping in Egypt.”
+שבעים יום “for seventy days.” 40 of these days were spent embalming him, and the remaining thirty were official mourning. We also find that both Moses and Aaron were mourned for thirty days. Compare Numbers 20,20 and Deuteronomy, 34,8. A different interpretation of the “seventy days;” each of the direct descendants of Yaakov who had come to Egypt with him mourned him for one day each.
+
+Verse 4
+
+דברו נא באזני פרעה, “please intercede on my behalf with Pharaoh;” seeing that some nineteen years earlier Pharaoh had decreed that no one in Egypt could undertake anything new until it had been approved by Joseph, Pharaoh would not look kindly at the prolonged absence from Egypt of his general manager on whom he depended so much. (Compare Genesis 41,44). Moreover, Pharaoh might be afraid that Joseph would not even return to Egypt at all. Seeing that he was familiar with all the military and political secrets of Egypt, he would be a potentially dangerous adversary.
+
+Verse 5
+
+
+
+Verse 6
+
+
+
+Verse 7
+
+
+
+Verse 8
+
+
+
+Verse 9
+
+ויעל עמו, “and there he took up with him (To Canaan) with him, etc;” The word ויעל in this verse may be understood just as the same word in ויעל עולות, in Genesis8,20, i.e. as a transitive form of the verb, “he caused the sacrifices to ascend.” (Rash’bam)
+
+Verse 10
+
+ויעש לאביו אבל שבעת ימים, “he observed a seven day mourning period for his father.” Some commentators claim that the chieftains of Esau as well as the prince of the Yishmaelites and the sons or grandsons of Keturah assembled at that location to honour the memory of Yaakov. This was a new mourning. It was the custom that when a relative of the deceased arrived from afar to participate in the funeral, a new additional rite of mourning is observed and they weep anew over their loss.
+
+Verse 11
+
+וירא יושב הארץ הכנעני, “the inhabitants of the land of the Canaanite tribes “saw;” the reference is to the Emorites under Sichon and to the ones under Og. They also called themselves “Canaanites.” Rashi explains thus in the Book of Numbers and in the Book of Judges and on several occasions.
+אשר בעבר הירדן, “whose habitat is on the East Bank of the river Jordan.” These Kings had seen the mourning being observed at the threshing ground of Atad (verse 10) which was located on Canaanite land on the East Bank. Just as the inhabitants of the land of Canaan proper called that region “East Bank,” in the days of Joshua who settled the Israelites on the West Bank, so the people residing on the East Bank called the area across the Jordan “West Bank. We have proof of this in Numbers 32,19: כי לא ננחל אתם מעבר לירדן והלאה כי באה נחלתנו מעבר לירדן מזרחה, “for we will not inherit with them on the other side of the Jordan because our inheritance has fallen to us on this side of the Jordan eastwards.”
+
+Verse 12
+
+כאשר צום, “as he had commanded them;” to do during his funeral.
+
+Verse 13
+
+וישאו אותו בניו, “His sons carried him, etc;” only his sons, not any of his grandsons as they had Canaanite mothers. We have read in the Talmud tractate Pessachim folio 50, “are we to assume that Yehudah’s wife (Genesis 38,2) was really a Canaanite, in spite of the fact that Avraham had gone to great length to insure that Eliezer would not select a Canaanite wife for his son Yitzchok? (Genesis 24,3 Yitzchok) Yitzchok had similarly instructed his son Yaakov. The answer given by the Talmud is that the word Canaanite also means: “trader,” and that the Torah told us in Genesis 38,2 that Yehudah’s wife was the daughter of a well known trader, named Shua. If you were to counter how this can be squared with the opinion expressed on Genesis 37,35 where we read about Yaakov’s “sons and daughters all trying to comfort Yaakov over the disappearance and presumed death of Joseph,” that all of Yaakov’s sons had twin girls born with them, so why did Yehudah not marry one of them or a granddaughter of Yaakov? We must assume that all of these twin daughters died prematurely so that the sons of Yaakov had no other option but to marry Canaanite girls. To the additional question why they could not at least have married the children of Shimon of whom we know that he had a son by a Canaanite woman (Genesis 46,10)? B‘reshit Rabbah 80,10 suggests that Shaul borne to Shimon was actually a son of Sh’chem who had raped Dinah; one opinion offered is that Shimon buried that offspring in the land of Canaan before the brothers descended to Egypt and that this is why he is referred to as son of a Canaanite. Getting back to the question why the grandsons of Yaakov were not part of the pall bearers, of the grandfather; Joseph did not wish to do anything that could arouse jealousies among them, some being biologically qualified others not; seeing that no one would be jealous of Ephrayim and Menashe who were princes, he did not object to their being pall bearers. (They would also be founding fathers of tribes in the future) Moreover, Rashi says that Levi was not among the pall bearers, as he would be carrying the Holy Ark. More questions are raised as to how Moses could carry the coffin of Joseph at the Exodus, seeing that he too was a Levite. A suggestion is offered that Joseph’s coffin, similar to the Holy Ark, did not actually need pall bearers as it carried itself, similar to the Holy Ark which is described as carrying its bearers. (based on a verse in Psalms 80,2: כצאן יוסף יושב הכרובים, (Compare more about this in Moshav z’keynim)
+
+Verse 14
+
+
+
+Verse 15
+
+ויאמרו לו ישטמנו יוסף, they said: “perhaps Joseph will hate us.” When the brothers had returned from burying their father in Canaan, Joseph passed the pit into which the brothers had thrown him and recited the blessing: “the G-d Who has performed a miracle for me at this place.” When the brothers heard this they became afraid that old animosities might flare up again.
+
+Verse 16
+
+ויצוו אל יוסף, according to the Jerusalem Targum they instructed the sons of Bilhah to tell Joseph in the name of their father that he had said before being gathered in to tell Joseph etc. etc,.”
+
+Verse 17
+
+ועתה שא נא, “and now, etc;” from this word on, the sons of Bilhah added words of their own.
+
+Verse 18
+
+וילכו גם אחיו, Joseph’s brothers also followed themselves after having sent ahead the sons of Bilhah. (They did after they saw him weep).
+
+Verse 19
+
+
+
+Verse 20
+
+
+
+Verse 21
+
+
+
+Verse 22
+
+
+
+Verse 23
+
+גם בני מכיר בן מנשה, “also the sons of Machir, a son of Menashe;” the word גם is meant to include Ephrayim and his children in what is described in this verse. How are we to understand this in practice? Joseph only saw Ephrayim’s grandchildren, whereas he did live to see Menashe’s great grandchildren. We know this from which of the descendants of Joseph are listed in the portion of Pinchas (Numbers 26,2937) there as founders of בתי אבות, clans, all of whom were born during Joseph’s life time. (Bamidbar Rabbah 14,7)
+
+Verse 24
+
+
+
+Verse 25
+
+
+
+Verse 26
+
+ויישם בארון, “he was placed in a coffin;” as opposed to being interred; the reason that he was not interred was so that his descendants when the time came could take his remains with them to the Holy Land as they had sworn to him that they or their children would do.
+The construction of ויישם is similar in meaning to ויושם. We find a similar construction in Exodus 30,32: על בשר אדם לא ייסך, “it must not be rubbed on any person’s flesh (skin).”
+The prefix letter ב in the word: בארון has the vowel kametz under it. This is meant to inform the reader that the coffin had already been prepared for Joseph during his lifetime, i.e. he was placed in the coffin with which he had been familiar. This is the only one of the patriarchs of which temporary burial in a casket has been reported, as the later generations, who had not even been alive when he died, would transport him from Egypt.
+
+Exodus
+
+
+
+Chapter 1
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+ואלה שמות, “And these were the names of;” the prefix letter ו in the word ואלה is intended to connect what is written here to what had been written at the end of the Book of Genesis. The connection is with the three generations of Joseph through Menashe that he is reported to have still known before he died (Genesis 50,22). He had witnessed the fulfillment of the descendants of Avraham multiplying while in a land not their own. Rashi points out that when the Jewish people were compared by G-d as “numerous as the stars,” G-d meant that these stars are not just numbers but each one has a name and its coming and going is supervised by its Creator. Similarly, in spite of becoming numerous the Jewish people never were just numbers but each one having a name ensured that he would be treated on an individual basis by G-d. If someone were to ask where it is written that the Jews that Yaakov brought with him to Egypt were numbered by him, the Torah states that not only were they numbered but they were named, i.e.
+ואלה שמות “and these were the names.” The Torah informs us that all the people that came down to Egypt with Yaakov also died in that land.
+הבאים מצרימה, this construction is most unusual, we would have expected the Torah to write: אשר באו, “who arrived,” not such an indeterminate present tense as הבאים, literally: “Who were arriving.” The fact is that in retrospect, after having been subjected to cruel treatment by the Egyptians, they had forgotten about the good years and felt as if they had only just arrived there.
+את יעקב, “with Yaakov.”
+איש וביתו, “man and wife.” We know this from Genesis 46,26: מלבד נשי בני יעקב, “in addition to the wives of Yaakov’s sons.” (Genesis 46,26) Yaakov was aware that the Egyptians were deeply involved in promiscuity. He was afraid that his offspring would learn to copy these ways of the Egyptians. He had therefore married them off before they could do so.
+
+Verse 2
+
+Reuven, Shimon; the Torah first mentioned the two oldest sons of Yaakov’s senior wife Leah, before mentioning any of the sons of the concubines; this is why it also mentioned Joseph and Binyamin before the sons of Bilhah, another concubine.
+
+Verse 3
+
+
+
+Verse 4
+
+
+
+Verse 5
+
+ירך יעקב, “Yaakov’s loins,” it is good manners to describe the sexual organ not directly, but by reference to an organ located close to it instead. (Ibn Ezra) We find this also in the oral Torah when the Mishnah in Megillah 13 writes that the principal organ that a woman is jealous of in her rival is the ירך; the author avoids naming the vagina. On other occasions, the word: רגלים is used as a substitute for the vagina. Compare Samuel II 19,25 ולא עשה רגליו, translated as “he had not pared his toe nails,” which is not really what the prophet had in mind.
+יוצאי ירך יעקב, “Yaakov’s descendants;” he himself was not included in the count.
+שבעים נפש, “seventy persons.” This verse was written primarily to tell of G-d’s miracles, to remind the reader that whereas only 70 persons of Yaakov’s family migrated to Egypt, after 210 years over 600000 male adults between the ages of 20 and 60 left Egypt, presumably at least two and a half million people in all.
+ויוסף היה במצרים, “and Joseph had already been in Egypt. Concerning the Hebrews that came with Yaakov, the expression used by the Torah is “הבאים מצרימה,” (verse 1) whereas concerning Joseph, although he had already been there for years, he was included in the “family”: moving to Egypt.
+
+Verse 6
+
+וכל הדור ההוא, “and that entire generation.” This verse refers to both Israelites and gentiles, as we read immediately afterwards: ויקם מלך חדש על מצרים אשר לא ידע את יוסף, “a new king ascended the throne in Egypt, one who had not known Joseph.”
+
+Verse 7
+
+ובני ישראל פרו וישרצו. “in the interval, the Israelites had been fruitful, and become prolific;” this confirms that G-d’s promise to Yaakov that his family while in Egypt would become numerous and develop into a nation had been fulfilled. (Genesis 46,3)
+ותמלא הארץ אותם, and the land became full of them.” The word אותם here must be understood as if the Torah had written: מהם, “filled with them.” Seeing that the root of the word אותם is את, “with,” this is not strange at all. Compare Leviticus: 22,28, אותו ואת בנו, “it and its young.” We also find the word את on occasion as meaning: “from,” as in Exodus9,29, when Moses says: כצאתי את העיר, meaning: “when I go out from the city.” Another example would be: חלה את רגליו, “being sick from his feet and up.” (Kings I 15,23.)
+
+Verse 8
+
+ויקם מלך חדש, “a new king arose.” Some commentators, citing the fact that the death of the previous king has not been reported, claim that the Torah speaks about the same King (body), but that his attitude vis a vis the Israelites underwent such a change that he might as well have been a different king altogether. Examples of the verb קום, “to arise,” being used in this sense can be found in Job 24,14: לאור יקום רוצח, “the murderer arises with the light;” or Psalms 27,12: כי קמו בי עדי שקר, “for false witnesses have taken the stand against me.”
+
+Verse 9
+
+ויאמר אל עמו, “he said to his people: he initiated this new policy. Our sages in tractate Sotah foliol 1, state that there were three advisors of this king who were discussing how to preempt a saviour of the Israelites who would take them out of their land.[We must remember that a “people” who had come to Egypt only about 100 years previously, numbering only twelve families, and who had meanwhile multiplied and not only not assimilated, but had come to be viewed as an existentialist threat to the original Egyptians, were known to have a powerful G-d, and the Egyptians had made a point to know the source of this people’s strength. They had studied the traditions of that “people.” Ed.] The most radical advisor of Pharaoh among the three advisors, Yitro, Job and Bileam, was the latter who advised Pharaoh to commit genocide. Some of you my readers may wonder how Bileam, could have been alive still in the days of Balak when he had already been a senior advisor of Pharaoh, before Moses had been born even? This question is especially relevant in light of the tradition according to which Bileam was thirty three years old? He was still alive when the people killed him in the war against Midian in the 40th year in the desert, at which time Moses was almost 120 years old! According to the Talmud in Sanhedrin folio 106, when a heretic asked a Rabbi how old Bileam was when he was killed he was told that he was 33 or 34 years old, based on the fact that the wicked supposedly do not even reach the halfway mark of a normal lifespan of 70 years. The Rabbi who had given this answer had not been accurate, as he had based himself on the statement by Mar de brey de Ravino to his son, a scholar in the immediate post Talmudic period, according to which although we are asked to report historic events accurately, Bileam is an exception, as if one can find a way to make him look worse even than he was, we have full latitude to do so. There is an opinion according to which the Bileam who was an advisor to Pharaoh was not the same as the one we encounter in the Book of Numbers. The one mentioned here was the grandfather of the one who blessed the Jewish people in Numbers. There is also an opinion according to which there were three men who hatched the plot to seduce the Israelites to engage in sexual relations with the daughters of Moav, but that this had nothing to do with what is reported here.
+
+Verse 10
+
+
+ והיה כי תקראנה מלחמה, “it will be when war will break out, etc.” the word תקראנה refers to an unforeseen and unplanned event. One example in the Bible is Leviticus 10,19 when Aaron refers to the sudden death of two of his sons as such an event. The fact that the plural mode is used here is nothing exceptional, as we also find it again with this word in Numbers 10,9 when the use of the trumpets as a means of giving the alarm is discussed, i.e.וכי תבואו מלחמה, instead of וכי תבא מלחמה, “when war will come.”An alternate exegesis: the Torah here abbreviates instead of writing: כי תקראנה קורות מלחמה, “when warlike events will occur.” We find another verse with such grammatically unusual construction in Proverbs 15,22: וברב יועצים תקום, “when there are numerous counselors they will prevail.” The Hebrew word for “they will prevail is in the singular mode instead of in the plural mode as we would expect. When Bileam refuses to retract the blessings he gave to the Jewish people in Numbers 23,21 we also find such a grammatically puzzling construction. We have to imagine that the wording is: וברך ברכה לא אשיבנה, “a blessing once pronounced I cannot retract.”.
+ונוסף גם הוא על שונאנו, “and that in such an event, it (the Israelite nation), would make common cause with our enemies.” The word: שונאנו, literally meaning: “our enemies,” in reality refers to the Egyptians themselves. It is a figure of speech avoiding mentioning oneself in connection with a curse, as doing so is considered a bad omen. Another matter, joining our enemies will result in their leaving Egypt notwithstanding our need to keep them here.
+
+Verse 11
+
+למען ענותו בסבלותם, ‘in order to oppress them with forced labour;” in this instance this is a veiled reference to diminishing the labourers’ ability of engaging in marital intercourse due to being overworked. [The Egyptians’ purpose was to control the Jewish birthrate explosion. Ed.] We find an example of the use of the verb ענה in this context in Genesis 31,50 where Lavan warns Yaakov against denying his daughters marital relations by sleeping with other women instead. Our sages also used this expression in this context when they are quoted as accusing the Egyptians of doing this in the Haggadah of Passover. It is paraphrased there as 
+פרישות דרך ארץ, “abstention from marital relations.”
+
+Verse 12
+
+כן ירבה וכן יפרוץ, “so it would increase even more and multiply even more.” This was in line with G-d’s promise to Yaakov that his descendants would greatly multiply in Egypt. He told him not to worry about going to Egypt. (Genesis 46,3)
+
+Verse 13
+
+
+
+Verse 14
+
+ובכל עבודה בשדה, “in addition to all manner of work in agriculture.” They had to plow, to plant seed, to harvest and prune trees.
+את כל עבודתם, in addition with all their other work inside the urban areas, everything was under harsh conditions.
+
+Verse 15
+
+
+שפרה, פועה, some commentators claim that there were many midwives in Egypt, as it is impossible to believe that the two mentioned here could look after all the wives of 600000 adult males. These two were the supervisors of all the other midwives.
+
+Verse 16
+
+
+
+Verse 17
+
+
+
+Verse 18
+
+
+
+Verse 19
+
+
+
+Verse 20
+
+וייטב אלוהים למילדות, “G-d dealt kindly with the midwives.” How did this “goodness” of G-d become evident? Pharaoh did not suspect that the midwives had deliberately let the boys live, but he figured that the contribution by two midwives to the increase in the Israelite population would not be significant, in light of the many Jewish mothers that were giving birth all the time. Therefore he accepted their explanations at face value.
+
+Verse 21
+
+ויעש להם, “He made for them;” we find in many places in the Torah that the masculine pronoun is used when the subject happens to be feminine. [The word for “for them” should have been: להן, seeing that the subject, the midwives were feminine. Ed.] To quote just two examples of similar occurrences: Genesis 31,9: ויצל אלוקים את מקנה, “G-d saved the livestock of your father,” אביכם where the grammatically correct word should have been: אביכן. Or, Exodus 2,17: ויבאו הרועים ויגרשום, “the male shepherds came and chased them (the daughters of Yitro) away.” The correct word should have been ויגרשון. There are many examples of a similar kind throughout the Holy Scriptures.
+בתים, literally, “houses,” but that word is a substitute for “families,” in this instance. The children of human beings are often referred to as בית, as we find in connection with David Samuel II 7,11: והגיד לך ה' כי בית יעשה לך , “the Lord has told you that he will let you have children.” [The author followsthis with more examples. Ed.] Here too, the midwives gave birth to sons, including such people as Moses. A different explanation of our verse: The subject in the verse is not G-d, but Pharaoh, who set apart houses for the midwives from which they were not to depart. Instead of their visiting expectant mothers, these were brought to the midwives for treatment when their due date drew near. This would facilitate male babies being drowned forthwith.
+
+Verse 22
+
+לכל עמו, “to his whole nation;” seeing that Pharaoh saw that the midwives had not cooperated with him, he now ordered every Egyptian to drown each new born Jewish male baby since he thought that in this way no Jewish baby boy would survive. היארה תשליכהו “you shall cast in the river” since his astrologers predicted that one nation would be struck by water in the future (Sh’mot Rabbah 1,18), they suggested to turn this decree against the Jewish people. [According to my version first the King demanded that all pregnant Egyptian mothers be kept under his care for nine months to make sure the intended saviour of the Jewish nation would be killed. When the people refused to believe that an Egyptian could become the saviour of the Jewish people, he reinterpreted the astrologers’ forecast by saying that the saviour of the Jews would save them by means of turning water into their grave. He therefore restricted the decree to apply only to sons born by Jewish mothers.]
+וכל הבת תחיון, “and allow all the daughters to live.” This was why only the male Egyptians who pursued them after the Exodus were drowned and not the females.
+
+Chapter 2
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+וילך איש, Rabbi Yehudah son of Bizna in the Talmud Sotah folio 12, is quoted as saying: “why does this verse commence with the word: וילך, “he went?” [The word seems superfluous. Ed.] Answer: “he took the advice of his daughter.” We had been taught that when Amram, eventually Moses’ father, heard of the decree that all male babies had to be drowned, he divorced his wife so that he would not produce a child that would be drowned. When his daughter Miriam heard of his reasoning, she accused him of being worse than Pharaoh who only wanted to kill male Jews, whereas he would prevent the birth of any Jews if the people were to follow his example. Not only that, she said, but Pharaoh deprived the Jews only of life in this world, on earth, whereas her father’s policy would also deprive them of their share in the world to come. Amram saw the logic of his daughter and went and re married Yocheved, the wife he had just divorced. Nonetheless, according to the plain meaning of the text, what is reported here as Amram getting married to Yocheved and siring Miriam and Aaron, took place prior to the decree of Pharaoh to drown Jewish boy babies; however seeing that the Torah was interested in reporting to us what transpired later, it commenced with telling us about when Amram got married first and to whom, i.e. a daughter of Levi, many years his senior.
+
+Verse 2
+
+ותרא אותו כי טוב, “and when she saw (realised) that he was good (healthy) etc.” seeing that Moses was born to his mother after a pregnancy that had lasted only six months, she noted when examining the baby in detail, that all of Moses’ fingernails and toe nails were fully developed just like those of a baby after a nine month pregnancy, she realised that he was healthy and would survive the critical months ahead of him. She had no problem hiding him for three months as she had not been due to give birth during that period. When she was asked about the baby she had born by her neighbours, she would say that she had already complied with the kings’ decree and had thrown him into the Nile. A different interpretation views the word טוב as a hint that Moses had been born without a foreskin. The custom of reciting the line: הודו לה' כי טוב, “praise the Lord for He is good,” is recited during the circumcision ceremony, as a reminder that Moses did not need to be circumcised.
+ותצפנהו שלשה ירחים, “she hid him for a period of three months.” Precisely during which three months did she hide him? Moses was born on the seventh day in the month of Adar, so that his mother hid him for twentythree days during that month; she hid him during both the month of Nissan and lyar, so that the last day of the three months was the sixth day of Sivan, the date on which in due course, the Torah would be revealed to lsrael. The reason why the Torah makes an issue of the mother of Moses hiding him for three months is that the Egyptians had decreed that the last of those days would be the day on which the Jewish saviour would be born. By rights, they should have cancelled the decree to drown Jewish boy babies, but seeing that they did not do so, shows that hatred of the Jews, more than fear of a Jewish saviour was their principal concern.
+
+Verse 3
+
+ולא יכלה עוד הצפינו, “and she could not hide him any longer;” according to Rashi, she had given birth to him one day into the seventh month of her pregnancy. The Egyptians had demanded to examine her on the day following. If you were to ask that according to the Talmud in Sotah 12 Yocheved was already 3 months pregnant when her husband remarried her, how could Moses have been born after a six month pregnancy? We must therefore say that the Egyptians examined her already after six months after she had remarried. This would be nine months after she had become pregnant from her husband. The Egyptians knew that sometimes babies are born and survive after being born during the seventh month of pregnancy. Moses, on the other hand, was born three months after Yocheved had been remarried. This is why she could not hide him for longer than an additional three months.
+תיבת גומא, a basket made from the kind of reeds that grew along the banks of the river Nile and served as camouflage.
+ותחמרה, “she made it waterproof from the inside;” the letter ה at the end does not have a dagesh.
+ובזפת, “and she tarred it from the outside;” if the bitumen had been on the outside, the waters would dissolve it gradually. She had intended to recover Moses from there as soon as she had been examined and not been found pregnant anymore.
+על שפת היאור, “by the banks of the river.” She had been unable to step into the Nile waters to completely cover that basket and hide him from all directions. She could only hide him so that he could not be seen by river traffic passing by. This is why the daughter of Pharaoh did not discover him until she had descended to actually bathe in the river. Her servant maids walking alongside the river bank did not see the basket. (Rash’bam.)
+
+Verse 4
+
+
+
+Verse 5
+
+לרחוץ על היאור, “to bathe in the waters of the river; other examples of the word על meaning “in,” instead of “on, or above,” are found in: Genesis 27,40 על חרבך תחיה, “you will live with the use of your sword.” Also Exodus 12,7: על הבתים אשר יאכלו אותו בהם, “in the houses that they will eat it in.
+ונערותיה, “and her servantmaids;” this is mentioned here as the Torah shortly will refer to a specific servant maid who went to take the basket in which Moses was lying.
+הולכות ,ונערותיה, “and her servantmaids “walking,” Rashi, while interpreting the word as meaning “walking towards her death,” quotes a traditional explanation in the Talmud Sotah 12 according to which it is short for “being on a path which leads to death,” as in Genesis 25,32, where Esau is quoted as saying: הנה אנכי הולך למות, “here I am pursuing a path that will result in my death;” The scholar in the Talmud has the servant maids warning the daughter of Pharaoh who was actually going to use the waters of the Nile as a mikveh, ritual bath, in order to cleanse herself from the desecrations that were a daily occurrence in her father’s palace, by warning her that even when other people might disregard the king’s command surely his own daughter would not dare do so? They warned that by doing so she would condemn herself to death by execution. When hearing what her maidservants had said to Pharaoh’s daughter, the angel Gavriel struck them so that they fell to the ground. At this point there surfaces a divergence of opinion between two scholars, one saying that the word אמתה, as distinct from the word נערות for the servant maids used by the Torah previously, refers to the servant maid who had been spared by the angel, as it is not fitting for a princess to remain without at least one of her attendants. The other scholar does not understand the word אמתה as “her servant maid,” but as “her arm,” i.e. the arm of the princess which had been miraculously lengthened to the extent of about 2,5 meters for this purpose. Rashi, for reasons of a grammatical nature, rejects the second opinion offered in the Talmud, saying that if correct the letter מ in that word would have to have a dot, dagesh in it. He adds that further proof is the fact that the letter א in the word is vocalised with an abbreviated vowel chataf patach.
+
+Verse 6
+
+ותפתח ותראהו “she opened (the basket) and she saw him;” who is the subject of the suffix הו in this line? Seeing that at that point Pharaoh’s daughter did not yet know if the infant was an abandoned girl or an abandoned baby boy, the word ילד, is used which is neutral. After she opened the basket, she realised that it was a crying baby boy. Another exegesis: she suddenly noticed an older boy crying, i.e. Aaron, seeing that he was the brother of the baby in the basket. Noticing Aaron, she immediately came to the conclusion that the baby boy in the basket must be one of the Hebrews. Our sages, commenting on the fact that the baby Moses is once called ילד, and once נער in the same verse, teaches that his mother had made a wedding canopy inside that basket. (Sotah 12) She did so as she worried she might not merit seeing him get married.
+
+Verse 7
+
+מן העבריות, “from amongst the Hebrew wet nurses. Egyptian wet nurses would refuse to nurse Hebrew children. (Avodah Zarah 26).
+
+Verse 8
+
+ותלך העלמה, “the young lady went, etc.” The reason why the Torah calls her by the description עלמה, is because she concealed the fact that she was the baby’s sister.
+
+Verse 9
+
+היליכי, some commentators claim that this word is from the root הלך as in הולכה, the letter י taking the place of the letter ו. Similar examples occur with the mode: ,היטיבי .היניקי
+והניקהו לי, “and nurse him for me.” The letter ק has the vowel chirik under it.
+
+Verse 10
+
+
+ותקרא שמו משה, “she named him: Moses.” According to our sages this proves that she converted (by immersing herself in the Nile) to Judaism and learned the Hebrew tongue.) She commemorated the miracles of his& having been saved from the waters of the Nile by expressing this in her choice of name. An alternate explanation: the daughter of Pharaoh did not know any Hebrew, but the plain meaning of the text is that his mother Yocheved called him Moses. When the daughter of Pharaoh wanted to know the meaning of this name, she explained to her that in Hebrew the word משה derived from המשכה, means drawing something, pulling it. When hearing this, the daughter of Pharaoh agreed wholeheartedly with the name given to this infant, for in her own words: “I have pulled him out of the water.” She added that in the future she hoped that what she had done for that infant he would do for others when he would grow up, that is, that he would pull the Jewish people out of Egypt. (Midrash hagadol)
+
+Verse 11
+
+
+
+Verse 12
+
+וין את המצרי, “he struck the Egyptian (dead).” He found that he had committed a capital offence according to the seven laws that all of mankind must obey. His offence was that he had raped someone else’s wife, and the Torah had forbidden this when writing in Genesis 2,24: ודבק באשתו, “he is to cleave to his wife,” and not to the wife of another man. (According to Tossaphot, Kidushin 21.) There was no need to warn that Egyptian beforehand in order to make him culpable for the death penalty as we derive from Genesis 20,3: “you are going to die on account of the woman (Sarah whom you have taken captive)”, and Avimelech had not first received warning.
+ויטמנהו בחול, “he buried him in the sand.” Apparently there was sand at hand which was meant to be used in construction of houses.
+
+Verse 13
+
+
+
+Verse 14
+
+מי שמך לאיש שר ושופט, “who has appointed you as lord or judge?” The word איש here was a reference to Moses’ youth, to the fact that he was below the minimum age for having risen to such a position.
+
+Verse 15
+
+
+
+Verse 16
+
+ולכהן מדין שבע בנות, “and the priest of Midian was father of seven daughters;” Yitro was the High Priest in Midian, and the Torah had to explain that the reason none of his sons was tending his livestock was the fact that he only had daughters. Another explanation: Yitro had dissociated himself from paganism, and after that no one was willing to tend his flocks after he had been officially ostracized by his townsfolk.
+
+Verse 17
+
+
+
+Verse 18
+
+
+
+Verse 19
+
+
+
+Verse 20
+
+למה עזבתן, “Why did you abandon him?” According to Rashi, when Yitro heard that the waters from the well had risen at the approach of Moses, he realised that this man was someone special. The expression דלה דלה לנו, implies that the waters rose towards them as a result of Moses’ assistance.
+
+Verse 21
+
+ויתן את צפורה בתו למשה, “He gave his daughter Tzipporah to Moses (as a wife.)” What is the significance of the name “Tzipporah?” She had run towards Moses like a bird (צפור) An alternate interpretation: she was beautiful as the morning at the time of sunrise. She lit up the atmosphere in the morning. The Aramaic word צפרא means: “morning;” it is used to describe how welcome the morning is. Our author quotes Ezekiel 7,7 “the day is near,” as well as Judges 7,3: as a bird flies from Mount Gilad,” to support his point.
+
+Verse 22
+
+ותלד בן, “she gave birth to a son;” there is no mention of her having been pregnant first; this is to tell us that she remained looking like an unmarried virgin, slim throughout her pregnancy. (Pessikta Zutrata)
+ויקרא את שמו גרשום, “he called his name Gershom.” If we were to be judgmental, Moses should have given his son a name that reflected his miraculous escape from Pharaoh and his police. Moses did not mention this until his second son was born whom he called appropriately “Eliezer,” i.e. “My G-d Who is my helper.” We may explain this as Moses feeling that as long as Pharaoh was still on the throne he was still in danger regardless of where he had found temporary refuge. We see proof of this when G-d told him in Exodus 4,19 that all the people who had sought his death had died in the meantime. This meant that the Pharaoh whom he had known had died also. Immediately Moses heard this he responded when his second son was born. Compare 4,24 where Moses is punished while at the inn for having delayed circumcision of his second son, seeing that he was no longer in danger as G-d had told him. [This suggests that Eliezer may have been as much as 50 years younger than his older brother. Ed.] A different interpretation: when Gershom had been born Moses was still a newcomer in Midian, and he felt like an alien there. If he had called the first son Eliezer, he would have endangered himself by hinting that he had needed to escape from Egypt as a common criminal and had only been saved by Divine intervention. By the time Eliezer was born, he felt at home in Midian, hence the time had come to thank the Lord for his deliverance from danger.
+
+Verse 23
+
+ויהי בימים הרבים ההם, “It was during these many years, etc;” the reference is to the 400 years that G-d had told Avraham that it would take before His promise to him that his descendants would be redeemed from the land in which they would be slaves would be fulfilled. The Jewish people in Egypt now felt that the time for them to be redeemed had arrived.
+הרבים ההם, “these many.” When times are bad (for the people under discussion) then the expression for “many” used in the Torah is רבים. When times are good, even for a long period, they are referred to as מעטים, “few.” The reason is that as soon as the good times are over, the people who have enjoyed them consider them as having been too short.
+וימת מלך מצרים, “the King of Egypt died.” G-d advanced the time of his death. As soon as that king had died, G-d appeared to Moses at the thorn bush and told Moses to go back to Egypt. Seeing that all the people who had been interested in killing him or seeing him killed had died already, (4,19) G-d did not want Moses to be in a position of refusing the leadership of the Jewish people due to fears for his personal safety. He had already found sufficient arguments to decline G-d’s request as we will read shortly, without raising the subject of his personal fear. He went as far as telling G-d to look for someone else. (4,13)
+ויאנחו בני ישראל, “the Children of Israel were groaning;” they were well aware that their G-d had decreed a period of 400 years of mixed bondage and being treated as aliens at the time He concluded the covenant of the pieces with Avraham in Genesis chapter 15. They had mistakenly thought that the period of 400 years commenced from the day that covenant had come into force. They did not know that if they had paid close attention to the wording of that covenant, they would have realised that the countdown could not have started until the day Yitzchok was born, as the promise was not to him (Avraham) but to Avraham’s descendants (Compare Genesis 15,4). A different interpretation of the reason why the Israelites are described as groaning at this point: As long as the old king had been alive, they had hoped that with his death the harsh decrees against them would “die” also because the custom was that a new king would free all prisoners. But now the decree of their enslavement was not cancelled. When they found out that they had hoped in vain, they groaned and prayed to G-d, as they were on the verge of giving up hope. [This was the first time in 86 years that they prayed to G-d. Ed.]
+
+Verse 24
+
+את נאקתם, “their moaning;” they complained about the physical abuse they had to endure from the Egyptian taskmasters. Compare 3,7: ואת צעקתם שמעתי מפני נוגשיו, “and I have heeded their outcry because of their taskmasters.”
+ויזכור א־לוהים את בריתו, “G-d remembered His covenant;” part of the covenant had been the promise that the people maltreating the Israelites would be punished by Him. (Genesis 15,14) The period of 400 years slavery which is reckoned from the birth of Yitzchok had now come to an end.
+
+Verse 25
+
+וירא אלהים את בני ישראל, “G-d saw the Children of Israel;” the words “He saw,” mean that “He paid attention to what He saw.” He paid attention to their suffering. Other examples of similar constructions in the Torah are: Exodus33,12, ראה, אתה אומר אלי, “See, You say to me;” or Exodus 12,13: וראיתי את הדם, “when I see the blood, etc.”
+וידע א־להים, “G-d knew.” A construction similar to Proverbs 27,23: ידוע תדע פני צאנך, “make sure that you know the looks of your flocks;” G-d summoned His mercy in order to react to their problems. Another exegesis of the repeated name of G-d here: the expression וירא אלהים, refers to G-d seeing what the Egyptians were doing to the people publicly; the expression וידע אלהים, refers to G-d seeing what they were doing to the Israelites where no one saw it. This is also how our sages in the Haggadah shel Pessach understand this verse, i.e. the first expression refers to the Egyptians making it almost impossible for the Israelites to maintain marital relations. The second expression tells the reader that although due to the intimate and private nature of having marital relations there were no witnesses to these sufferings, G-d goes on record that He is a living witness. Nothing can be concealed from Him.
+
+Chapter 3
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+
+
+אחרי המדבר, “beyond the desert.” [Presumably Moses went beyond the desert to avoid encroaching on privately owned land for Yitro’s sheep to graze on. Ed.]
+חרבה, “near Mount Chorev;” this is about 3 days’ march from the border of Egypt, as we know from Exodus 5,3, where Moses asks permission for his people to offer sacrifices there to Hashem and he asks for them to be allowed to walk that distance, i.e. three days’ march. The reason why the Mountain is better known as Sinai, is because this is where the miracle of the burning bush, סנה occurred. (Ibn Ezra)
+
+Verse 2
+
+בלבת אש, “in the heart of the fire;” G-d wanted Moses to get used to such a phenomenon so that when the time came for the revelation at Mount Sinai, he would not become frightened by either it or the lightning.
+מתוך הסנה, some commentators explain that seeing that an angel is a completely disembodied “intelligence,” has no physical aspect at all, he could not be presented as if it had emanated from something etched into stone or painted onto something.
+והסנה איננו אוכל, “but the bush was not being consumed by the fire.” This was a symbol for both Israel and the Egyptians. The Israelites’ enemy, Egypt, is portrayed as an all consuming fire, while his prey, Israel, is supposed to be represented by the bush that refuses to be consumed by the fire. (Sh’mot Rabbah 2,5)
+
+Verse 3
+
+מדוע לא יבאר הסנה, “why the bush fails to burn.” This is a verse that has been artificially shortened. After having observed that the bush had not been consumed by the fire, Moses wanted to investigate the reason for this, i.e. “why does it not burn?” As it is written, it makes no sense, since Moses had witnessed that it was burning; he had only not observed the outcome of this, i.e. that the fibers would be turning into ash.
+
+Verse 4
+
+
+כי סר לראות, “that he had turned to have a look;” whenever the expression סור appears and is followed by the prefix letter מ, it means that the subject of whom the verse speaks has distanced himself further from the phenomenon under discussion. Best known example: סורו ממני, ”turn away from me!” (Psalms 6,9) On the other hand, if the word following is either אל or the prefix ל, it invites the person addressed to come closer.
+
+Verse 5
+
+של נעליך, “throw off your shoes.” The expression של is from the root נשל, “to disengage;” we find it both in Deuteronomy 28,40, כי ישל זיתך, “for your olives will fall off,” and in Deuteronomy 7,1, ונשל גוים רבים, “and He will dislodge many nations.”
+מעל רגלך, “from your feet.” The reason is that you might have stepped on something unfit to be found in a holy place. The reason why the Torah added: “from your feet,” seeing we normally wear shoes on our feet, is that the word נעל also occurs for gloves, as in Ruth 4,7: שלף איש נעלו “where the translation is: נרתק יד ימינה, “sleeve of the right hand/arm.”Our sages in B’rachot 54 have ruled that no one may ascend the Temple Mount while wearing (leather) shoes. [The reason is that at a place where the reverence for the Temple prevails, it would like a lack of faith if one had to rely on shoes to be protected against snake bites, etc., instead of trusting in G-d to be protected. [I have seen this in commentary by Bartenura on Megillat Ruth. Ed.]
+כי המקום אשר אתה עומד וגו, “for the place that you are standing on is sacred.” Wherever we find that the Shechinah opens a dialogue with man, be it here, or with Joshua 5,14-19, or the revelation of the Torah in Exodus 19,21-27, the location is a sacred location. In other instances where G-d addressed prophets, the place is not automatically holy.
+
+Verse 6
+
+אנכי אלוקי אביך, I am the G-d of your father;” by saying these words G-d revealed to Moses that his father had already died, for we have a tradition that G-d does not associate His Holy name to living persons, as He does not know if they will abandon Him before they die. The rule is: הן בקדושים לא יאמין, “He does not display trust even in His holy ones,” until they have departed life on this earth. The reason why G-d decided to tell Moses in this way that his father Am ram, who had been the leader of the Jewish people in Egypt, would not be used by Moses as an excuse to decline his appointment as his father’s successor. If Moses was reluctant to accept the appointment out of respect for his older brother, how much more would he decline out of respect for his father.
+ויסתר משה פניו, Moses hid his face; the fact that Moses hid his face at this point was the reason that he merited that he eventually attained a spiritual level when his own face radiated spirituality to the degree that unless he was discussing Torah, the people could not bear looking at him. (Exodus 34,30). Compare also Numbers 12,8, where G-d explains this level of Moses to Miriam and Aaron.
+
+Verse 7
+
+
+
+Verse 8
+
+זבת חלב, “flowing with milk and honey.”
+
+Verse 9
+
+צעקת בני ישראל באה אלי, “the outcry of the Children of Israel has come to My attention;” if you were to say that their outcry was in vain, I go on record as: וגם ראיתי את הלחץ, “and I have also taken note of their oppression;” i.e. they are fully justified in their complaints.
+
+Verse 10
+
+את עמי בני ישראל “My people, the Children of Israel.” Another example of this formulation is found in Genesis 21,10, Sarah saying: עם בני, עם יצחק, “with my son, with Yizchok.”
+
+Verse 11
+
+?מי אנכי, “what distinguishes me?” Moses answered G-d point by point in the order of what G-d had said to him. The question of what qualified hm to be chosen for this task was the answer to G-d having said to him: !לכה, “go!” the words: כי אלך אל פרעה, “that I should go,” was the answer to G-d having said to him: ואשלחך אל פרעה, “I am sending you to Pharaoh.” The words: וכי אוציא, “and that I should lead out,” were Moses’ reply to G-d having said to him: והוצא את עמי, “and lead out My people.” G-d in turn, proceeded to answer Moses point by point in order: כי אהיה עמך, “For I will be at your side,” was the answer to Moses’ question: “Why am I qualified etc.” The words: כי אנכי שלחתיך, “for it is I Who have sent you,” is the answer to Moses having said: כי אלך אל פרעה, “that I should go to Pharaoh;” the words: בהוציאך את העם הזה, were the answer to Moses having asked וכי אוציא.
+
+Verse 12
+
+על ההר הזה, “on this Mountain.” The word על here must be understood as “close to.” The Presence of G-d Himself, would tower above the Mountain.
+
+Verse 13
+
+
+
+Verse 14
+
+אהיה אשר אהיה, the first word אהיה is the name of G-d; the second is an explanation of why G-d is called אהיה. In other words: the reason why My name is אהיה is because I am eternal, immutable. I am therefore a most reliable G-d, in the sense of dependable helper and saviour, as I will always be around. My “lifespan” is not as that word suggests a limited period, but I am not subject to any limitations. I will still be on the side of the Jewish people at the time when I redeem them from the sufferings in Egypt, as already promised by Yaakov to Joseph in Genesis 48,21. In other words, the name revealed to Moses here by G-d was not a new name. Yaakov had already been familiar with it. It is one of the attributes of G-d, Who has many attributes. G-d tells Moses that anyone who legitimizes himself as speaking of the G-d called אהיה, will be believed. The fact is that the Israelites did believe Moses when he identified himself as speaking in the name of this G-d, as we read in Exodus 4,31.
+
+Verse 15
+
+:ויאמר עוד אל־הים אל משה: כה תאמר אל בני ישראל, “G-d continued speaking to Moses, saying to him: “thus you shall say to the Children of Israel:” G-d told Moses that it is not appropriate when speaking of G-d to always refer to the name that G-d had just revealed to Moses. This we know already from a mortal king, whom the people applaud when shouting: “long live the king,” without mentioning the king’s name, as this would be discourteous. If a mortal king is not always referred to by his personal name, how much less so is it seemly to refer to the King of Kings on all occasions by His personal name? Whenever anyone will speak to you about the Exodus from Egypt, he will refer to G-d simply as: “Hashem, the G-d of your fathers.” {Mechilta, Pischa, chapter 16)
+ה׳ אלוקי אבותיכם אלוקי אברהם, “Hashem the G-d of your fathers, the G-d of Avraham;” this is the source of the benedictions commencing with the words: ברוך אתה ה׳ אלוקינו ואלוקי אבותינו, אלוקי אברהם, אלוקי יצחק, ואלוקי יעקב, “blessed be You, Hashem, our G-d, the G-d of our fathers, the G-d of Avraham, the G-d of Yitzchok’ and the G-d of Yaakov.”
+זה שמי, “this is My (personal) Name;” G-d repeats the first אהיה in verse 14; this is also how we spell (in writing) His Name. G-d speaks of how He calls Himself, whereas we mortals, of course do not refer to Him in the first person, but will adjust to the third person either as יהיה, or י־ה־וה. (Compare Rash’bam on the subject. He concludes that details are not to be revealed except to a category of people he terms: צנועים, familiar with Kabbalah.) The spelling with the letter ו instead of the letter י is explained by our author as not as unusual as we might think. For instance we find Yitzchok in his blessing saying to Yaakov as saying: הוה גביר לאחיך, where we would have expected: הוה בר, “be your brother’s superior.” [The letters י and ו possess a degree of interchangeability. Ed.]
+וזה זכרי לדור דור, “and this is My Memorial for all generations.” The reference is to the second verse 15, i.e. 'ה אלוקי אבותיכם.
+
+Verse 16
+
+את זקני ישראל, “the elders of the people of Israel.” Rashi understands the word: זקני here as referring to the “elders” in the sense of the leading sages; he adds that it would have been impossible for Moses to assemble all the aged people in a nation of over 600000. Exodus 4,29, where a similar assembly is reported must be understood in the same way.
+
+Verse 17
+
+ואמר אעלה אתכם, “I said: ’I will lead you up, etc.’ Moses is to quote to them what G-d had said to him.
+
+Verse 18
+
+ושמעו לקלן, “they will listen to you (and believe you).” Rashi explains that the reason that the people will immediately believe Moses was that they had a tradition going back to Yaakov according to which their eventual saviour would introduce himself by referring to G-d as having used the words: פקוד פקדתי אתכם, “I have surely remembered you.” Actually, Rashi is not correct, as that tradition only went back to Joseph having used these word in Genesis 50,25.
+נקרה עלינו, “has appeared for our sake.” The construction is similar to Psalms 44,23: כי עליך הורגנו כל היום, “for we are being killed daily for Your sake.” Another example of a similar construction is found in Psalms 69,8: כי עליב נשאתי חרפה, “it is for Your sake that I have been reviled;”
+דרך שלשת ימים, “a distance of three days’ walk.” This is also what the Israelites did, eventually; as it is written: Exodus 13,20: ויסעו מסכות, “they broke camp from having rested at Sukkot, (1) ויחנו ביום השני, they encamped again on the second day, איתם בקצה המדבר(2) ב, “at Eytam” on the third day at the edge of the desert. (3).
+
+Verse 19
+
+ואני ידעתי כי לא יתן אתכם מלך מצרים להלוך, “I know already that the King of Egypt will not permit you to go;” G-d revealed to Moses beforehand that Pharaoh would become obstinate; He told Moses this in advance so that he would not become discouraged over Pharaoh’s refusal. Seeing that in the event Moses still did become discouraged, we can imagine how much more discouraged he would have been if G-d had not foretold him that.
+ולא ביד חזקה, “not even after I will perform nine plagues to change his mind,” as we know from Deuteronomy 34,12 where in the last verse of the Torah, this has been repeated for the benefit of the next generation that had not been alive at the Exodus and had witnessed all this. G-d told Moses that only after the tenth plague when He would slay all the firstborn of and in Egypt, would Pharaoh finally relent and even expel the Israelites. (verse 20)
+
+Verse 20
+
+
+
+Verse 21
+
+לא תלכו ריקם, “you will not go out empty handed.” The Egyptians will supply you with three different kinds of parting gifts: silver, gold, and garments, all in order to keep My promise to Avraham in Genesis 15,14: “and at the end they will depart with great material wealth.” Another example of a similar construction is found in the legislation commanding the owner of a Jewish slave at the end of his term of service, to grant him as parting gift, some livestock, some grain, and some grapes or wine. (Deuteronomy 15,14)
+
+Verse 22
+
+ושאלה אשה, and a woman will ask for, etc.;” the Torah does not use the word ושאלה here as “a loan,” [as misunderstood by all the gentiles reading a translated text of the Torah Ed.] but they will ask for this as an outright gift. Another example of the word שאל being used to describe an outright gift is found in Psalms 2,8: שאל ממני ואתנה, “ask it of Me and I will grant (it).”
+ושאלה אשה, the men would also demand valuables; the reason that the Torah emphasizes the women doing so, is simply that for women it is more customary to ask for jewelry, etc; this is also why the Torah when speaking of witchcraft mentions a witch, מכשפה, in Exodus 22,17 as having to be put to death, although a male engaging in witchcraft is, of course, subject to the same penalty. It is simply a fact that women engage in that activity far more often than men.
+כלי כסף וכלי זהב ושמלות, “silver and golden trinkets, as well as garments They claimed that they needed these in order to celebrate their religious holiday in style.”
+ונצלתם את מצרים, “as a result of which you will strip Egypt bare.” These “gifts” would compensate the people for the many years they had performed slave labour without compensation.
+
+Chapter 4
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+ולא ישמעו בקולי, “they (the people) will not listen to me (Take me seriously).” if you were to argue that there is a contradiction here, G-d having told Moses that they will have faith in Him in 3,18, the answer is that Moses argues that they will not believe that Moses is His prophet, but is an impostor. This sounds heretical, as G-d had told Moses in 3,18 that they will listen to him and believe in him? The answer is that G-d had spoken of the elders, whereas here he had been asked to instruct the people who were asked to believe that the Egyptians would hand over all their valuables.
+
+Verse 2
+
+?מזה בידך, “what is this in your hand?” The word מזה is to be read as if it had been spelled in two words, i.e. מה זה.
+
+Verse 3
+
+
+
+Verse 4
+
+
+
+Verse 5
+
+
+
+Verse 6
+
+
+
+Verse 7
+
+
+
+Verse 8
+
+והאמינו לקול האות האחרון, “they will believe in the effect of the (sound) of the last miracle.” Healing the skin disease of tzoraat was so unheard of that it would convince the people that Moses had been sent by G-d as only He could do this.
+
+Verse 9
+
+והיו לדם ביבשת, “and it (the waters) will turn into blood as soon as it hits the dry ground.” This water, once it had turned into blood on the ground, would not revert to become water again even when the plague had ended. This would serve as proof to the Egyptians that this phenomenon had had its origin in heaven. Anything that is manipulated by witchcraft etc., is reversible. Here we are dealing with real blood. (as opposed to the waters that had remained in the river or lakes)
+
+Verse 10
+
+בי אדוני, this is the name of G-d spelled with the letters אדני; (not permitted to erase)
+לא איש דברים אנכי, this verse is incomplete, and it must be understood as follows: “Please, O Lord, I have not been a man of eloquent tongue since my birth already.” By saying that he was not eloquent “yesterday, i.e. אתמול,” it follows that earlier, i.e. “the day before yesterday,” i.e. שלשום, I had been even less eloquent. I have also not become more eloquent since My Lord has seen fit to speak to me.”If we were to take the text at face value, how would we explain that Moses proceeds first backwards in time, i.e. “yesterday and the day before yesterday,” and then jumps to the present? He should have said: “I am not eloquent since You spoke to me, nor have I been eloquent the day previously, nor the day before that.”
+גם מאז דברך אל עבדך, “neither since You have spoken to Your servant.” He meant to tell G-d that having been worthy to be addressed by G-d had not enabled him to henceforth speak more eloquently, (or distinctly).
+כי ��בד פה ובד לשון אנכי, “for I suffer from a speech handicap.” He implies that this handicap has been his ever since he was forced to flee from Egypt. I fled from Egypt when I was a young man of 20. Now that I am 80 years old I have forgotten to speak the Egyptian language, but Aaron my brother never left Egypt and he know how to speak Egyptian well. [I believe that our author feels uncomfortable with implying that Moses would have criticised G-d for having been born with this handicap. Ed.]
+
+Verse 11
+
+מי שם פה לאדם “Who has provided man with a mouth to speak with?” G-d replies that since it is He Who has given man the power of speech when He created the species, it was He who has given or restricted his power of speech. Clearly, if it was His will to do so, He could correct his handicap. G-d, as previously, answers Moses point by point.
+אלם, “dumb,” this is spelling out the first of the faculties that G-d has equipped the human species with, i.e. speech; חרש, refers to the ability to hear sounds. [Thus far G-d mentions physical faculties. Ed.]פקח, “intelligent;” the reason why this faculty is inserted here before the sense of sight, is that although both hearing correctly and seeing correctly, are merely physical functions, they require the abstract faculty of intelligence to become meaningful to a human being. Compare: Isaiah 42,20: ולא תשמור פקוח אזנים ולא ישמע, “with ears open he hears nothing.” Or: verse 7 in the same chapter of Isaiah: לפקוח עמים עורות, “opening eyes deprived of light.”
+או עור, “or blind?” Rashi understands this as a question concerning who made the Egyptians blind when Moses fled and as a result of their blindness they did not find him. He bases himself on Exodus 2,15: וישמע פרעה, “Pharaoh heard,” but he could not see. According to Rashi, Pharaoh’s executioner’s sword was blunted by Moses’ neck becoming rock hard. (Jerusalem Talmud tractate B’rachot chapter 9, halachah 1)
+
+Verse 12
+
+עם פיך, “I will heal your handicap so that you can speak clearly and distinctly. “When Moses realised that all his objections thus far had been useless, including the hints he gave G-d concerning his basic unfitness due to his speech defect, he revealed that his real reason was that he did not want to deprive his older brother, the first born Aaron, of that honour. He knew that Aaron was an eloquent orator. This is why he concluded with the suggestion that G-d should appoint Aaron who during Moses’ many years of being in Midian had been the leader of the Jewish people. He phrased it by saying: “please send the one that You have seen fit to send up to now, as long as it is not I.”At that point, G-d became angry (verse 14) pointing out that Aaron would be very pleased to accept the mission G-d would appoint him to become His spokesman. He will be very happy to meet Moses again, and to hear that his brother Moses had become a prophet. He would not be jealous of him at all, as Moses had unfairly suspected. At this point, Moses accepted the mission and set out to perform it.
+
+Verse 13
+
+ויאמר בי אדוני, the word adonay is again the name of G-d spelled with אד.
+
+Verse 14
+
+וראך ושמח בלבו “and when he sees you, he will be glad in his heart” He will be happy that you have become a prophet and he will not be jealous of you. When Moshe heard this, he immediately went to Egypt.
+
+Verse 15
+
+
+
+Verse 16
+
+
+
+Verse 17
+
+
+
+Verse 18
+
+וישב אל יתר חותנו, “Moses returned to his fatherinlaw Yeter.” (Yitro) He returned from the desert where he had the encounter at the thorn bush, in order to bring Yitro’s flock back to him. He had no idea when he would return to Midian.
+
+Verse 19
+
+ויאמר ה׳ אל משה במדין, “G-d spoke to Moses while he was still in Midian; after G-d had first spoken to Moses in the desert, He now spoke to him again in Midian.
+כי מתו כל האנשים וגו׳׳, “that all the men (who sought his death) had died in the meantime; Rashi identifies these two men as Datan and Aviram of the tribe of Reuven. [This is problematic as these same people conspired against him with Korach about 2 years after the Exodus. (Compare Numbers 16,1) Ed.] Rashi knew this of course; what he meant was that in the meantime these two men had become blind, and according to the Talmud in Nedarim 64, blind people are considered as if dead already. They had the effrontery to accuse Moses of trying to scratch out the eyes of the seeing. Compare Numbers 16,14. There are 3 other categories that the Talmud in Nedarim quoted are considered as dead, the ones smitten with the skin disease tzoraat, the childless, as well as the poor. Seeing that Datan and Aviram are reported as having children, and seeing that they had not been ostracised outside the camp, they had to be either blind or poor, or both. According to the plain meaning of the text, G-d had referred to the Egyptians who sought Moses’ death, the ones biologically related to the Egyptian whom Moses had slain.
+
+Verse 20
+
+ויקח משה את אשתו ואת בניו, “Moses took his wife and his sons;” seeing that both of his sons were still very young and in need of constant attention by their mother, their mother is mentioned here first, whereas when Yaakov fled from his uncle Lavan and fatherinlaw in Genesis 31,17, his sons are mentioned before his wives.
+וישב ארצה מצרים, “he returned headed for Egypt.” He now continued his journey alone. After the angel, (G-d’s messenger), had shown him that G-d had been displeased that Eliezer had not yet been circumcised, Moses left his family there (at the inn), and continued on towards Egypt. After Eliezer had recovered from his circumcision, Tzipporah and children returned to her father in Midian.
+את מטה האלוהים, “the staff of G-d.” This staff had not yet been renamed as “Moses’ staff” because he had not yet performed miracles with it.
+
+Verse 21
+
+ראה כל המופתים, “look at all the miracles, etc.” only one of the three miracles that Moses had performed thus far, he performed before Pharaoh, i.e. the staff turning into a vicious snake.
+ואני אחזק את לבו, “I will harden his heart;” this does not mean that G-d deprives Pharaoh of the ability to become a penitent and to reverse his attitude and cooperate with G-d’s commands if he so wills it. The line must be understood as follows: “I will give him additional courage so that seeing My miracles he will not die from fright until all My miracles will have been performed.” This is also how we must understand Exodus 73: ואני אקשה את לב פרעה, “I will toughen Pharaoh’s heart;” he will not collapse from fear.” If you needed proof for this interpretation consider Exodus 9,15: כי עתה שלחתי את ידי ואך אותך, “for now I will stretch out My hand and smite you with pestilence.”
+
+Verse 22
+
+בני בכורי ישראל, “My firstborn son, Israel.” All of G-ds creatures are His children. However, Israel is the most beloved of His children as when He created mankind the species, it was for the sake of eventually there being a nation like Israel. An alternate exegesis: When Yaakov (Israel) purchased the birthright from Esau and he eventually acknowledged that he had deserved it, I had been instrumental in this, and until Aaron became a priest the Temple service was meant to be performed by the firstborn. This is why I demand that you release My firstborn son to perform the service fore me in the desert.
+
+Verse 23
+
+If you keep refusing to release My firstborn, הנה אנכי הורג את בנך בכורך, “I am going to kill your firstborn.” G-d explains to Pharaoh that His system of meting out justice is based on the punishment fitting the crime. Rashi adds that here we find G-d already predicting that noncompliance will eventually result in the tenth plague.
+
+Verse 24
+
+ויהי בדרך למלון, “it was while they had been on the way, at an inn; this verse ought to have been appended to verse 20 where we were told: ויקח מה את אשתו ואת בניו, “Moses took his wife and his sons;” it is similarly out of place as is Exodus 21,36 שלם ישלם “he is to pay double,” really belongs in verse 37 in that chapter. The reason why it is written where it is, is that the Torah did not want to interrupt what G-d had been saying to Moses.
+ויפגשהו, “he encountered him;” the expression is remindful of Hoseah 13,8: אפגשם כדב שכול, “I attack them like a bear robbed of its young.”
+ויבקש להמיתו, “he attempted to kill him;” according to Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel, the angel attempted to kill Eliezer, the uncircumcised baby. (Talmud Nedarim 32) This is why Tzipporah called her son Eliezer a “groom acquired through blood” (of circumcision). [She meant that if she had not circumcised him she would have lost him. Ed.] A different interpretation: the angel tried to kill Moses. He had been guilty of not circumcising Eliezer on the eighth day of his life as G-d had commanded that it be done. He should have done so and left him with his mother in Midian. This would have enabled him to carry out the mission entrusted to him by G-d without delay and without hold ups due to consideration of the needs of his family. Instead he had walked slowly while his family was riding. (Nedarim 31)
+ויבקש המיתו, according to Rashi the reason for Moses’ punishment was not that he had not circumcised Eliezer on the way, but that this was not his first concern when arriving at the inn. To the question that seeing that neglecting to perform circumcision carries a very severe penalty, as opposed to delaying his trip to Egypt which was only the slight delay in performing a positive commandment, something that normally is not even punishable at all, so why did Moses indeed not perform the commandment of circumcision on time? The answer is that it is not the father of the child that is subject to this penalty, but the uncircumcised male when he is old enough to arrange for his own circumcision if his father failed to do so. The Torah spells this out when writing: וערל זכר אשר לא ימול בשר ערלתו ונכרתה, “when a male with a foreskin allows his foreskin not to be circumcised he will be cut off, etc.” (Genesis 17,14) This is why Moses was not bothered by attending to other details about his family’s accommodation before attending to circumcision of his son.
+
+Verse 25
+
+ותקח צפורה וגו, “Tzipporah took etc.” what prompted Tzipporah was that her husband had been weakened by the attack of that angel so that he, personally, was unable to perform this commandment. He therefore revealed to his wife what had to be done, and she performed the deed.
+צר, a sharp scalpel. Compare Joshua 5,2 חרבות צורים, according to Rash’bam. An alternate interpretation: the word צר means “stone;” we find it as having this meaning also in Ezekiel 3,9: כשמיר חזק מצור, like a shamir, “even harder than rock.” She took what was at hand.
+ותגע לרגליו; “she touched his male member.” This is another word being used to describe the area of it where the circumcision had to be performed. We find another occasion where the word: רגליו has been used in the same sense in Samuel II 19,25: לא עשה רגליו, “he had not attended to his private parts.” It is necessary to rephrase this verse so that it means: “Tzipporah took a scalpel and applied the sharp edge of it to the male member of her child and she cut off his foreskin.”Still another interpretation: the subject in the word: לרגליו are the angel’s feet. She considered what she had done as a kind of sacrifice to G-d, and placed it (the foreskin) at the feet of G-d’s representative, in this case, the angel. We find something similar to this when Gideon as well as Manoach in the Book of Judges, placed their “sacrifice” at the feet of the angel. (Compare Pessikta de Zutrata on Exodus 12,13 at length on this subject). Another explanation is that she threw the foreskin at Moshe’s feet because she thought that the blood of the mitzvah would banish the danger, just as we read later on in Egypt that the blood of the Pascal lamb kept the destroying angel away from the Jewish homes.
+(ותאמר (אל משה, “she said: (to Moses)”
+כי חתן דמים אתה לי, “for you are a bridegroom to me on account of the circumcision.” She attributed the fact the Moses had almost be killedn to herself, i.e. as being her fault for having married her, a Midianite, something not appropriate for Hebrews to do. She considered herself as inferior to Moses.
+
+Verse 26
+
+וירף ממנו, “he let him alone;” after Tzipporah had performed the circumcision on her son, the angel left. and no longer tried to kill Moses; at that point Tzipporah understood what it had been that caused her husband to almost have been killed, i.e. the fact that Eliezer had remained uncircumcised until then. This is the reason why she had not referred to the word למולות, “on account of circumcision,” in the previous verse where she first described herself a bridegroom of blood. A different interpretation: As long as Moses and Tzipporah had lived in her father’s house, Moses had not been punished for not having circumcised Eliezer because his fatherinlaw would have tried to prevent him from doing so. Compare Yonathan ben Uzziel on the subject who attributes the fact that Moses’ grandson became an idolater to the fact that Gershom had not been circumcised as part of an agreement between Moses and his fatherinlaw that one of his sons could be circumcised but not the other. The reason that the angel tried to kill Moses was on account of Tzipporah, who had opposed his circumcision before. (Compare Judges 18,30, and the commentators there) Nonetheless most people understand the matter as being the non circumcision of Eliezer, not Gershom. At the same time no one has attempted to either explain (away) the aggadah of Moses having made a deal with his fatherinlaw concerning the subject of circumcision. If you were to counter that Rashi on verse 2,16 has already stated that Yitro had abandoned idolatry so how could he have opposed Moses’ circumcising his son, I believe that this Rashi need not be understood literally, i.e. Yitro had not converted to Abrahamitic monotheism, but had become what we call “a ger toshav” a proselyte who had accepted the seven basic laws G-d gave to mankind. He himself had certainly not circumcised himself, in the opinion of Rashi.
+כי חתן דמים אתה לי, “for you are a bridegroom of blood to me.” According to Rashi, the word דמים should be understood as in שופך דמים, “spilling blood, killing. Compare Samuel II 16,7 צא איש הדמים, “get out murderer!” The verse ought to be rearranged so that it is understood as: כי דמים חתן אתה לי, “you were (potentially) a shedder of the blood of my groom for me.” (Alternately, these words could have been addressed to her baby Eliezer, meaning that the baby if not for the blood of his at the circumcision, it would have caused her groom’s death.
+
+Verse 27
+
+ויפגשהו וישק לו, “when he met him, he kissed him. (Aaron kissed Moses.)” This is alluded to in Psalms 85,11 חסד ואמת נפגשו, צדק ושלום נשקו, “loving kindness and truth meet; righteousness and peace kiss one another.” (Compare Sh’mot Rabbah Rabbah 5,10.) [The commentators on that Midrash have different views of what the author meant. Ed.] Basically, our sages describe Aaron’s predominant characteristic, virtue as that of chessed, leniency, whereas Moses’ predominant characteristic was truth, justice. Similarly, Moses was distinguished by insisting on righteousness, whereas Aaron strove for preserving or making peace where at all possible. Our author also quotes Malachi 2,6 בשלום ובמישור הלך אתי, “he walked with Me in peace and equity” as relevant to Aaron’s stature. [The whole chapter discusses the priests. Ed.]
+
+Verse 28
+
+ויגד משה לאהרן, Moses told Aaron all that had transpired since he last saw him many years ago, including the fact that he had brought his wife and children with him on this journey, until the very first inn. Upon hearing this, Aaron told him that there were already far too many Israelites suffering in Egypt, and he did not need to increase their number by bringing along his family. We may assume, as did our sages, that this prompted Moses to send his family back to Midian to her father’s home.
+
+Verse 29
+
+
+
+Verse 30
+
+ויעש האותות, “Moses performed the three miracles;” the staff turning into a snake, his hand becoming smitten with the skin disease known as tzoraat, and turning water into blood.
+
+Verse 31
+
+
+
+Chapter 5
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+ואחר באו משה ואהרן אל פרעה ויאמרו וגו, “and after this Moses and Aaron came to Pharaoh” this line is the basis of the liturgist’s poem in the Shabbat morning prayer of the Shabbat before Passover after the line: חי וקים נורא וקדוש שמו, inserting his poem commencing with the words: ירדת להצל עמך, “You descended in order to save Your people.” Among other lines it contains the phrase: יכנס הבא במנה, a reference to the day when Moses and Aaron went to see Pharaoh without an appointment apparently. It was Pharaoh's birthday, and when advised that two elderly men stood outside waiting to be admitted, Pharaoh thought that they must have come to pay him homage. When asked about their message, they replied that the G-d of the Hebrews commanded Him to release the Hebrews to serve Him in the desert.
+The expression ויחגו which occurs here for the first time is familiar to us from the line: אסרו חג בעבותים, (Psalms 118,27) “bind the festival offering!”
+
+Verse 2
+
+
+
+Verse 3
+
+ויאמרו: אלוקי העברים, they said in response to Pharaoh denying that there was a G-d called Hashem (or a people called Israel), that they were talking about the G-d of the Hebrews. The G-d of the Hebrews sits in judgment of His people as He is their G-d and are His servants and His people.”
+פן יפגענו, “so that He will not afflict us;” when using the plural mode “us,” Moses and Aaron implied that they included Pharaoh in the people who would feel the wrath of the G-d of the Hebrews. A different interpretation: Pharaoh was not included in what Moses and Aaron said, but if the G-d of the Hebrews were to kill us, he, Pharaoh, would not only lose their work for a few days, but that he would lose the work of the Hebrew slaves permanently and irrevocably; thus it would be in his interest to grant their request.
+בדבר או בחרב, “either through pestilence or the sword.” Here Moses already hinted for the first time that G-d had told him to warn Pharaoh of fatal consequences, i.e. the death of the firstborn if he were to refuse to obey His commands. Rashi points that out when he says on 4,23 that Moses warned Pharaoh already of the last plague on his first encounter with him
+
+Verse 4
+
+!לכו לסבלותיכם, “go back to your labours! “The reason why the tribe of Levi had been exempted from performing slave labour when the Egyptians first began to enslave the Israelites was that Pharaoh pretended to share that burden with them in order to encourage them to perform these labours for patriotic reasons, building fortifications against potential invaders. This is how the sages interpreted the word: בפרך in Exodus 1,13, i.e. as meaning: בפה רך, “spoken softly.” Pharaoh had appealed to their loyalty and told them that by performing this labour they could prove that they were loyal Egyptians citizens. The Jews of then [as we know only too well from all the Jews serving in the German Kaiser’s army in the first world war, 12000 of them giving their lives for the aggressive designs of Germany, Ed.] were only too eager to prove their loyalty, not suspecting how they would be exploited. At that time the tribe of Levi remembered what their founding father Yaakov had said to them on his death bed, that Levi was not to be one of his pall bearers as that tribe was destined in the future to carry the Holy Ark on its shoulders. They therefore declined at the time to participate in the building of fortifications, and Pharaoh did not make an issue of this as also the Egyptians had a caste of priests who Joseph during the years of famine had completely excused from any taxation. Furthermore, we found a Midrash according to which Avraham already taught his son Yitzchok the whole Torah (the written Torah that would be given to the Israelites in the desert) Yitzchok in turned transmitted it to Yaakov, and Yaakov to Levi, who in turn transmitted it to his direct descendants. Seeing that these people had not learned any vocation, they were not physically suitable to perform the kind of physical labour the other tribes were used to. They were therefore rewarded by G-d not to have to share this burden with their brethren. (Compare Torah shleymah by Rabbi M. Kasher item 32 on our verse.) According to that, Pharaoh told Moses and Aaron not to try his patience and be content that they, being Levites, were not required to do slavelabour.
+
+Verse 5
+
+
+
+Verse 6
+
+
+
+Verse 7
+
+לא תאספון, “ you must not continue!” the letter א תאספון is not to be read, (as it would mean changing the meaning of the word beyond recognition).
+
+Verse 8
+
+
+
+Verse 9
+
+ואל ישעו בדברי שקר, “let them (the Israelites) not pin their hopes on falsehoods.” According to Ibn Ezra, the meaning of ישעו is derived from the root שען, the letter נ being missing here. The meaning is: “to lean on something for support.” Examples quoted are: השע ממני Psalms 39,14: “look away from me; (do not count on me for support)” also Isaiah 22,4 השע ממני. “leave me alone!” Let them not slacken their labor because of the lies that Moshe and aaron have told them.
+
+Verse 10
+
+
+
+Verse 11
+
+
+
+Verse 12
+
+ויפץ העם בכל ארץ מצרים, “the people spread out throughout the whole land of Egypt.” We know from Genesis 11,34, that straw was needed to make mud bricks. The search for straw to build the Tower led to G-d punishing those people once, and here, indirectly, it provides G-d with the justification to punish the entire Egyptian nation. Up until the time when Pharaoh issued the decree to withhold straw from the people, only few Egyptians had been directly involved in mistreating them. Now that the Israelites had to forage for straw wherever they could find some. Once they found straw they were beaten by the Egyptians, even by their slave-women. Thus, the entire Egyptian people had become involved in abusing the Jewish people, both men and women. G-d “inspired” Pharaoh to come up with the idea of withholding straw so as to eventually being justified to issue a decree which to some might have been viewed as collective punishment.
+
+Verse 13
+
+
+
+Verse 14
+
+גם תמול, “also yesterday;” on the day when Moses performed the miracles, and the people on account of that did not perform their daily routine,
+גם היום, as well as to day, when Moses and Aaron had gone to speak to Pharaoh, (and they were awaiting the results of that conversation.).
+
+Verse 15
+
+
+
+Verse 16
+
+
+
+Verse 17
+
+
+
+Verse 18
+
+
+
+Verse 19
+
+ויראו שוטרי בני ישראל אותם ברע.” The Hebrew supervisors of the labourers of the Children of Israel saw that they were in an untenable situation;” we read earlier that their Egyptian superiors had pressured them to change the routine by both withholding straw and insisting on the daily number of bricks remaining the same, thus making their brethren’s lives even more intolerable; they therefore rather absorbed physical punishment themselves than becoming partners to Pharaoh’s overseers through pressuring the Israelites. Pharaoh had told them that no straw would be given to them to distribute to their brethren.
+אותם themselves, as in (Leviticus 22:16) And they will burden אותם with iniquity of trespass”.
+
+Verse 20
+
+
+
+Verse 21
+
+הבאשתם את ריחנו, “you have made us loathsome in the eyes of Pharaoh, etc.”
+
+Verse 22
+
+וישב משה אל ה, “Moses returned to Hashem;” to the site from which He had spoken to him last. (Rash’bam)
+ויאמר: א־דני, “he said,” using the name of G-d we spell with .אד
+למה הרעות, “to what purpose did You worsen (the people’s plight)?” ולמה זה שלחתני, “and if so, for what purpose have You sent me?”Did Moses then not know from what G-d had already told him that Pharaoh would not be responsive? G-d had told him explicitly in Exodus 3,19, that Pharaoh would not consent to let the Israelites go? Moses had thought that while Pharaoh would not consent to let the Israelites go, at least he would lighten their burdens. This is why he added in frustration that instead of a marginal improvement in the Israelites’ sorry state, it had now worsened dramatically due to his intervention! This is why he added (improperly) “and You have certainly not saved Your people!” He quoted G-d as having said: “I’ll descend and save it.”G-d responded that “now you will see,” as from now on I shall commence applying pressure to him via My plagues.” They will soon feel a drastic reduction in their suffering.
+
+Verse 23
+
+
+
+Chapter 6
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+כי ביד חזקה, because through a combination of (My) strong hand and coupled with (his) obstinacy, i.e. ויד חזקה, he will expel them from Egypt. When G-d said in 11,1 that Pharaoh would dispatch, ישלח, the Israelites, He referred to his dispatching them permanently, not for a three day trip into the desert.
+
+Verse 2
+
+אני ה, “I am the Lord;” even though I have told you that you will be elohim as far as Pharaoh is concerned, I did not mean that Pharaoh is to stand in awe of you. He too is to stand in awe of Me. Rashi understands the line as “I am the One who is certain to reward and punish as and when required.” If you were to ask how the 4-lettered tetragram conveys that G-d rewards and punishes, and that this applies to this attribute of His more so than to any other attribute, this is the meaning when He explained in Exodus 3,14-15 that the very fact of His being eternal, and enjoying a full view of past and future developments, “this enables Me to mete out both reward and punishment equitably as I can foresee the implications of all of My actions.”
+
+Verse 3
+
+ושמי ה' לא נודעתי להם, Rashi explains this as follows; “and My attribute (name) of Hashem I have not let them be familiar with.” It is significant that G-d did not use the active causative mode of הודעתי here. In answering the question why He had not done so, what comes to mind is first: “they did not bother to ask Me about it.” [They should have asked as I revealed Myself to Avraham as such already at the covenant between the pieces in Genesis 15,7, where G-d told Avraham that He had saved him miraculously in order to give him (his descendants) that land in which He appeared to him. G-d reminds Moses that neither Avraham nor Yitzchok or Yaakov, to all of whom He had spoken far less that He had to Moses, ever questioned what they could have questioned about G-d’s judgments. To quote just one such example: when after having been told by G-d that his descendants would inherit the land of Canaan, and it came to burying his wife Sarah there, he could not even do this without paying a minor fortune for a cave, he surely might have asked Me about this. They believed Me on My word alone, without the need for any miracles or proof. They could not have known me by My real name, as I had made promises and had not yet kept them. My true name is based not only on My ability to promise but on My ability beyond question to also keep My promises. Now, G-d says, “I will explain to you why I did not reveal Myself to the patriarchs as the attribute of Hashem. The promises I made to them referred to a distant future.” They would not live to see their fulfilment. The promises I made to you and through you to My people, will be fulfilled within the immediate future. As this occurs, the past partially passive mode of the root ידע will be appropriate, i.e. “I will have become known as Hashem.” Seeing that this is so, the people should not have asked: “what is His name?” Who asks about something that he knows and is familiar with? Rashi also explains why the conjunctive letter ו in וגם in verse 4 is appropriate. The word: הקימותי is not to be confused with “I have kept (a promise),” but is to be understood as the promises made to the patriarchs still being in effect, and the fact that they had not yet been fulfilled is due to their having been made by G-d in His capacity as שדי, “the G-d whose promises are meaningful because He is able to fulfill them and no one can stop Him from doing so.” The reason that the time for fulfilling them has arrived is because the Children of Israel’s outcry on account of their suffering is justified.
+
+Verse 4
+
+וגם אני הקימותי, Accordingly, the correct translation of the word הקימותי here is: “and also I have sworn,” exactly as in Genesis 3,53, where the word וישבע does not mean “I have sworn,” in the sense of “it is the truth,” but “I confirm solemnly something that I have promised already previously.”
+
+Verse 5
+
+
+
+Verse 6
+
+
+
+Verse 7
+
+
+
+Verse 8
+
+
+
+Verse 9
+
+ולא שמעו אל משה, “but they did not listen (accept) what Moses had said to them;” they were too afraid to accept what Moses said to them on account on the recent worsening of their condition as a result of Moses’ intervention and Pharaoh’s reaction to this. Pharaoh had succeeded at this stage in making the people forget their dreams of freedom or at least improved conditions, by burdening them with additional hard labour. (Compare 5,9) The words דברי שקר, there refer to Moses’ “false promises.”
+
+Verse 10
+
+
+
+Verse 11
+
+!בא דבר אל פרעה, “go and speak sternly to Pharaoh!” G-d implies that He will go with Moses on this mission. On the other hand, at the time when Moses is bidden to go outside instead of into the city, G-d uses the term: לך, [as when G-d instructed Avraham to leave Charan and to go to a land which He would show him (Genesis 12,1). Ed.], as in Exodus 7,15 where G-d is told to speak to Pharaoh at the banks of the Nile.
+
+Verse 12
+
+
+
+Verse 13
+
+,אל משה ואל אהרן ,“to Moses and Aaron.” G-d took Aaron with to this interview with Pharaoh in order to put Moses at ease. [I fail to understand this comment by our author, seeing that Aaron had accompanied Moses also at the first interview. Ed.] An alternate interpretation, especially on the words: ויצום אל בני ישראל, “He commanded them to the Children of Israel;” Moses was to tell the Israelites everything that G-d had said to him from the beginning of the portion until לכם מורשה אני ה', “for you as an ancestral land;” (in verse 8). Moses was to go to Pharaoh after having told the people, and they, Moses and Aaron, were to tell Pharaoh to release the Children of Israel from bondage in Egypt.
+
+Verse 14
+
+
+
+Verse 15
+
+
+
+Verse 16
+
+
+
+Verse 17
+
+
+
+Verse 18
+
+ובני קהת עמרם ויצהר וגו, “and the sons of Kehot were Amram, Yitzhar, etc.;” the reason why the Torah does not mention the sons of Moses and the sons of Chevron and Ittamar, is that no specific action in which these had been involved has been recorded. The Torah did mention the sons of Amram, as they had been mentioned independently in the Torah so many times, i.e. both Moses and Aaron. The sons of YItzhar were mentioned on account of their involvement in the uprising of Korach. The sons of Uzziel were mentioned because they were called upon to remove the bodies of Nadav and Avihu who had died in the precincts of the Tabernacle on account of having offered unauthorized incense in the Sanctuary, and having added man made fire to their censers. The sons of Ittamar were mentioned in Chronicles on account of the High Priest Eli. (Rash’bam)
+
+Verse 19
+
+
+
+Verse 20
+
+ויקח עמרם את יוכבד דודתו “Amram married his aunt Yocheved;”The only reason that seems feasible in understanding why G-d agreed to such great people as Moses and his siblings to be born from a union that the Torah would forbid once it was revealed at Mount Sinai, is the rule that we do not appoint a person to the highest position in the land unless the people were aware of at least something inappropriate that such a person had been guilty of actively or passively before his appointment. [This rule, if enforced, will diminish the chances of such high ranking people allowing their high office to develop feelings of superiority to those around him. Ed.] The best known example of the rule is King David, one of whose ancestors was Ruth, the Moabite, a people with whom intermarriage is strictly prohibited by the Torah. [He was reminded of this repeatedly during his life, not only his fitness as king being questioned, but even his claim to be Jewish. Compare Rashi on Yuma 22. Ed.]
+
+Verse 21
+
+
+
+Verse 22
+
+
+
+Verse 23
+
+ויקח אהרן את אלישבע, Aaron married Elisheva; she is mentioned by name because of the priestly status of her husband. (Compare Nachmanides)
+
+Verse 24
+
+
+
+Verse 25
+
+מבנות פוטיאל, of the daughters of Putiel; she is mentioned by name because of her son Pinchas who was granted the hereditary priesthood forever (Numbers 25,11; see also Ibn Ezra here).
+
+Verse 26
+
+הוא אהרן ומשה, whenever Moses and Aaron are mentioned in context of their respective ages, Aaron is mentioned first as he was the senior of the two. When these two brothers are mentioned in context of their respective status amongst the people, Moses is mentioned first, as in verse 27. After all, Moses took out the Israelites from slavery in Egypt.
+
+Verse 27
+
+
+
+Verse 28
+
+
+
+Verse 29
+
+
+
+Verse 30
+
+?ואיך ישמעני פרעה, “what is the likelihood of Pharaoh listening to me (when my own people do not)? This paragraph is a continuation of the previous paragraph in which Moses complained about the people not listening to him. (verse 12) [Moses attributes the reason both times to his lack of eloquence or his stammer.] The only difference between the two occasions is that earlier he was very brief, as the Torah wished to insert the passage of the ancestry of some of the principal characters in the hierarchy. The Torah takes up the thread that had been interrupted so that the reader is reminded of where it was interrupted. In this way the lines of ואני ערל שפתים, and ואהרן אחיך יהיה נביאך, “I am afflicted with a speech defect,” and “your brother Aaron will be your spokesman,” have been joined together.
+
+Chapter 7
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+
+
+Verse 2
+
+
+
+Verse 3
+
+ואני אקשה, “and I (G-d) will toughen;” Rashi points out that during the first five plagues G-d actually did not yet harden Pharaoh’s heart, and the Torah only speaks about vayechezak lev paroh, meaning that Pharaoh “remained obstinate without any help from G-d.” When the Torah writes during the seventh plague, the plague of hail in chapter 9 verse 35, that vayechezak lev paroh, that “Pharaoh’s heart remained obstinate,” which appears to contradict what Rashi said, seeing that line occurs during the seventh plague, this line appears after in verse 34, G-d had already hardened his heart. In that instance, for the first time, Pharaoh had admitted being guilty, and after G-d had hardened his heart he was able to hold out still longer in his obstinate ways. In chapter 10,1, G-d explains to Moses that Pharaoh’s behaviour from then on was understandable only because He had already hardened his heart. He was already no longer a free agent. The reason is simple, as Rashi explains. Once a person has remained obstinate in the face of five plagues clearly orchestrated by G-d, he is deprived of his most precious attribute, that of freedom of choice. Even if Pharaoh had freed the Israelites at that stage, G-d would not have let him, until He had been able to demonstrate Hjs powers completely.
+
+Verse 4
+
+ולא ישמע אליכם פרעה, “and Pharaoh will not pay any heed to you.” This verse cannot be understood as a prediction of future events, as during the tenth plague Pharaoh did heed Moses’ and Aaron’s warnings, finally. It is a reminder to Moses of what G-d had told him already before the commencement of the plagues.
+
+Verse 5
+
+
+
+Verse 6
+
+כן עשו, “so they did.” The fact is repeated to remind us that Moses and Aaron put their lives in danger every time they threatened Pharaoh with another plague if he did not comply with their request.
+
+Verse 7
+
+
+
+Verse 8
+
+
+
+Verse 9
+
+ תנו לכם מופת,”perform a miracle in order to legitimize yourselves!” According to Rashi, the word מופת refers to a miracle that would prove who it is that authorised Moses to become the redeemer of the Israelites. G-d would have to demonstrate not only being a Ruler, but also His capacity to enforce his decrees. We have a source for this Rashi in Devarim Rabbah 2,11, which while not exactly what Rashi says nevertheless approximates it. Basically, it explains why paganism in Jewish literature is called עבודת כוכבים אלהים, literally: “worshiping stars as gods,” the reason being that [(my choice of words), “G-d is indispensable in our universe.” Otherwise, the word elohim in that expression is superfluous. Ed.] Rabbi Yossi claims that these deities cannot be called elohim, for if they were, it would follow that such a force must be obeyed. This is why the Torah in Deuteronomy 32,17, quotes Moses as referring to these so called deities as שדים לא אלוה, “satyrs, non deities.” Onkelos translates it as “something that is misleading,” as there is absolutely no need for it. For if there had been a need for such phenomena why would G-d be jealous of them?”
+והשלך לפני פרעה יהי לתניו, “throw it in front of Pharaoh so that it will turn into a sea monster.” The reason for this was that Pharaoh boasted of his power to the extent that G-d in Ezekiel 29,3 called him “the great sea monster.” The prophet there ridicules the actual power of Pharaoh who people were afraid of. Moses’ performing the miracle, was to show him that awe-inspiring monsters are only an illusion and can be turned into a stick by merely taking hold of their tail. Similarly, Pharaoh’s power is also only an illusion. Even though it appears that at this time he is all-powerful, this can change in the time it takes to drop a stick to the ground.
+יהי לתנין, this paragraph has already appeared in parshat sh’mot 4,21 ראה כל המופתים אשר שמתי בידך ועשיתם לפני פרעה, “see that you perform all the miracles that I have put at your disposal and carry them out in the presence of Pharaoh;” the reason that this has been repeated here is that a new element has been added, that only the miracle of turning the staff into a sea monster is to be performed.
+
+Verse 10
+
+
+
+Verse 11
+
+ויקרא גם פרעה, “also Pharaoh called upon etc.;” what is the meaning of the word: “also” here? After all, even little babies in Egypt can perform sorcery.
+
+Verse 12
+
+
+
+Verse 13
+
+ויחזק לב פרעה, “Pharaoh’s heart remained obstinate;” seeing that his sorcerers had been able to duplicate Aaron’s feat, he concluded that Aaron was another sorcerer.
+כאשר דבר ה, “just as Hashem had said.” (when He had said: “Pharaoh will not pay heed to you.” Verse 4)
+
+Verse 14
+
+
+
+Verse 15
+
+הנה יוצא המימה, according to Rashi, Pharaoh went to the Nile every morning in order to have his bowel movement, as having declared himself a deity, he could not allow his subjects to think that he like they had to excrete his undigested food daily. Seeing that the area where he performed this rite was a dirty area, G-d had not told Moses “בא אל פרעה” as if he were to dress up for an interview at Pharaoh’s Palace. The meaning of בא when G-d speaks to Moses, always implies that He is accompanying him as He had promised in Exodus 3,12.
+הנה יוצא המימה, here he is about to go out towards the Nile so as to attribute the waters of the Nile rising towards him proving that he was a deity. A different interpretation: Pharaoh would wash himself every morning in the waters of the Nile, especially in order to wash out any particles that had accumulated around his eyes during his sleep. Still another interpretation: he went for a stroll along the banks of the river every morning. He would also go hunting birds by means of trapping them in mud. [Maybe the reference is to chasing geese and ducks into traps. Ed.] The point of G-d’s instruction was for Moses to have a private talk with Pharaoh when he would not feel under pressure to show his ministers etc., that he could stand up to Moses.
+
+Verse 16
+
+ואמרת אליו, “and you will say to him, etc.” some commentators believe that the purpose of this private talk and warning to Pharaoh near the river was that it was a ritually pure area, as opposed to his palace which was filled with abominations and therefore not a place where G-d’s sacred name is to be spoken.
+
+Verse 17
+
+בזאת תדע, “by the way the punishment fits the crime you will know;” seeing that you have said: “I don’t know a deity called Hashem, I will give you proof of the existence and power of such a deity.” The precise meaning of the word תדע here is: “you will begin to know.”
+ונהפכו, “and they will be turned (into blood);” the letter ה is written with the vowel segol.
+
+Verse 18
+
+
+
+Verse 19
+
+
+
+Verse 20
+
+ ויהפכו כל המים אשר ביאור לדם, “all the water in the river had been turned into blood.” The river had been turned into blood only temporarily, and the fish died immediately on account of being unable to survive in a river of blood. As soon as all the fish had died, the river reverted to being water. As to the Torah having written that “the Egyptians could not drink water from the river,” this was not on account of the blood, for we do not find that they even tried to reverse the plague, but that was, as the Torah writes, because the stench of the water on account of all the dead fish. The proof of this is that the Torah writes: ויעשו כן כל חרטומי מצרים, “all of the sorcerers of Egypt performed a similar miracle;” if the waters had not first been restored, how could they have demonstrated their sorcery? Some commentators claim that the plague lasted for slightly over a week, a quarter of a month, for all waters visible to the people during that period. During that period, the sorcerers busied themselves with subterranean water. Their proof is that the Torah writes that “the Egyptians dug all around the river to find water as they could not drink the water from the river.” (verse 24). The subterranean waters had not been turned into blood.
+
+Verse 21
+
+
+
+Verse 22
+
+
+
+Verse 23
+
+
+
+Verse 24
+
+
+
+Verse 25
+
+
+
+Verse 26
+
+
+
+Verse 27
+
+
+
+Verse 28
+
+
+
+Verse 29
+
+ובכה ובעמך, “and against you as well as against your people, etc;” the word: ובכה is to be read as if it had been spelled as ובך.
+
+Chapter 8
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+נטה את ידך, “extend your hand!” G-d wanted Pharaoh and the Egyptians to see that the cause of the plague wasMoses, although it was Aaron who actually extended his arm with Moses’ staff over the river.8.2. ותעל הצפרדע, “the frogs emerged from the river.” Even though the Torah uses the singular mode here, the meaning is that swarms of frogs came forth. We find something similar in Numbers 21,7 when the Torah describes the plague of snakes besetting the people as if it had been only a single snake, i.e. ויסר מעלינו את הנחש, “may He remove the snake(s) from us.”
+
+Verse 2
+
+ותעל הצפרדע, “the frogs emerged from the river.” Even though the Torah uses the singular mode here, the meaning is that swarms of frogs came forth. We find something similar in Numbers 21,7 when the Torah describes the plague of snakes besetting the people as if it had been only a single snake, i.e. ויסר מעלינו את הנחש, “may He remove the snake(s) from us.”
+
+Verse 3
+
+בלטיהם, “with their spells.” According to Rashi, these “spells” are called such as the word means “silently,” they employed whispers to produce such illusions. Rashi had given this interpretation already on 7,11 where the spelling of the word had been slightly different.
+
+Verse 4
+
+
+
+Verse 5
+
+
+
+Verse 6
+
+ויאמר: למחר, he said: “for tomorrow!” He meant to say: “I will send your people on their way tomorrow!” A different interpretation that was brought by Rashi: the word למחר refers to the disappearance of the frogs on the day following. Pharaoh thought that the reason that Moses had asked him to determine when the frogs should disappear was that he thought that Pharaoh would, of course, wish to get rid of them immediately, and Moses was aware that they would leave without his doing anything to hasten their disappearance. This is why he thought he could show up Moses as a sorcerer by asking him to delay their departure. In the event he was disappointed.
+
+Verse 7
+
+
+
+Verse 8
+
+
+
+Verse 9
+
+מן הבתים מן החצרות, “from the houses and subsequently from the courtyards,” but not the frogs that had ventured into the ovens and kneading bowls. Seeing that these frogs had risked their lives by performing such a dangerous mission on behalf of G-d, they were allowed to remain alive. Compare Talmud Pessachim folio 53.
+
+Verse 10
+
+
+
+Verse 11
+
+
+
+Verse 12
+
+והיו לכנים, “they will become vermin.” These are the kind of vermin that are products of the dust, but only rarely attack human beings. They emanated from their customary habitat, like the frogs and other plagues.
+
+Verse 13
+
+
+
+Verse 14
+
+
+ ולא יכלו, “but they were unable.” Seeing that all the dust had turned into vermin from where would they produce similar kinds of vermin?A different explanation: seeing that the sorcerers could not duplicate the plague, they tried to get rid of it. But they failed. There would not have been any point in adding to the disaster, anyways. If they had succeeded in getting rid of the vermin, their fellow Egyptians would have been grateful to them and they would have risen in their esteem. Still another exegesis of the words: ולא יכלו; the sorcerers were unable to remain in the proximity of Pharaoh as they had been smitten with vermin also, and they were ashamed of their impotence and withdrew. The same thing happened again when they were struck by the 6th plague, infectious boils on the skin. [It is interesting that both the third and the sixth plague occurred without Moses having forewarned Pharaoh, so that the Egyptians could have denied that it was a plague sent by the G-d of the Israelites. Ed.] According to some opinions, when the sorcerers’ feet were not planted directly on the earth, their power disappeared. If so, this would explain why the Torah wrote “they were powerless,” as the entire surface of the earth was covered with vermin preventing them from standing on the ground. When the sorcerers perceived their inability to get rid of the vermin, they admitted that this must indeed be plague orchestrated by heavenly forces and they said: אצבע אלוהים היא that “this was a finger of G-d.” The reason of their inability could not have been that that their power was limited to creatures larger than a grain of barley as claimed by some, for if it were so, why were they not able to get rid of the fourth plague, the wild beasts roaming and destroying in urban areas at will?
+
+Verse 15
+
+אצבע אלו־הים היא, “It is a natural phenomenon. If this plague had been caused by Moses and Aaron, we could also have done the same. [i.e. this plague is orchestrated by the G-d of Joseph, who had been known to them as elohim, as opposed to Hashem whom Moses and Aaron had claimed to represent. Ed.]
+אצבע אלו־הים היא, “it is a (finger) feminine phenomenon”. [היא means “she”. Ed.] The sorcerers excused their inability to deal with this plague to the fact that it was something natural, and therefore not within their domain.
+ויחזק לב פרעה, “Pharaoh’s heart remained stubborn, strong.” The reason why Pharaoh did not ask Moses to pray for the removal of this plague was that this would have been an admission that it was a heavenly phenomenon. [Besides thus far none of the plagues had caused deaths, only inconvenience. He felt that if this is all that Hashem can do, he could live with it. Ed.] There was a good reason to feel that a plague which was common among the poor people all the time, had spread for some reason beyond its normal boundaries. Pharaoh did not realise that the absence of a warning meant that this was not of Moses’ doing; in fact the reason why he had not been warned was that he had ignored the warnings issued before the first two plagues, so that this was the punishment for having ignored those two plagues to influence his attitude toward the Israelite slaves. Moreover, every group of three plagues, as pointed out by Rabbi Yehudah who characterised (summarised) them as acronyms, i.e. דצ׳ך, עד׳ש, באח׳ב, was also introduced by Moses as having a specific objective.(Compare Exodus 8,6: למען תדע כי אין כה׳ אלוקינו “so that you will realise that there is no G-d like our G-d.” Exodus 8,18: למען תדע כי אני ה׳ בקרב הארץ, “so that you will realise that I am the Lord right here on earth also.” Exodus 9,29: למען תדע כי לה׳ הארץ, “so that you will realise that the earth belongs to the Lord.”) Some commentators explain that the reason Rabbi Yehudah summarised the plagues as he did, was to remind us that this was the correct order, as compared to Psalms 78,44-51 where they are listed in a different sequence. Also in Psalms 105, 28-36 they are listed in a different order.
+
+Verse 16
+
+
+
+Verse 17
+
+
+
+Verse 18
+
+
+
+Verse 19
+
+למחר יהיה, “it will occur tomorrow.” Moses does not want to give Pharaoh the excuse that the disappearance of the frogs, i.e. their deaths will be accidental, unplanned. The same happened with the plague of pestilence (#7) when G-d predicted precisely when it would occur. (Compare 9,5)
+
+Verse 20
+
+
+
+Verse 21
+
+זבחו לאלוקיכם בארץ, “offer meat offerings to your G-d inside the land of Egypt!” When Pharaoh saw that G-d made clear distinctions between where the plagues that occurred where the Israelites lived and where not, he made the first concession allowing them to offer sacrifices inside Egypt so that their G-d would not punish them.
+
+Verse 22
+
+ולא יסקלונו, “are they not going to stone us to death?” The expression סקל means throwing stones; we know this from Samuel II 16,6: where David and his men were stoned by Shimi, a family member of King Shaul, who had been dead for while already.
+
+Verse 23
+
+דרך שלשת ימים נלך במדבר, we will go a distance of three days’ march into the desert;” in fact this is what they did at the Exodus when they made camp on the second day at the edge of the desert, as is described in detail in Exodus 13,20.
+
+Verse 24
+
+
+
+Verse 25
+
+
+
+Verse 26
+
+
+
+Verse 27
+
+
+
+Verse 28
+
+ויכבד פרעה את לבו גם בפעם הזאת, “and Pharaoh hardened his heart again on this occasion.” The word גם, “also,” is justified, as Pharaoh had done the same during the plague of the frogs. (verse 11).
+
+Chapter 9
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+
+
+Verse 2
+
+
+
+Verse 3
+
+הנה יד ה' הויה, “here the hand of Hashem will be active;” according to normal logic there is a reason for people to believe and to say that neither the plague of hail or the plague of pestilence could have lasted for a week each. (death of the afflicted would have occurred immediately)
+במקנך אשר בשדה, “against your livestock that are out in the fields;” even the beasts that had been saved by their shepherds during the plague of the free roaming beasts could not stand up against the plague that follows next.
+
+Verse 4
+
+והפלה, “He will make a distinction;” [the word is spelled with the letter ה at the end, not the letter א. Ed.]
+
+Verse 5
+
+
+
+Verse 6
+
+וימת כל מקנה מצרים, “all the domesticated livestock of Egypt died.” The Torah means to emphasize that all the livestock which died belonged to the Egyptians. The verse does not mean that all the livestock in Egypt died, as it states specifically in our verse that of the livestock owned by Israelites not a single animal died. This is why the Torah could write in verse 20 that the livestock of G-d fearing Egyptians who had brought their beasts into shelter did not die.
+
+Verse 7
+
+וישלח פרעה והנה לא מת, “Pharaoh dispatched people to check on the livestock of the Israelites, and not a single one had died.” The reason for this was Moses’ prediction in verse 4 that G-d will make this distinction between Egyptian and Israelite owned beasts.
+ויכבד לבו; “but his heart remained obstinate;” he did not ask Moses to pray, as the dead beasts could not be brought back to life. The beasts that had survived did not need to be prayed for.
+
+Verse 8
+
+מלא חפניכם, “your handfuls,” this would not be enough soot to bring the plague on the entire land of Egypt; this is why the Torah does not attribute this plague as resulting from the fire that the soot was taken from. G-d did not want to change natural law at this point, and that is why He commanded Moses and Aaron to perform a symbolic act.
+פיח, remnants of coal, cinders. Compare Isaiah 54,16.
+וזרקו משה השמימה, “and let Moses throw it heavenwards.” This is one of many occasions when the term שמים, usually translated as “heaven,” is used as meaning simply: “air, or atmosphere.” Seeing that what is thrown into the air subsequently falls to earth, just like rain or lightning, the description is not that inaccurate.
+
+Verse 9
+
+לאבק “into dust;” the letter ל has the semi vowel sheva, whereas the letter א has the vowel kametz.
+
+Verse 10
+
+אדם ובבהמה “Upon man and upon cattle” – Rashi asked how it was possible that there were still animals around when it had already been stated in v.6 “And all the cattle of Egypt died”? Rashi answered this question by citing v.3 that only the animals in the fields were killed while everyone who feared the Lord had taken his cattle in-doors. But this is Rashi’s language since it does not say so in v.3.
+
+Verse 11
+
+
+
+Verse 12
+
+ולא שמע אליהם, “but he paid no heed to them.” [This was also a plague that had not been announced beforehand to Pharaoh. Ed.] An additional reason why Pharaoh paid no heed to this plague was that the boils proved responsive to medical treatment.
+
+Verse 13
+
+
+
+Verse 14
+
+את כל מגפותי, “all My plagues;” according to Rashi what we are to learn from this verse (“all My plagues”) is that the plague of killing the Egyptians’ firstborns is considered as equivalent to all the plagues. [There are different errors in different manuscripts of Rashi, as a result of which it is not clear whether Rashi spoke about the plague of hail, or the last group of plagues commencing with hail and concluding with the slaying of the firstborn. I will not speculate, therefore [I omit speculations quoted by the author also. Ed.]
+
+אל לבך, “against your heart;” not only trees can be broken, but hearts can also be “broken.” This occurs when the heart is overwhelmed by fear. The letter ב in לבך has a dot, dagesh.
+
+Verse 15
+
+
+
+Verse 16
+
+ולמען ספר את שמי בכל הארץ, “and in order to spread My fame in the whole country, (or on the whole earth).” G-d continues to respond “tit for tat,” seeing that Pharaoh had denied His existence, not to acknowledge His power, G-d will make sure that he will see how wrong he had been, and he would have to do so publicly.
+
+Verse 17
+
+. עודך מסתולל, “seeing that you still brag about being able to thwart My people,” boasting that you can prevent them from leaving;” The word סולל reminds us of Psalms 68,5, where G-d is extolled as riding the clouds.
+למן היום הוסדה, “from the day it was founded;” the letter ה at the end is “weak,” i.e. does not have a dot. [which would have made it a pronoun. Ed.]
+
+Verse 18
+
+
+
+Verse 19
+
+ועתה שלח העז וגו, “and now hasten to send word to bring your cattle under cover;” this was an advice Moses had not given Pharaoh before the onset of the plague of pestilence. It is possible that the “advice” to Pharaoh to have his people gather in their remaining livestock is not a concession, but on the contrary, is an additional hardship. People failing to take this “advice,” would experience also the death of their livestock, not only the destruction of their crops. Another interpretation: our verse proves that the plague of hail was aimed not only at trees and crops but also at living creatures, including human beings.
+
+Verse 20
+
+
+
+Verse 21
+
+“and whoever did not take the word of G-d to heart” – even those who did not fear G-d had cattle if they did not take their animals unto the fields on the day of the plague of the Epidemic.
+
+Verse 22
+
+
+
+Verse 23
+
+וה' נתן קולות, “and the Lord had unleashed thunder, etc.,” against Pharaoh and his counselors.
+ותהלך אש ארצה, “and fire streamed to the ground.” From the words: ואש מתלקחת we know there was fire. Fire is mentioned because fire usually rises but this fire descended from heaven.
+
+Verse 24
+
+ ואש מתלקחת בתוך הברד, “and fire was contained within the hail stones,” it is clear that after the hail had hit the ground, that this fire started conflagrations. [Otherwise who would have known that there was fire inside the hail stones? Ed.]
+
+Verse 25
+
+
+
+Verse 26
+
+
+
+Verse 27
+
+ה' הצדיק, it is Hashem who is righteous. During all of the plagues, the only one which resulted in Pharaoh acknowledging that G-d was righteous, hail was the only one. What prompted Pharaoh to make such a confession? When someone is at war with someone else and wants to liquidate him, he arranges to do this when his adversary does not suspect it, and he jumps him suddenly. Here, G-d, instead of bringing on the plague without warning, gives His creatures a chance to escape with their lives. He Himself urged them to take shelter.
+
+Verse 28
+
+קולות אלוהים, heavenly thunder; he acknowledged that there is a G-d (in heaven). Seeing that he had not acknowledged the existence of Hashem, Moses stressed that when he would pray for the plague to end, he would not address his prayer to elohim, but to the tetragram, i.e. to Hashem. (compare verse 30) When Moses, at the end of verse 30, combines the two names of G-d, he wants Pharaoh to know that these two attributes are not two separate deities, but that there is only one “elohim,” i.e. Hashem. You cannot argue by citing Avraham, who in Genesis 15,2 had asked: ה׳ אלוהים מה תתן לי, “o Lord, G-d what can You give me?” and a few more such examples, that there appear to be two separate deities. In all such examples the reading of the word for elohim is the word adonay.
+
+Verse 29
+
+כצאתי את העיר, “as soon as I leave the boundaries of the city;” seeing that earlier the Torah had written (verse 19) that anyone who will still be found outdoors will become a target for the hail, now, at the time when the plague was in full swing, the people might say that Moses was afraid to venture outside on account of that hail, Moses announces that he will open his hands in prayer as soon as he is beyond the borders of the city, and that the hail will not stop him from leaving the city. An alternate explanation for this phrase: Moses announces that as soon as he leaves the palace to go into the city, he will spread out his hands in prayer while inside the city. This is also what the Torah reports in verse 33: ויצא משה מעם פרעה את העיר וגו', “as soon as Moses left the presence of Pharaoh and went into the city, etc;”Yet another explanation: according to the plain meaning of the text the plague of hail was far stronger in the fields than in the city, [as there were no trees and grain fields inside the city to destroy, Ed.]. Moses said that he would leave the city to observe the damage caused by the hail and will then begin his prayer as necessary.
+
+Verse 30
+
+ידעתי כי טרם, “I am well aware that before you have even dismissed me you will start to really be afraid, תיראון, much more so than now; An alternate explanation: I am well aware that you are still not sufficiently afraid because the hail did not destroy two major crops, i.e. the wheat and the spelt, so that you still will have what to eat;
+
+Verse 31
+
+נוכתה, “had been ruined;” the word is in the plural mode, as we also find in Exodus 17,12: ויהי ידיו אמונה “his hands were steadfast;” not ויהיו [as we might have expected; Ed.] or Samuel I 4,15 where after Eli’s sudden inability to see, his eyes are described as: עיניו קמה, not קמו or similar examples.
+כי השעורה אביב, “for barley grows in spring;” what is missing here are words referring to the linking together the flax and the barley as the Torah linked the wheat and the spelt. The reason is that the farmers’ crops no matter when they were planted, will not ripen until later in the season. This is why the flax is mentioned separately. When wheat and spelt were sown at the same time, they will also ripen at the same time.
+והפשתה גבעול, “but the flax ripens later; if not for that fact it would have been ruined by the hail also. The Torah needed to spell this out as it had written that the hail struck “ail the grass in the field.” (verse 25)
+
+Verse 32
+
+והחטה והכוסמת לא נוכו, “but the wheat and the spelt had not been ruined;” this is emphasized because later on (10,5) the Torah writes that the locusts will devour anything that the hail had not ruined. Somebody might have argued that what is written here has already been included in the words describing all the grass in the field as having been destroyed; in order to forestall such an interpretation, the Torah first exempts the wheat and the spelt by explaining why these species of plants had not been ruined by the hail; they had been too small and soft to be affected. Basically speaking, hail destroys hard plants and locusts consume soft plants.
+The word אפילות, derived from אופל, “darkness,” means that the plants under discussion are as yet invisible, not have broken through to the air above the ground as yet.
+
+Verse 33
+
+
+
+Verse 34
+
+כי חדל המטר, “for the rain had ceased;” seeing that Moses had only promised that the hail and the thunder would cease, Pharaoh said to himself that now he had proof that Moses was only a charlatan. Hence he continued to sin.
+ויכבד לבו הוא ועבדיו, “both he and his servants hardened their hearts,” arguing that the G-d of the Hebrews will not bring on the same plague a second time. הוא ועבדיו, we do not find this expression anywhere else in the Bible. The only reason that it has been used here is, that the Torah had written in verse 30: אתה ועבדיך, “you and your servants,” so that here it had to match that expression when reporting on how correct Moses had been when he had said that Pharaoh and his servants were still not in awe of the Lord. It was especially important to contrast this with Pharaoh’s previous statement in verse 27: חטאתי הפעם, “this time 1 have sinned.” It is the usual way of confirmed sinners if due to extreme distress they have been forced to pay lip service to a confession, that as soon as the emergency has passed they revert to their accustomed attitudes. We know from their own words that they had felt hard pressed, when the Torah referred to such people by writing that they took their beast indoors to escape the plague. (Verse 20) Now that relief had come, they reverted to “business as usual.”
+
+Verse 35
+
+כאשר דבר ה, “as the Lord had said.” G-d had said in Exodus 3,19: “I know that the King of Egypt will not permit you to leave.”
+ביד משה, by means of his prophecy that he had been instructed to proclaim. This is the meaning of the expression ביד משה, wherever it occurs
+
+Chapter 10
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+בא אל פרעה כי אני הכבדתי את לבו ואת לב עבדיו, “go toPharaoh for I have hardened both his heart and that of his servants;” We have not found this formulation in connection with any of the previous plagues. The reason that G-d reacted so harshly was that after Pharaoh himself had confessed that he had sinned, instead of releasing the Israelites, both he and his servants continued to oppress the Israelites. This retraction by Pharaoh forced G-d’s hand, so to speak, to react in kind, matching the punishment to the sin committed. [In verse 34 at the end of the last chapter the Torah testified that Pharaoh’s servants had supported him in his retraction of his confession. Ed.]
+
+Verse 2
+
+התעללתי, any expression of this type, when it commences with the letter ת describes some kind of mockery or ridicule on the part of the subject vis a vis his opponent. When the same word appears without the prefix ת, the element of ridicule is absent. (Compare Rashi)
+
+Verse 3
+
+ויבא משה ואהרן, Moses and Aaron arrived (at the Palace); the reason why the Torah did not mention during the other plagues that both Moses and Aaron arrived at the Palace together, is that Aaron had been present at every interview Moses had with Pharaoh. The reason that it needed to be stressed here, is that shortly the Torah will tell us that after Pharaoh had thrown out Moses and Aaron they were both recalled at Pharaoh’s servants urging him to do so. (Verse 8)
+לענות מפני, “to humble yourself before Me;” seeing that Pharaoh had boasted about the crops that the hail had not destroyed, [attributing it to G-d’s “weakness” Ed.] He retaliated in kind.
+כה אמר ה, ”thus has the Lord said, etc.;” other prophecies which have been introduced with this introductory phrase are numerous, as are commandments (in the future) which have been introduced with the introductory: “thus the Lord has said.” The author cites: Exodus 11,5; 32,27; Numbers 19,2; Numbers 30,2 as well as reminding us that in the Books of the prophets, especially Isaiah and Ezekiel, this formula is used frequently. It happens several times that what was predicted has not later on in the text been spelled out as having happened; [one of the reasons is that when the prophecy is a warning of something unpleasant it need not be fulfilled if the circumstances changed. Ed.] At any rate, in this case it was important for G-d to show Pharaoh that a prophecy by Moses would be fulfilled, because Moses, G-d’s spokesman, had said that it would. This is what Isaiah 44 26 had in mind when he said that G-d fulfills promises or threats made by His servants. (Compare our author on Exodus 11,4)
+
+Verse 4
+
+
+
+Verse 5
+
+הצומח לכם מן השדה, ‘”which grows for you from the fields.” The hail ruined what grew on the trees; the locust would ruin eat whatever grew afterwards.
+
+Verse 6
+
+
+
+Verse 7
+
+ויאמרו עבדי פרעה אליו, (after having heard this threat) “Pharaoh’s servants said to him;” when we had read previously in 9,34 that both Pharaoh as well as his servants (ministers) continued to sin, that referred to the ministers who had advised him now to let only the men go into the desert to offer sacrifices as requested. 
+They now questioned Pharaoh’s judgment by asking him if he wanted to wait until the whole of Egypt was ruined? They implied that if Egypt were to be ruined, in the end Pharaoh would have no option but to give in to the Israelites’ demands. Why not give in while Egypt was still a functioning nation?
+
+Verse 8
+
+
+
+Verse 9
+
+כי חג לה' לנו, “for we celebrate a festival in honour of the Lord;” it is customary to celebrate festivals in the presence of wife and children.
+
+Verse 10
+
+ראו כי רעה, “see you are planning something wicked;” i.e. “you are planning to escape from the land and all your obligations.”
+נגד פניכם, “it is clearly visible from your whole mien, as if written on your faces. This is why you insist on taking all your portable belongings with you.
+
+Verse 11
+
+לכו נא הגברים, “you, i.e. the men, may go;” the children will remain behind as guarantees that you will return.
+ויגרש אותם, “he dismissed them (expelled).” The reason that Pharaoh had not expelled Moses and Aaron up until now, before they had been recalled, when they were not even allowed to leave before having been given express permission to do so, was because he thought that G-d would not bring on the same plague a second time. (Sotah 9) [Pharaoh considered locusts as a repeat of the hail, as both plagues ruined the food supply from the earth. Ed.]
+
+Verse 12
+
+על ארץ מצרים, “on the land of Egypt.” According to what we would have expected, Moses should have extended his staff over the sea of reeds, in order call forth the locusts, as the locusts are found near the sea of reeds. However, since G-d intended for Moses to extend his staff over the sea of reeds at the time when the Israelites needed that sea to split in order to let them cross, G-d did not want the sea to depart from its routine for a second time.
+
+Verse 13
+
+רוח קדים, “an east wind.” It is called קדים, as this is where the sun begins its daily route; this is also why west is called אחור, ���hindmost,” as this is where the sun completes its daily route.
+
+Verse 14
+
+ואחריו לא יהיה כן, “and there will never be a plague of locusts like this;” according to Rashi, the meaning is “a single type of locust.” Seeing that the Bible records other plagues of locusts at least as severe, (Psalms 105,34, Yoel 1,4), and Rashi was surely aware of this, we must understand the words of Rashi as referring to a single species of locusts at the same time. In the days of Joel ben Patuel each type of locust came separately, one after the other.
+
+Verse 15
+
+ותחשך הארץ, “the earth became darkened;” from the amount of shade produced by the flying swarms of locusts.
+
+Verse 16
+
+חטאתי לה, “I have sinned against the G-d called Hashem.” He acknowledged the attribute of mercy, realising that this G-d had warned him before bring evil upon him.
+ולכם, “and against you,” for having thrown you out of my palace in disgrace.
+
+Verse 17
+
+
+
+Verse 18
+
+
+
+Verse 19
+
+רוח ים חזק מאד, “ very strong westerly wind;” the east wind had brought the locusts and the west wind swept them away. This had been alluded to in verse 13: והרוח הקדים נשא את הרבה, “and the east wind had carried the locusts
+ויתקעהו, “the Torah had used this verb in connection with Lavan in Genesis 31,25: ולבן תקע את אחיו and Lavan pitched tent with his brothers.” In other words, the wind arrested the flight of the locusts.”
+
+Verse 20
+
+
+
+Verse 21
+
+“Stretch forth your hands to the heavens” – the air is called heaven.
+ויהי חשך, “there will be darkness.” This plague was not preceded by a warning, as G-d did not want the Egyptians to have an opportunity to first hide their valuables.
+
+Verse 22
+
+ויהי חשך אפלה, “there was a thick darkness;” Rashi comments that the Israelites were able to see as usual and could find where the Egyptians kept their valuables, so that when the time came to ask for them they could know if they lied when claiming they did not possess certain items an Israelite had requested. This is the deeper meaning of Exodus 12,36: וה' נתן את חן העם בעיני מצרים וישאילום, and the Lord had disposed the Egyptians favourably towards the people and they lent them willingly.
+ויהי חשך אפלה שלשת ימים ולא קמו איש מתחתיו, “the thick darkness remained for three days so that not a single Egyptian even dared to rise from where he had been sitting on. This means that the darkness lasted a total of six days, Moses did not decree the plague to last one quarter of a month. This is also how the verse is explained in the Mechilta [according to Rabbi Chavell, this is an error); in Rabbi Kasher’s Torah Shleymah (item 66) a Midrash Rabbah is quoted which deals with the seventh day of that plague instead.]: Rabbi Levi explained that the Almighty reserved the seventh day of darkness for when the Egyptians tried to cross the Sea when a dark cloud enveloped Pharaoh’s army, as indicated also in the Targum ad loc.
+
+Verse 23
+
+היה אור במושבותם, “there was light in their dwellings.” It is noteworthy that the Torah here does not refer to the province of Goshen as it had done during other plagues, but implies that Israelites living in other parts of Egypt were also not affected by this plague. Our sages claim that when an Israelite entered the house of an Egyptian he was able to see normally in that house also. (Sh’mot Rabbah 14,3)
+
+Verse 24
+
+רק צאנכם ובקרכם יוצב, “only your sheep and cattle will stay here; as guarantee that you will return.”
+
+Verse 25
+
+גם אתה תתן בידינו, “also you will give to us,” Moses tells Pharaoh that not only will the Israelites take with them their own livestock, but Pharaoh will give them of his own livestock as sacrifices to be offered by them on his behalf. Pharaoh did not ask Moses and Aaron to pray for the removal of the darkness as he thought that surely the Israelites are afflicted by the same plague, and if so, prayer would be useless.
+
+Verse 26
+
+
+
+Verse 27
+
+
+
+Verse 28
+
+
+
+Verse 29
+
+“לא אוסיף עוד ראות פניך, will not ever see you again;” Moses meant that if there were to be any additional meeting between them, Pharaoh would seek him out instead of his being the supplicant. This is confirmed by the Torah when we read in 14,13: אשר ראיתם את מצרים, “as when you see Egypt.”
+
+Chapter 11
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+ עוד נגע אחד, “one more plague;” this paragraph was communicated by G-d to Moses and Aaron while they were standing in front of Pharaoh. It had to be so, as we never read of Moses seeing Pharaoh again. However, he received this communication outside the capital as we understand from 7,15: “here when he goes to the water (to have his daily bowel movement)” [this explains that Moses could not receive communications from G-d while in a ritually contaminated area. Ed.] As far as this last communication is concerned, the Midrash states that G-d lifted Moses more than ten hand breadths from the floor of the palace in order to communicate with him. (Compare Torah shleymah 11,27) After that, Moses predicted the plague of the killing of the first born with which G-d would smite Egypt.
+
+Verse 2
+
+דבר נא, “speak please;” Moses was to do this at this time as they would not have any time to do so once Pharaoh would discharge them unconditionally, i.e. even expel them. If the people had made these requests still earlier, Egyptians would have demanded that they would give back what they had borrowed, seeing that Pharaoh had refused to allow them to leave permanently.
+וישאלו איש, “they each asked for, etc.” they complied with what G-d had asked them to do, so that He could fulfill His promise to Avraham that after servitude to a land other than the land of Canaan, they would leave that country as free people with a great deal of wealth. (Genesis 15,14). Some commentators insist that the expression: וישאלו refers to asking for an outright gift. (Rabbeinu Chananel) They claim that Psalms 2,8: 'שאל ממני ואתנה וגו, “ask something of Me and I will grant it,” is proof of this.
+מאת רעהו, “from his friend or comrade;” to the question of: “since when were the ordinary Egyptians the personal friends of the Israelites?” The answer is that after the plagues had ceased, the Egyptians’ attitude towards the Israelites underwent a drastic change, and they became very willing to let them use their vessels.
+כלי כסף וכלי זהב, “silver vessels and golden vessels.” It was no more than a fair exchange, seeing that the Israelites left behind their houses and their fields which no one compensated them for. We read already in Genesis 47,27 ויאחזו בה, that the sons of Yaakov instead of or in addition to being shepherds, also became land owners.
+
+Verse 3
+
+גם האיש משה גדול מאד, “also the person called Moses was a very greatly esteemed man.” The Torah writes this in order for us to understand the reason why the Torah reports that the Israelites “emptied out” Egypt. Many Egyptians gave gifts to the Israelites as a sign of their high esteem for their leader Moses.
+ובעיני העם, “as well as in the eyes of the people.” (the Egyptian people, not only in the eyes of Pharaoh’s officials.)
+
+Verse 4
+
+ויאמר משה, Moses said: according to Rashi this paragraph was told to him while he was still standing in the palace in the presence of Pharaoh as he never saw him again later. The words: נאמרה לו, “were said (revealed) to him,” refer to Moses relating his latest prophecy to Pharaoh. The proof of this is that if these words were only now communicated to Moses by G-d, why did Rashi not comment this on verse 1 of our chapter? We must therefore understand Moses as having announced the plague of his own volition without a commandment at that time, as he had already done so with the plague of the locusts, as stated in Pessikta on the verse 29 in chapter 12. This is also the way it is described in Tanchuma 12,37 (older version) concerning that paragraph commencing with: “it was at about midnight;” 
+כחצות הלילה, “approximately at midnight;” actually when midnight struck; here the prefix כ is used in the prediction whereas at the actual hour of the dying of the firstborn, the Torah describes it as having occurred precisely at midnight. We find something similar in Exodus 13,4 where Moses tells the people: היום אתם יוצאים בחודש האביב, “you are leaving this day in the month of spring.” (Rash’bam)
+אני יוצא, “I am going out (taking a walk);” seeing that Pharaoh had failed to heed Moses’ warning, I will personally descend from heaven to carry out what Moses had threatened would happen at this hour.”
+
+Verse 5
+
+כל בכור, “every firstborn.” Both the firstborn of a mother and the firstborn of a father were included.
+הבכור פרעה, “from the firstborn of Pharaoh,” i.e. a firstborn of the father, to עד בכור השפחה, “including the firstborn of a servant maid,” i.e. the firstborn of a mother.
+עד בכור השפחה, according to Rashi, seeing that most commentators here understand the words בכור השפחה, to be identical to בכור השבי in 12,29, they use that term in their commentary on this verse. They assume that Rashi agreed seeing that nearly all prisoners of war become slaves. [According to my understanding of Rashi on 2,29, there are degrees in the hierarchy of slaves. The Torah uses both terms, as the slave who was a prisoner of war is considered as at the rockbottom of that hierarchy. Ed.] Another reason for the two terms being used by the Torah for servant women; when the firstborn sons of servant maids heard Moses use the term שפחה in our verse, they decided to become captives so as to escape the threat of being killed. Upon noticing this, G-d said: while it is true that I had only spoken about the firstborn of the servant maid being killed, now I must include also the firstborn of a woman prisoner. A different interpretation: the expression בכור השבי is subordinate to the general heading of בכור השפחה. The prophets in their way of expressing themselves (as opposed to the Torah itself) do not bother with stylistic effects but are concerned with the basics. Such nuances as השקני “let me drink,” as opposed to הגמאיני, “let me sip,” when Eliezer is quoted as speaking to Rivkah, (Genesis 24,38) or the two versions of the commandment to keep the Sabbath in the Ten Commandments no less, i.e. in Yitro it says: זכור for “remember,” whereas in the Book of Deuteronomy, the text of which is attributed to Moses, it says: שמור to express the same commandment, or minor differences such as swearing a false oath which in Yitro is described as לשוא, and in Leviticus 19,12, לשקר, or differences such as לא תחמוד, for “do not covet,” and לא תתאוה, in the version of the Ten Commandments in Deuteronomy 5,18, are to be viewed as if two sides of the same coin. [My words, Ed.] Both expressions convey the same basic thought. Still another explanation: when Moses said: ומת כל בכור, “and every firstborn will die,” the firstborn of the maidservants rejoiced noting that they are not considered in the eyes of the Jewish G-d from the firstborn of the nobility. When their masters noted their joy, they threw them in a dungeon to teach them a lesson and not to forget their place in the Egyptian hierarchy. As a result they died, while still in the dungeon. In effect what happened is simply that the first born who had been only slaves at the time the plague had been announced had become also prisoners by the time the plague became effective.
+אשר אחרי הרחים, “who walks behind the millstones to help grind. When the plague was over the Torah describes these people as having been in a dungeon. This is another example of what we discussed earlier on this page. Some commentators believe that these two verses are actually to be understood as a single verse, i.e. that these lowly slaves performed one kind of task by day and another by night. We find an example of this in the Book of Judges when Shimshon had to perform the task of pushing the millstone by day, whereas at night he was put back into the dungeon and the millstone was placed on to prevent him from escaping. (Judges 16,21.)
+וכל בכור בהמה “and every firstborn of the domestic animals.” According to Rashi, G-d first punishes a people’s deities and then the people themselves. We see this from Exodus 7,17, where the river Nile, a major deity of the Egyptians was struck before the people suffered as a result of this.
+
+Verse 6
+
+אשר כמוהו לא נהיתה, “the like of which had never occurred and will never occur again.” [The following is a comment on the grammatical incongruity in this verse where masculine and feminine constructions have been used inconsistently. Ed.] We find this kind of incongruity not only here but also in Leviticus 6,9: והרים ממנו בקומצו, as well as in Leviticus 27,9. Compare also Genesis 32,9. A different explanation: the word כמוהו, does not refer to the outcry of the Egyptians but to the night, לילה, which is masculine also. In chapter 11 verse 4, G-d had said that He would go out during that night. In our verse here the reference is to that night.
+
+Verse 7
+
+לא יחרץ כלב לשונו, “not a single dog will whet its tongue;” it was customary for the dogs to bellow at midnight as midnight was the time when the watches changed as we know from the Talmud in B’rachot folio 3. When the Israelites made ready to leave, each one with his walking stick in his hand, these watchdogs did not raise their voices in protest and gave no alarm.
+
+Verse 8
+
+
+
+Verse 9
+
+לא ישמע אליכם פרעה, “Pharaoh will pay no heed to you.” You might argue that this contradicts what we read in verses 30-31, where Pharaoh and his servants are described as rising in the middle of the night, showing that he certainly did not ignore Moses’ warning. We therefore have to understand our verse here as referring to the entire period during which Moses was “negotiating” the release of the Jewish people. G-d had told Moses already at the burning bush that Pharaoh would not pay heed to his demands or threats. (Exodus 3,19) He had told him at that time that the reason for the lengthy negotiations was to demonstrate to him and his people G-d’s power by orchestrating the plagues.
+Another exegesis of the line: לא ישמע אליכם פרעה. Since I knew in advance that Pharaoh would not heed your warnings I should have smitten him and his people with the last plague at once in order to make good on what you told him that you were afraid that any delay would result .in the Israelites being punished by Me. The reason why instead of you being punished with the sword and pestilence, as you had warned him, is that now I am entitled to punish him with what he had not minded that you would be punished. His obstinacy enabled me to demonstrate My power.
+
+Verse 10
+
+את כל המופתים האלה, “all these miracles.' This refers to the nine plagues that had preceded the killing of the firstborn. G-d’s performing the 10th plague, however, would result in Pharaoh finally heeding all the warnings he had ignored previously. After the dying of the firstborn he will discharge the whole people and their portable belongings.
+
+Chapter 12
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+ויאמר ה' אל משה ואהרו, this paragraph had been revealed to Moses prior to the instructions about the plague of the killing of the firstborn, as it must have been revealed before the tenth of the month, seeing that it contains instructions applicable from the 10th of the month onwards. The killing of the firstborn occurred during the night from the fourteenth to the fifteenth of that month. Seeing that we have a principle that the Torah is not bound to be written in chronological order of events described, this does not present a problem. Whenever the author of the Torah did not want to interrupt a certain subject under discussion, one way of achieving this was to ignore chronology. Another reason for this here is that the laws applicable to the month of Nissan should appear consecutively without interruption or digression.
+בארץ מצרים, “in the land of Egypt.” Seeing that this chapter contains a number of commandments, it was necessary to write where these commandments were issued - some at Sinai, others at the Meeting Tent, and still others in the Plain of Moab. [Whenever no mention is made of where a commandment was issued, we can assume that it was first issued at Mount Sinai, though not necessarily communicated to the people at the time it was issued. Ed.]
+לאמר, “go and tell them immediately.”
+
+Verse 2
+
+החדש, “the month;” every first day of the month is referred to as חדש in the Torah (Bible?) whereas the entire month is called ירח, “moon.” The reason that the first day of the month is called חדש, “new,” is because it represents the renewal of the moon’s orbit.
+הזה, this refers to the month known as ניסן in the Hebrew calendar. [How do we know this without having it spelled out for us? Ed.] The Torah describes the month in which the festival of huts falls, when the harvest has been brought in, as occurring at the time of the equinox. Exodus 34,22). It describes the festival of weeks as occurring during the early harvesting season for wheat, (same verse) and it describes the time when the Passover festival (matzot) occurs as being during the spring season, or more precisely as the month of the spring equinox. (Exodus 34,18) From all this it is clear that in order to comply with all these data the Sukkot festival can only occur during the month of Tishrey, and the Passover festival can only occur during the month of Nissan. [It is spelled out even more clearly in the Book of Esther 3,7, “on the first month which is the month of Nissan.” Ed.]
+הזה. Why did G-d have to use the word “this”? Moses faced the problem that the new moon does not become visible to us until about 18 hours into the fourth day of the month, and it is difficult to pinpoint that moment exactly. This problem has already been pointed out by the liturgist who added extra poetical text to the prayers recited on the Shabbat preceding the beginning of the month of Nissan in a poem commencing with the words: אבי כל חוזה. The poet there calls the period during which the new moon is not yet observable שלשים מרוצות, (apparently a name for standard length of races) A different explanation: Moses knew when the new moon commenced, (in the sky) but did not know from what point on it could be welcomed with the customary prayer. (Kiddush levanah) He did not know whether the correct time was when it started diminishing to the north or when it started diminishing towards the south. [The reader who is interested in the astronomical aspects of all this is referred to Rabbi Menachem Kasher’s Torah Shleymah, Genesis chapter 15 item 48 where G-d was described as instructing Avraham in some of these details. Ed.]
+לכם, “for you.” This lunar calendar is not intended for the gentiles. They are to continue to use the solar calendar.
+ראש חדשים, the beginning of a count of months but not the beginning of the counting of years. The 7 annual sh’mittah cycle, the 49 year Jubilee year cycle, the period of planting i.e. the seasons and harvesting, are all not regulated by the lunar calendar but by the solar calendar, i.e. relying on summer, winter, fall and spring. This has been spelled out in the Torah in Deut. 31,10: “at the conclusion of seven years, during the season of when the year of sh’mittah, 'release’ begins during the festival of sukkot.”If the first day in the month of Nissan had been intended to serve as the first day of the year, why did the Torah not command us to read the relevant passage on the holiday of Passover? This would have taught us that the month of Nissan was also the first month of the year! If the Torah describes the festival of Sukkot as occurring at the end of the year, the festival of Passover which occurs before any harvest season, cannot possibly be at the beginning of the year. Clearly, the beginning of the year occurs near the festival of Sukkot.
+ראש חדשים, the first of the months. Seeing that this leaves open how many months there should be, the Torah adds: לחדשי השנה, “for the months making a up a year.”
+ראשון הוא לכם, if not for this line I might have thought that when we have a leap year we should add an additional month of Nissan instead of an additional month of Adar. This would not work as the month of Nissan would also be the second month during that year. The Torah said specifically that the month of Nissan is to be (only) the first in a list of months. It did not distinguish between a year that has 13 months and a year that has twelve months. The Torah nowhere warned us against having a year of thirteen months (or more). The Torah decreed to offer the Passover during that month and called it “the first month.” It also decreed that at least part of the festival must occur during the season known as “spring,” i.e. after the spring equinox. It also decreed that the festival of Shavuot, 50 days after the beginning of Passover must occur during a season when wheat is already being harvested. (a period when the bikkurim, the first ripe fruit of the seven species for which the land of Israel is famous, may already be ready to be offered in the Temple.
+ראשון הוא לכם, “it is a first for you;” from now on this will be a first month for you, the reason being that you will start counting by months as a reminder of when you received your freedom from slavery. It will forever remind you of the Good that I have done for you. Up until now, the month of Tishrey had been the first month and Nissan the seventh. This agrees with what is written in Kings I, 8,2: בירח האיתנים בחג, “in the month of the original ones “ (the patriarchs, or in the months whom the early generations of mankind referred to) as the seventh month.”Yonatan ben Uzziel translates the word איתנים as “the ancient generations of man called it the first month and now it is the seventh month.”
+לחדשי השנה, “of the moons of the year.” These months commence with Nissan, followed by lyar, Sivan, etc. This is the reason why they are not listed by name but number except in the Book of Chagay, Zecharyah, Daniel, Ezra and Nechemyah, (when the people were already in exile) Prior to this when a name is mentioned, it is not these names of Persian origin but name such as Ziv, Eytanim, and Bul fall in the Book of Kings).
+
+Verse 3
+
+בעשור לחודש הזה, ויקחו להם, “on the tenth of this month, when they shall take or purchase for themselves etc.” The tenth of the month during that year was on a Sabbath. As a reminder of the fact that on that Sabbath the people collectively performed this first commandment, it has since been named שבת הגדול, “the great Sabbath.” [Compare an article on this subject in the miluim to Torah shleymah by Rabbi Menachem Kasher of blessed memory Ed.]
+ויקחו להם איש שה, “they shall take for themselves, each, a lamb;” the significance of the animal “lamb” is that this was the zodiac sign of the month of Nissan. It was the sign that served as deity of good fortune to the Egyptians and would now forever become the reminder of good fortune to the people of Israel. By adopting this symbol and slaughtering a lamb as a sacrifice instead of worshipping it, the Jews demonstrated their faith in their G-d. They thereby neutralised any good fortune this constellation had ever had portended for the Egyptians.
+שה לבית אבות, “one lamb for each family.” Residents of the same house must share a lamb, regardless of their family ties[, unless additional lambs are needed, and then they can take two or more].
+שה לבית, “one lamb per house.” Having at least one lamb in each house was to demonstrate compliance with God's command to kill and eat an Egyptian deity.
+
+Verse 4
+
+תכוסו על השה, “you shall be numbered;” (contribute financially to the purchase of the lamb.) The commandment is repeated to teach that the sacrificial animal is ritually disqualified if it was not slaughtered specifically for the people in that house who had become partners or been invited for eating of it. (Pessachim 78)
+
+Verse 5
+
+שה תמים, “a lamb without blemish;” a Jew could not take an animal that was not in perfect physical condition and be considered as having fulfilled his duty. He might have been tempted to do so in order to escape the wrath of the Egyptian from whom he had purchased it by saying that he had not taken an Egyptian deity, since surely the Egyptians do not worship blemished animals, nor female animals or overage, weak animals, so that he had not committed blasphemy in their eyes. The Torah spells all this out by writing: “unblemished, male, less than a year old.” [The Egyptians would raise the price of these animals when aware that the Israelites would use it in the service of their G-d. The Torah wanted the Jews to pay the price of such animals, although at that stage, they could have simply taken the animal without paying for it, as they no longer were afraid of their former masters.] These had realised that they were not able to save their animals from the Israelites as long as these were still in their city. If they could not save their animals from the Israelites while in their own cities, how much less would they be able to do so outside their own domains.
+בן שנה, “within the first year of its life.” We have proof that this is the meaning of the expression: בן שנה, from when the princes offered their offerings during the consecration rites of the Tabernacle in Numbers 7,15 and elsewhere, as the Torah there describes each of these lambs as בן שנתו, “during the first year of its life.” At the end the Torah repeats that they offered 12 lambs each “in the first year of its life,” i.e. בני שנה.
+
+Verse 6
+
+והיה לכם למשמרת, “this lamb shall be carefully watched over by you (for possible blemishes). According to Rashi, G-d commanded the Israelites two commandments prior to their qualifying for redemption. They had to slaughter (release blood and put it on their door posts, and they had to give up some blood of their own bodies by circumcising themselves). This is referred to in Ezekiel 16,6 when the prophet refers to their having remained alive due to these categories of blood. Yonatan ben Uzziel translates that line in Ezekiel as: “by means of the blood of circumcision and the blood of the Passover sacrifice I will redeem you.”
+והיה לכם למשמרת עד ארבעה עשר יום, “you are to keep it under close observation until the fourteenth day.” According to the view that examining for a blemish in the eye requires thirty days, that scholar may refer only to temporary blemishes which are apt to heal; here the examination is to determine if there is a visible blemish of any kind. A different interpretation: if the animal was purchased from a gentile the examination period is thirty days. Here where the Israelites already had animals in reserve in anticipation of going into the desert to offer sacrifices, at least cursory examinations had already been made prior to the commandment. Therefore an additional four days was adequate.
+עד ארבעה עשר יום, “in order to annoy the Egyptians who had to sit by unable to interfere while the Israelites prepared to kill their deities.” These animals were kept tied up where everyone could see them for four days. They would hear the animals bleat and were powerless to do anything about it. If we needed proof for this assumption it is found in the words: לחודש הזה “(only) during this month.” This means that this commandment was a commandment to be performed only once in Jewish history, [as we are a people that shuns cruelty to animals, so much so that we are commanded to unload the donkeys of even an enemy, if we see that it broke down under too heavy load. (Exodus 23,5) Ed.] What follows the words: לחודש הזה, “for this month,” are rules applicable only to the Passover prior to the Exodus.
+ושחטו אותו, “they are to slaughter it.” It was to be slaughtered regardless of whether the fourteenth of the month of Nissan was a weekday or a Sabbath. [I fail to see the relevance in this verse of that rule, seeing that we speak only about the Passover offered in Egypt, not about subsequent Passovers. Discussion of future observances of the Passover does not start until verse 14. Ed.] The author raises the rhetorical question of how to make the words: “he who desecrates it (the Sabbath) shall be executed” (Exodus 31,14), as applying only to the activities other than the actual slaughtering of the Paschal lamb. [The instruction of ושחטו אותו, which sounds as if the whole congregation was commanded to participate in the slaughtering, an obvious impossibility, was inserted only because Moses had told Pharaoh that if the Israelites were to offer sacrifices to their G-d inside Egypt the Egyptians would surely kill the people trying to do so. (8,2) In the event, they did slaughter the animals inside Egypt and were not stoned to death by the Egyptians. G-d had to give this specific instruction so that the Israelites would not be afraid to do so, quoting Moses’ own words. Ed.]
+ושחטו אותו, contrary to other “almost communal” offerings, this offering did not need to be accompanied by libations, and the owners did not have to perform the rite of s’michah, placing their weight with all their strength on the animal prior to its being slaughtered; neither did the slaughterer have to perform the heaving of the animal prior to its being slaughtered.
+ושחטו אותו כל קהל עדת ישראל, “the entire congregation of the Jewish people shall slaughter it.” This commandment cannot be delegated to a fellow Jew to be performed on his behalf, so he cannot claim that he did not do anything. They must all be partners (financially) in performing this commandment.
+בין הערבים, “in the hours after the labourers have completed their daily chores.”
+
+Verse 7
+
+ולקחו מן הדם ונתנו, “they are to take some of its blood and put it, etc;” not with the fingers but by means of some hyssop branches and leaves that have been dipped into it. Moses has elaborated on this procedure in verse 22. Whatever details have been omitted in this paragraph were added in the second paragraph.
+על שתי המזוזות, “on the two upright posts,” on either side of the entrance;”
+על המשקוף, “on the lintel;” the word משקוף is a derivative of וישקף “he looked down.” The lintel faces the empty space of the door and “looks” down into it. The reason for this was seeing that not all the Egyptians had become aware of what was going on, now that they saw these markings at the entrances to the homes of the Israelites they would realise how the Israelites had desecrated their sacred symbols. An alternate explanation: the blood on the entrances of the homes of the Israelites should form the equivalent of the letter ח, in order to protect the entrance so that the destructive force which would kill the firstborn inside would not carry out that command. The letter ח is reminiscent of Yitzchok blessing Esau with the words על חרבך תחיה, “you will live by your sword.” (Genesis 27,40). On the other hand, the letter ח could be a symbol of חיים, life. [It hardly pays to speculate. Ed.]
+על הבתים, not “above” the houses but בבתים “attached to the houses.” The word על appears in that sense in על צבאותם, “with their respective armies,” or as in Genesis 27,40.
+
+Verse 8
+
+ואכלו את הבשר בלילה “they are to eat the meat during this night;” at the time when all people are at home.
+בלילה הזה, “during this night.” (On the night between the 14-15<sup>th</sup> of Nissan.)
+צלי אש, “roasted on the fire;” so that the fragrance of the meat will assail the noses of the Egyptians and they will reflect on what is happening to their deity. 
+על מרורים, “together with bitter herbs.” This was to drive home the memory of the many years their lives had been embittered by the Egyptians. This is why they were not to eat it with something sweet.
+
+Verse 9
+
+אל תאכלו ממנו נא, “do not eat from it while it is still raw,” if an Egyptian comes along do not remove it from the fire by saying that it is already well done while in effect it is still rare; you might be induced to say something like that out of fear; therefore I command you not to be afraid.
+ובשל מבושל, “nor eat it boiled in water;” according to the plain meaning of the text the prefix ו in the word: ובשל is superfluous; the line means: “please do not eat it boiled in water to hide what it really is.” I want you to roast it on the fire in order that it achieve maximum visibility and smell.
+the word נא introduces a request as opposed to a command.
+ראשו על כרעיו ועל קרבו, “its head, legs, and entrails over the fire.” Here too the word על means “with.” Even at the time it is being roasted it should be whole, not cut up. This too is to ensure maximum visibility.
+
+Verse 10
+
+לא תותירו ממנו, “do not leave any leftovers from it;” if you were to do so, no one would know when it had been consumed.
+באש תשרופו, “you must burn in the fire by morning (in the event you were forced to leave something over). The point in all this is to demonstrate your disdain of the lamb as a deity.
+
+Verse 11
+
+וככה תאכלו אותו, “and this is the manner in which you are be dressed when eating it;” you will not sit at a table all ready to enjoy a feast, but will act in haste. Other sacred portions of the sacrifice must always be consumed by treating the meal as a gift from G-d with great respect and with evident enjoyment. Some commentators understand the word בחפזון, “in haste,” as applying to the manner in which the whole meal, including the leavened bread and the bitter herbs is to be consumed. It is to be wolfed down indicating that the person consuming this meal is in a great hurry. The reason that the bitter herbs are to be eaten as an integral part of the course is to enable the consumer to eat it faster. The three constituent items to be consumed symbolize: slavery redemption, and freedom. The bitter herbs symbolize the slavery; the unleavened bread symbolizes freedom and the meat of the Passover symbolizes the act of redemption,being saved. At the time when the Passover lamb was being consumed the firstborn Egyptians were being killed. אל תאכלו ממנו נא “do not eat any part of it while not thoroughly roasted;” by eating meat that has not been thoroughly roasted or boiled, a person is liable to disgorge it involuntarily, resulting in some of it remaining uneaten until morning. ובשל מבושל במים, “nor thoroughly boiled in water;” boiling meat takes longer than roasting it; on that night speed was of the essence. The expression: ויבשלו את הפסח, in Chronicles II35,13, does not refer to “boiling;” this is why the word: במים is not mentioned there. It merely means that the meat of the Passover had been thoroughly roasted and made fit to eat. כי אם צלי אש, “but only roasted on the fire;” the reason that roasting meat is faster than boiling it, is that there is no other element separating it from the fire, such as water or another liquid. It must not be boiled in water or any other liquid even after having been roasted on fire; this is the reason why the expression כי אם צלי אש, has been repeated. (in verse 9) It must not be boiled in a pot (its own juices) even if no other liquid has been added. All of these details have been spelled out in the Talmud in tractate Pessachim folio 41. The manner in which the Torah writes these prohibitions is not analogous to the manner in which the type of woman a High priest must not marry is described in Leviticus 21,12, as here only negative commandments are listed, whereas there the negative commandment is linked to the positive commandment of the High priest marrying a virgin. [I am abbreviating here a little, as I feel the author digressed a little, his remarks being addressed only to Torah students of an advanced level. Ed.] At this point the Torah does not again repeat the words: ”do not eat.” The Torah’s point here is to forbid dividing preparation of the meat of the Passover meal into two or more courses, as this would negate the condition that it be eaten in haste. It does not mean that the entire entrails must be consumed They must only be roasted together with the rest of the meat in order to ensure that there would not be edible parts of the animal left by morning. It is not the custom of people who plan to undertake a journey on the following morning, as did the Israelites, to plan to leave over part of it to be consumed on the next day. This is why the Torah demands that in the event of there being such leftovers at the morning, they have to be burned to ash immediately. If that were not done, these leftovers of a sacred meal would be consumed by dogs, a most unfitting treatment for meat of a sacrifice. Alternately, the leftovers would be thrown into the garbage, an equally demeaning treatment of sacrificial meat. Concerning the Torah writing the words: עד בקר, “until morning” twice, Rashi writes that this means (concerning Passover meat for subsequent years) that seeing that morning would be part of a festival day on which burning other than for the purpose of eating the result is forbidden, the leftover must not be burned until the morning thereafter. There is no reason to raise an objection by saying “why did the sages of the Torah not apply the principle of the positive commandment to burn the leftover to override the negative commandment not to light a fire, so that the leftovers could be burned without delay? Answer: we know that the observance of the festival is itself also rated as a negative commandment in Leviticus 23,39 ,ביום הראשון שבתון, “the first day of the festival is a day that includes work prohibition” (similar to that of the Sabbath)? We have a rule that a positive commandment cannot override a negative commandment when that negative commandment is accompanied by a positive commandment in addition.
+ומקלכם בידכם, “with your walking staffs held in your hands.” These staffs were used to urge on the donkeys as we find in Numbers 22,27: ויך את האתון, “Bileam struck the sheass.”
+ואכלתם אותו בחפזון, “you are to eat it in haste.” You were slated to leave Egypt in a hurry.”
+פסח הוא לה, “it is a Passover offering for the Lord.” The reason that the offering is called “Passover,” is because G-d passed over the houses of the Israelites marked with the blood of the lamb when killing the respective firstborn inside them. The fact that you had performed all the activities He had demanded of you, enabled the attribute of Justice to skip your homes. We encounter something similar in a prayer composed by Moses in Deuteronomy 26,15: השקיפה ממעון קדשך מן השמים, “look down (benignly) from Your holy residence, from heaven;” (recited by the farmer who announced that he had complied with all the tithes applicable to his harvest)
+
+Verse 12
+
+“and against all the deities worshipped in Egypt;” this is to be understood in the same way as when G-d said to Moses that He had appointed him as an elohim in relation to Pharaoh in 7,1, or as in Samuel II 7,23: אשר הלכו אלהים, “which G-d set out, etc.;” the word describes a terrestrial superpower as compared to a celestial superpower. [My words, Ed.] This power is higher than the Pharaoh of the land. Another explanation: בכל אלהי מצרים - against all the ministers of Pharaoh.
+אעשה שפטים, “I will execute judgments.” These will be of a physical nature, causing pain. Compare Chronicles II24,24, ואת יואש, “and upon Yoash they inflicted punishments.” In every house where there was a biological firstborn he was killed; in a house which did not have a biological firstborn, the most senior person was killed. In this verse the word elohim is not to be understood as a deity, as it is impossible to inflict physical pain on something which is not made of flesh and blood, and which is not alive. Rashi here understands the words אלוהי מצרים as referring to idols made of wood or molten metal cast in a form.
+
+Verse 13
+
+והיה הדם לכם לאות, “the blood (on your door frames) will serve as symbol on your behalf;” it will signal that you kept G-d’s commandments. A different interpretation: “the blood will serve as a reminder to G-d that the Egyptians have spilled your blood.”
+וראיתי את הדם, “as soon as I will see the blood, etc.” Even though the blood of the Paschal lamb was smeared on the doorposts inside their homes and as such not visible from the outside, everything is visible to G-d. The following is in response to the question of how the angel could see this even though G-d could see it. The text sounds as if G-d is speaking about Himself. The fact is that once G-d has appointed an angel as His executor, that angel assumes the role of the One Who has appointed him, and when the Torah Speaks of: “when I see,” the reference is to the emissary whom G-d appointed. He is entitled to use that description as applicable to himself while on that mission. The author’s point about the role of the messenger, i.e.angel, is proved when the Torah speaks of G-d not giving the destroyer permission to kill Jewish firstborn. The part of the Exodus story which was orchestrated by G-d personally, without the help of any angels, was that of taking the Jewish people out of Egypt. This is emphasised in the haggadah of Passover where the author writes, quoting Deuteronomy 26,8: ויוציאנו ה' ממצרים, “the Lord took us out of Egypt,” and the author of the haggadah adds; לא על ידי מלאך “not by means of an angel;” לא על ידי שרף, “not through a higher ranking angel called seraph; ולא על ידי שליח, “and not by means of any other agent at His disposal;. אלא הקדוש ברוך הוא בכבודו ובעצמו, “but only the Holy One blessed be He, in His glory, personally.
+”ופסחתי עליכם, “I will pass over you; “the word פסח is a variant of פסע; it appears again in the same sense as here in Kings I 18,26: ויפסחו על המזבח, where the prophet Elijah mocked the priests of the Baal and they jumped over the altar again and again to no avail.
+
+Verse 14
+
+לכם לזכרון, “for you as a remembrance.” Prior to this verse the Torah dealt with Passover that the Israelites sacrificed and ate while in Egypt. From here on we have the legislation dealing with how to commemorate this event annually for all future generations. Whereas in Egypt, this ritual was a condition in order to bring about the redemption, from now on it would serve as a reminder of who it was who gave us freedom, not Pharaoh, neither did we gain freedom by our own efforts, but our freedom is due exclusively to the direct intervention of G-d personally in our fate.לדורותיכם חקת עולם, “for your generations as an everlasting statute.” According to Rashi, the last two words were added seeing that the word לדורותיכם, without a number, could be understood as the customary minimum plural mode, i.e. only two generations. You might counter that we have been taught in the Talmud Baba batra foliol20 that this is an instance the word לדורותיכם by itself is to be understood as an unlimited number of generations, so how could Rashi have written what he did? We must therefore understand Rashi as telling us that the word לדורותיכם even without the additional words חקת עולם, “an everlasting statute,” always means just that[, as opposed to other nouns which appear in the plural mode].
+
+Verse 15
+
+שבעת ימים מצות תאכלו, “you are to eat unleavened bread for seven days.” Rashi tackles the problem that in Deuteronomy 16,8 the Torah writes that we are to eat unleavened bread for six days, whereas the seventh day is to be observed as the last day of the festival. This, according to Rashi, appears to teach that on that day no more unleavened bread need be eaten, as long as no leavened bread is eaten. How do we know that even during the first six days the eating of unleavened bread is also voluntary? It is learned from a certain rule applied to exegesis of the written text of the Torah, known as: דבר שהיה בכלל ויצא מן הכלל ללמד, לא ללמד על עצמו יצא, “when something had first been included in a general proposition, and then appears to have provided for an exception to that proposition only in order to teach something additional, this new instruction does not only apply to the new situation cited as example, but applies to the proposition as a whole.” In other words, all the seven days on which unleavened bread was to be eaten is contained as a proposition in our verse. The verse cited from Deuteronomy now came to teach an additional dimension of the proposition first legislated in our verse here. Having heard that eating unleavened bread on the seventh day is not obligatory, it follows that neither is the commandment to eat unleavened bread for six days. It was written only because eating leavened bread is prohibited during all the seven days. In order not to mislead us into believing that even on the first night of the festival the eating of unleavened bread is also “only” voluntary, the Torah wrote a special verse commanding the eating of the meat of the Passover offering together with unleavened bread and bitter herbs on that evening. [It is easy for us nowadays to remember this, as we recite a special benediction when eating unleavened bread only at the seder table on the first night. As far as the other meal times during the festival are concerned, if we wish to deny ourselves the pleasure of eating bread, we are free to do so. The line: בערב תאכלו מצות, spells out the duty to eat unleavened bread on that night. (Exodus 12,20) שבעת ימים מצות תאכלו, “you will eat matzot for seven days.” These seven days are symbolic of what our author terms the quarter month which was the duration of most of the plagues; שבעת ימים מצות תאכלו, this commandment is valid for all future generations and is an appendix to the words in verse 14 preceding it that חוקת עולם תחגהו, “you are to celebrate it as a festival forever.” These words could not possibly have referred to the unleavened bread the Israelites had eaten in Egypt, for even though the amount they had baked apparently lasted them for 61 meals each (30 days) it was eaten as a fulfillment of a commandment only on the first night.
+אך ביום הראשון תשביתו, “but on the first of these seven days you shall put away all leaven”. According to the plain meaning of the text, תשביתו plural mode of שבת, as in Genesis 2,2: ויכל אלוקים ביום השביעי, “on the seventh day G-d had completed, etc.” it is impossible to interpret that verse as G-d having been busy with creative activity. He clearly had completed that activity by the evening of the sixth day. On the seventh day He found that His work had come to an end. In our paragraph the Torah repeats the same approach. The words: you shall put away all leaven on the first day, mean that you have to complete your preparations for the festival before it begins on the evening after the 14th day of Nissan. As soon as the festival begins day dawned, all leaven had already been put away by now.
+כי כל אוכל חמץ, “for anyone eating leavened matter, etc.” the Torah had to spell out the penalty for eating leavened matter during these seven days, as otherwise people would have thought that while they had to eat unleavened bread on the first night, and were expected to eat unleavened bread during the whole seven days, they could also eat leavened matter if they so chose. If they were to be allowed to do so, the impact of subsisting on unleavened bred for seven days would be lost on them. Therefore the Torah added: ולא יאכל חמץ, “nothing leavened must be eaten.”
+
+Verse 16
+
+מקרא קדש, “a holy convocation.” According to its translation into Aramaic, this expression means: מארע קדיש, “a festival.” On that day holy things occur.כל מלאכה לא יעשה בהם, “no creative kind of work may be performed on these days. This formulation, according toRashi, includes that no gentile perform such work on behalf of or for the benefit of a Jew. If that were correct, the Torah would have legislated for the gentiles, and this would contradict the statement in the Talmud Shabbat folio 150, that asking a gentile to perform work for you on the Sabbath is a Rabbinical and not Biblical prohibition.
+בהם, “on them.” On the first and the seventh day of the festival, these types of work are forbidden to be performed.
+אך אשר יאכל לכל נפש, “However (work needed) for preparing the food for the person is permitted to be performed also on those two days. The reason why the Torah had to add this line is because it had written previously that כל מלאכה, every manner of work is prohibited on these two days, it had to spell out the exception to that rule. On another occasion (Leviticus 23,7) where the festivals are discussed, the work prohibition was mentioned already with the term מלאכת עבודה, the type of menial work performed on the week days, instead of the Torah writing: כל מלאכה “all manner of work.” The Torah wishes us to know that preparing food is not considered “menial work.” The only days on which even this kind of work is forbidden are the Sabbath and Yom Kippur, (which is also called Sabbath) [and had been forbidden in the desert before the Torah had been given as soon as the manna had fallen on the sixth day. Ed.]
+לכל נפש, “for every soul,” according to Rashi the word “for all,” includes preparing food for one’s domestic animals. When the Talmud in Beytzah folio 20, interprets the word לכם for you (pl) to include your dogs, the reason is that the dogs are able to forage for themselves and it is not making animals suffer if they are not being fed, or if food is not prepared for them on that day. Seeing that this is so, we might have thought that the domestic animals that cannot forage for themselves and depend on their owners for their food we would be able to provide for on the festivals, the Torah therefore had to write לכם, “for yourselves,” (you prepare food on the festivals but not for the gentiles (as they are able to look after themselves). Both verses are necessary as I might have thought that while it is forbidden to prepare food for a gentile independently, it is permitted a to add extra amounts for gentiles to that which you are preparing for your own family, the Torah writes לכם, i.e. only for your own family not for gentiles.
+
+Verse 17
+
+ושמרתם את המצות, “you shall observe the commandment to eat unleavened bread on these days for the future.” We find this formulation being use in this sense also in Numbers 28,2 in connection with the daily communal offering where the Torah writes: תשמרו להקריב לי במועדו, ”make sure that you offer it at the time appointed for it.”
+
+Verse 18
+
+עד יום עשרים ואחד, “until (incl.) the twenty first day (of the month).” Rashi asks why the Torah had to spell this out seeing we can count to seven? He answers that seeing the Torah had previously written the word: ימים, “days.” I might have thought that only the daylight hours are meant. By telling us until which date of the month this commandment is applicable, I know that it also applies during the nights. Where do we have another example of the same formulation being used to make that point? Answer: in verse 1 in our chapter. If we are to answer seeing that we are left with the question that what Rashi answered should already have been written on that verse, one might venture the thought that there are commandments for which a reward is promised if it is performed, and one is punished for the mere failure to perform the commandment. An example would be the failure to eat matzah on the first night of Passover. On the other hand, no penalty is incurred if one does not eat any more matzah on the remaining days of the festival. If one eats matzah every day of the festival, although one could have avoided it without penalty, one still receives full credit for observing what the Torah had formulated as a commandment. This is so even if one ate the matzah only on the seven nights of the festival. However, if one ate matzah during the last eight or nine days of the month of Nissan, one does not accumulate additional credit as the period for which one qualified had concluded on the twenty first day of Nissan. To make this abundantly clear, the Torah wrote:בראשון בארבעה עשר יום לחודש בערב תאכלו מצות עד יום האחד ועשרים יום לחודש בערב, “On the first day, the fourteenth of the month in the evening until the twenty first day of the month in the evening you are to eat matzot.”
+
+Verse 19
+
+שבעת ימים שאור לא ימצא בבתיכם, “for seven days no leaven shall be found in your homes. This verse is meant to enlighten us about the proper meaning of the words in verseביום הראשון תשביתו שאור מבתיכם :15If translated literally, it would mean: “on the first day you are to get rid and destroy all the leaven that you own from your houses.” However, it is clear that this must occur not on the first day of Passover but before, at least on the day before at noon, after which the blood of the sacrifice called Passover can be offered on the altar. The seven days following that day are equal in all respect concerning the laws governing leaven, in that no leaven must be capable of being found in a Jew’s house (if it is his). It had to be gotten rid off or destroyed already on the day prior to the 15th of Nissan. Some commentators therefore understand the plain meaning of the text as: “you do not need to have leaven on hand to facilitate the rising of your dough already when you prepare your dough which is to be eaten on the first night of the festival.” This precaution is necessary, as the penalty for eating leavened products is so severe, i.e. karet, being cut off from your people spiritually, permanently as stated in verse 19. The precaution therefore is to remove the leaven prior to, not only at or after the onset of the festival. You may not even eat a product which contains a mixture of leavened and unleavened dough.
+
+Verse 20
+
+ בכל מושבותיכם תאכלו מצות, “you are to eatunleavened bread in all of your dwellings.” The reason why the Torah uses the expression: בכל מושבותיכם, “wherever you will be at home,” is because this commandment applies equally in the land of Israel and outside of it. This is distinct from eating of the Passover lamb, a law which can be fulfilled only in the land of Israel and at a time when offerings can be offered in the Temple or at least on the Temple Mount.
+
+Verse 21
+
+ויקרא משה לכל זקני ישראל, Moses called upon all the elders of Israel;” previously the Torah had phrased this as: דברו אל כל עדת ישראל, “speak to the whole congregation of Israel” (verse 3) Why the difference? The commandment to own or partly own the lamb destined to become the Passover offering applied equally to every Israelite. The commandment to slaughter this animal applied only to the elders. Ordinary people, i.e. laymen, were not to perform the act of slaughtering for fear that they might disqualify the animal through an error on their part.!
+משכו, “draw out!” The meaning is to include as many members of the family into participating in the eating of one lamb so that there would be no leftovers. We find the root משך used in this context in Judges 4,7, where Devorah tells Barak that she will arrange that as many warriors as possible will be pulled together to the river Kishon, so as to present a good target for his attack. [Barak was to swoop down from Mount Tabor. Siserah’s chariots would be useless in the river. Ed.] The Torah repeats the instruction to slaughter the lamb, because it had to tell us about the bunch of hyssop that was to be dipped in the blood and smeared on the doorposts of the houses and the lintels. Also it had to tell us because of the end of the verse where the people inside the houses are warned not even to step outside until morning.
+
+Verse 22
+
+והגעתם אל המשקוף ואל שתי המזוזות, “and apply some to the lintel and to the two doorposts.” In verse 7 of this chapter the Torah had issued these instructions in the reverse order, i.e. to apply the blood to the two doorposts and the lintel.” The reason for this is to teach us that the order in which this ritual was performed did not matter.
+
+Verse 23
+
+ולא יתן המשחית, “and He will not allow the Destroyer to, etc.; ”when our sages in the Haggadah said that the line: ועברתי בארץ מצרים, means that G-d personally will carry out the killing of the firstborn, not any category of angel, (compare verse 12) they meant that He would not delegate an angel to perform this task but would perform it Himself, personally.
+
+Verse 24
+
+
+
+Verse 25
+
+
+
+Verse 26
+
+?מה העבודה הזאת לכם, “what do you mean by this rite?” other rituals are governed by certain times of the year. The cutting of the omer must take place on the 16th of the month of Nissan; as this is the time when the barley harvest begins; the two loaves of wheat is to be offered on the 50th day after the first day of Passover; the four species of plants are to be used ritually on the 15th day of Tishrey because this marks the conclusion of the harvest of summer fruits. But this ritual of applying the blood of the offering to the doorpost on the 14th day of Nissan is the exception as that day has no other significance. [I find this interpretation difficult, as the ritual described was not ever again performed after the Israelites left Egypt. So why would future generations raise a question about a ritual that their fathers did not perform? Ed.] “You are to say that it is part of the ritual of the Passover offering;”
+
+Verse 27
+
+בנגפו את מצרים, “when He smote Egypt;” on the night of the 15th of Nissan;”
+ואת בתינו הציל, “while at the same time saving our houses (from that plague). As a commemoration of this miracle we perform these rites.”An alternate interpretation: The question of the children in future generations does not apply to the rite of smearing blood on the doorposts but applies to the insistence that the meat of the Passover offering may be consumed only after having been roasted on the fire, and not when boiled in water, or half raw; a requirement that does not apply to the meat of any other sacrifice.
+The answer of the father is that this was a reminder of the haste in which all this had to be done, and roasting is the quickest way to make raw meat edible. ויקוד העם וישתחוו, the people upon hearing this bowed low and prostrated themselves. This was a rite indicating that the party performing it accepted the instructions the Torah described in this chapter. It was an internationally accepted way of indicating acceptance of a command.
+
+Verse 28
+
+
+
+Verse 29
+
+ויהי בחצי הלילה, “it was precisely at midnight;” actually this paragraph should have been written immediately following chapter 11,verse 10, when the Torah reported that Pharaoh refused to let the Israelites go as demanded by G-d through His agents Moses and Aaron. If the Torah had done so, all the plagues would have been recorded in their proper sequence. The reason why the paragraph about the new moon was inserted in the middle of the list of the plagues was to alert the reader to how the firstborn Israelites escaped that plague when the Destroyer had targeted Egypt.
+בחצי הלילה, וה׳ הכה כל בכור, “at midnight when the Lord smote every firstborn, etc.” elsewhere (Numbers 3,13) the wording used by the Torah about this plague was as follows: “on the day that I smote every firstborn;”Rabbi Yochanan comments on this apparent discrepancy that although G-d smote the firstborn at midnight, the souls of those firstborn were still convulsing in their bodies until morning (Compare Torah shleymah item 499 based on an ancient version of Tanchuma) The reason for this was so that the Israelites would know with what plague G-d had killed the firstborn. Rabbi Eleazar ben Pedot, commenting on the same verse said: whenever a verse or phrase in the Torah commences with the word: 'וה, it refers to Hashem accompanied by His counselors. This teaches that prior to carrying out this punishment the heavenly Court (presided over by Hashem, of course) debated the merits of it. The decree was issued by the entire Court.
+מבכור פרעה, “commencing with the firstborn son of Pharaoh,” (the highest ranking firstborn). The Torah hints that Pharaoh himself was also a firstborn. He was kept alive so that “he could declare G-d’s name throughout the world” (Exodus 9.16). If he was not killed on this night it was in order for him to see how, through his obstinacy, a substantial part of the Egyptian males were killed in one single night. (Mechilta Pisscha chapter 13)
+היושב על כסאו, “who was meant to sit on Pharaoh’s throne in due course.” We find a similar formulation in Kings II 3,27: ויקח את בנו הבכור אשר ימלוך תחתיו, “he took his firstborn son, the one who was supposed to rule in his stead;”Some commentators understand our verse as the conclusion of a description how G-d employed the four most basic materials in the universe as having had a part in the plagues visited upon Egypt. These elements are; water, wind, fire and earth. The two first plagues involved the use by G-d of the water, i.e. blood in the Nile river basin and the frogs, which had their habitat in water. The next two plagues involving vermin and free roaming beasts were symbolic of the element earth, (dust). The wild beasts are described by the Torah during the six days of creation as תוצא הארץ נפש חיה, “let the earth produce living creatures.” (Genesis 1,24) The two middle plagues, i.e. pestilence and infectious boils (#3 and #6) # 3 was produced through utilizing the air, (wind) i.e. pollution in the air, and #6. The boils were produced through Moses polluting the air with soot of a furnace. The hail and the locusts were initiated through stormy winds. Finally, the plague of killing the firstborn originated in heaven (where human life originated) (The upper waters?) The darkness likewise originated in heaven, where light, the first visible part of the universe, originated. The Egyptians therefore had been punished by all the elements that make up the globe that we live on, including the region known as outer space. These ten plagues had been orchestrated by Hashem, Moses, and Aaron. The first three plagues were the direct result of Aaron and Moses’ staff. They produced changes in the lowest region of our universe by employing the basest of the four elements of which the universe consists. Two were using water and one used earth as its medium. Moses orchestrated the next three plagues, utilising higher ranking elements in the atmosphere, corresponding to the fact that he ranked higher as a prophet than did his older brother Aaron. They were: hail, locust, and darkness. Moses demonstrated his control of the surface of the earth and the airspace surrounding it. G-d orchestrated the four plagues of wild beasts roaming unrestricted and killing. The pestilence killed livestock, just as the plague of killing the firstborn. Finally, the plague of שחין, was orchestrated by Moses, Aaron and Hashem; The former threw soot into the air and Hashem, when the former threw soot (totally sterile matter) “Hashem converted it into most harmful and painful boils on the Egyptians’ skins
+
+Verse 30
+
+ויקם פרעה לילה, “Pharaoh arose during the night;” the word לילה here describes a state of mind, both he and his advisors were as if blindfolded with shock. (Compare commentary in Torah sh’leymah, item 526 on this verse). Rabbi Natan taught that there was not a single house in which not at least one Egyptian had died. At first glance this statement sounds almost incredible, for surely not every house harboured a firstborn. The Egyptians would mark a house in which a firstborn had died with a portrait or statute of the deceased and put it on a pedestal inside the house in which he had lived as a kind of memorial. On this night all of these had been shattered at the time G-d struck the firstborn. This day now became as tragic for them as the day on which that particular first born had died and they had buried him. This was not all; the Egyptians now buried their most recent dead (firstborn) in their own houses and the dogs found ways to drag out these corpses and to gorge themselves on their flesh. As a result, their relatives felt as badly as they had on the day they had buried them. (See Yalkut Shimoni Sh’mot Remez 208.5)
+
+Verse 31
+
+ויקרא למשה ואהרן, “he had Moses and Aaron called to the Palace;” seeing that we have been told in 10,28: that Pharaoh had commanded Moses to leave his presence, he was now forced to countermand himself and beg Moses to come to him as soon as possible.
+
+Verse 32
+
+גם צאנכם גם בקרכם, “also your flocks and your herds” (you may take with you). The repetition of the word גם is a hint that Pharaoh gave the Israelites also part of his own as well as of his ministers’ flocks and herds to take along. Thus Moses’ prediction that not only would the Israelites sacrifice some of these animals for their G-d, but they would include animals formerly owned by Pharaoh and offer these at his request. (Compare 10,25)
+
+Verse 33
+
+כלנו מתים, “we are all about to die;” the word מתים here has to be understood as an activity, i.e. as if the Torah had written: כלנו הולכים ומתים, “we are all progressively dying.” The Egyptians remembered that Moses had warned that if the Israelites could not perform their rituals, their G-d would punish them with the sword and with pestilence (5,3) [They reasoned that the G-d of the Hebrews would not only punish the Hebrews who had failed to honour Him (not through a fault of their own) but that He would certainly punish the ones who had prevented them from serving Him. Ed.]. When an Israelite would say to an Egyptian that he should wait until he would give back to him any valuable object that he had “borrowed,” he would tell him not to bother but to keep it. By doing so he hoped that his life would be spared.
+
+Verse 34
+
+צרורות בשמלותם, “bundled up inside their garments.” This line is the reason why we have the practice of wrapping the afikomen” in a serviette or tablecloth after breaking it and saving it for being eaten at the end of the Seder meal.
+על שכמם, “over their shoulders.” The donkeys of the Israelites were already loaded with so much “loot” that they could not burden the animals with additional weight.
+
+Verse 35
+
+
+
+Verse 36
+
+וה' נתן את חן העם, “and the Lord had disposed the Egyptians favourably towards this people;” this is how He fulfilled what He had said to Moses in Exodus 3,21, when He told him that the Israelites would not leave Egypt emptyhanded.
+
+Verse 37
+
+ויסעו בני ישראל מרעמסס סוכותה, “The Israelites journeyed from the city of Ramses in the direction of Sukkot.” The whole people first had first assembled in Ramses; this was the city where they had performed most of their slave labour in that year and from there they left as free people. [before the onset of the plagues when they had taken a “rest.” Ed]
+סכותה “toward Sukkot”, Rabbi Nechemyah said that the suffix ה in this word substitutes for the missing prefix ל.
+
+Verse 38
+
+
+
+Verse 39
+
+ויאפו את הבצק, “they baked the dough;” they did this at Sukkot, which was their first waystation.
+כי גורשו מצרים, “for the Egyptians had literally been expelling them; ”עוגות מצות, into matzah cakes. Why did the Torah bother to give us these details? In the future observance of the Passover would become conditional on a number of rituals having been observed before one could participate in that celebration. The Torah explains that on this occasion the only requirement had been that they eat unleavened bread, and the Passover “festival” was a one day affair due to the Egyptians having chased the Israelites out of their homes. We commemorate this during the Seder evening by reciting that we eat the matzah because “the dough of our fathers did not have time to become leavened before the King of the kings of kings, the Holy One, blessed be He, revealed Himself to them and redeemed them.”
+
+Verse 40
+
+
+
+Verse 41
+
+
+
+Verse 42
+
+ליל שמורים הוא לה, “it is a night of vigil for the Lord;” this is a reference to how G-d protected the Israelites from being harmed by the Destroyer when He struck Egypt. It is also a night of vigil for the Israelites for all future generations, a night on which they should not go to sleep; this is an allusion to the story told in the haggadah about the five scholars in Bney Brak who spent the whole night reminiscing about the wonders and the miracles which G-d performed on that night.
+שמורים, the first time this word appears it describes an event awaited that had not yet occurred; the second time it describes commemoration of an event that occurred in the past. An alternate interpretation: the expression: ליל שמורים is a reminder to observe the anniversary of that night, and warns us not to forget to eat the Passover on that night. The root שמר occurs elsewhere in that context also, for instance: תשמרו להקריב לו במועדו, “be mindful to offer it at its appointed time.” (Numbers 28,2, the daily communal offering)
+
+Verse 43
+
+זאת חקת הפסח, “this is the statute of the Passover;” this paragraph is of relevance for all future generations.
+לא יאכל בו, “he must not eat thereof. (the gentile)” Compare a similar formulation i.e. (addressed to the outsider in the third person instead of directly) והנותר בבשר ובלחם, “and anything left over either from the meat or the bread, etc.” (Leviticus 8,32)
+
+Verse 44
+
+מקנת כסף, “or acquired through purchase;” slaves whose bodies are owned by an Israelite (and who have been circumcised) may partake of the annual Passover. It also includes: women and children living at home [and provided for by their father].
+ומלת אותו אז יאכל בו, “when you circumcise him, then he may eat of it.” The reason why this is a repeat is to tell us that there is no waiting period after the circumcision. If for some reason the foreskin grew back, such a slave is not disqualified from eating of the Passover, as long as he had been ritually circumcised once. The same applies to slaves owned by a priest in whose home sacrificial meat or tithes called t’rumah may be served on a daily basis.
+
+Verse 45
+
+תושב, “a resident stranger;” this is how Rashi understands the word תושב here. The legal status of such a “resident” stranger applies when he undertook to observe the seven universally applicable laws for disobedience to which any human being is culpable. Such a person is allowed to eat meat from animals that did not die through ritual slaughter. Interestingly, when the same word appears in Leviticus 25,47, he explains it as: a Jewish servant (sold by the court for having stolen and not repaid). Some commentators say that the word תושב here refers only to eating of the Passover, whereas in Leviticus is refers to the eating of the tithes called t’rumah.
+
+Verse 46
+
+ בבית אחד יאכל, “it (all of it) must be consumed in one house;” according to the plain meaning this means that the Passover lamb must be consumed in the house of the owner. No parts of it may be sent to friends or acquaintances. When one consumes something in a hurry one does not have time to attend to such niceties. These considerations are only in place when one sits down to a meal that has been carefully prepared and is consumed at one’s leisure. This is also one of the reasons why the Torah forbade any Israelite to leave his home during that night until morning.
+ועצם לא תשברו בו, “you must not break a single of its bones.” In other words, it is forbidden to eat any of its marrow. Looking for marrow is also one way of delaying your departure when you are summoned, and you have to be ready to leave your house at a moment’s notice. Every person invited to participate in that meal is to take his portion and not waste time about breaking bones and extracting marrow. A different interpretation of the prohibition not to break a bone: The Torah had commanded to eat the meat of the Passover על השובע, i.e. at the conclusion of the meal so that it is what brings on the feeling of having been satiated. In that way, the last taste in our mouth on that evening is that of the roasted meat of the lamb. If we were to break bones and suck out the marrow, the last taste of the evening would be that of marrow. Some commentators understand the expression: על השובע, as meaning that there should be a big enough portion for everyone at the table so that they would be satiated without having to look for the marrow in the bones before becoming satiated. Some people reject this interpretation as too far fetched, as the Torah only needed to write positively, “eat to your heart’s content,” instead of negatively: “do not break a bone of it.”When looked at in connection with the laws governing the פסח שני, the observing of the Passover rites a month later if one could not observe it on the 14th of Nissan for a legitimate reason, the Torah writes that all the rules applying to that substitute are identical to those that apply to the Passover on the fourteenth of Nissan. (Numbers 9,12.) However, in spite of this, the Torah adds there in the same verse that not a bone of the lamb must be broken. This shows that there must be a different reason than those we have mentioned for why this rule was added. We must therefore assume that not only bones that contain marrow are included in this legislation but also bones that do not contain marrow. If there is meat less than the size of an olive attached to such a bone, it must not be “broken, i.e. treated as if it contained marrow and the owner wishes to gnaw it clean. This is what we have learned from tractate Pessachim folio 85. [In other words: while on the one hand we are commanded not to leave anything over, we must also not treat that lamb as if it saved us from imminent starvation. Ed.]
+
+Verse 47
+
+כל עדת בני ישראל יעשו אותו, “the entire community of the Children of Israel is to perform it. (that commandment).” The lesson from this verse is that also in future generations this is a communal commandment, but participation is not limited to immediate family members. (Compare Malbim). [The word “also” in the version of the commentary is an obvious error, as the Passover in Egypt was specifically restricted to the members of each household. Ed.]
+
+Verse 48
+
+ועשה פסח, “and he wishes to perform the commandment of participating in the Passover ritual;”
+והיה כאזרח הארץ, ”so that he will feel as if a natural born Jew (from birth);” the example is meant to portray a gentile who upon hearing the history of the Jewish people has decided to convert to that religion/nation; it might be thought that since his forefathers did not suffer servitude in Egypt he could not do so; the Torah therefore states that as soon as he has undergone ritual circumcision his past history has been wiped out and he is treated as if he had been born a Jew and shared their suffering throughout the ages. Just as a natural born Jew who for a valid reason was unable to observe the Passover in the month of Nissan has been granted a second chance, so has the new convert who could not observe it before conversion.
+וכל ערל לא יאכל בו, “no uncircumcised person must eat of it.” Being uncircumcised is considered as being physically repulsive, ugly, as we have learned in the Talmud Pessachim, folio 96.
+
+Verse 49
+
+תורה אחת יהיה, “one Torah (law) there shall be.” The word Torah appears here as masculine (יהיה) after first having been described as feminine (אחת). Usually it appears only as feminine.[In the opinion of this editor, this type of incongruity is always a reminder that the Torah could not have been written by a human being, as a human being would not want to be guilty of such grammatical inconsistency. Such “errors” would long ago have been “edited” out. Ed.]
+הגר הגר בתוככם, “the stranger that resides amongst you.” The term refers to a proselyte who has been converted by a competent court, as opposed to one who has taken a legal shortcut to conversion.
+
+Verse 50
+
+ויעשו כל בני ישראל, “all the Children of Israel performed, etc.” here as well as in 8,14, it is impossible to translate this line literally, i.e. that every single member of the Jewish people performed the Passover ritual, (minors and babies included); the meaning is simply that the Jewish people ever since, annually performed the ritual of the Passover. We find similar “inaccuracy” in Exodus 8,14, where the Torah wrote: ויעשו כן החרטומים, which literally translated would mean: “the sorcerers performed the same miracle.” Had they been able to perform the same miracle or even to reverse it, they would not have been ”sorcerers.”
+
+Verse 51
+
+ויהי בעצם היום הזה, “it was on that very same day;” these words have to be read as linked to what the Torah wrote in verse 41 where it described the departure of the Jewish people from Egypt in the same terms. If proof were needed that this is the correct interpretation, compare Numbers 3,13: כי לי כל בכור ביום הכותי כל בכור וגו', “for every firstborn Israelite belongs to Me, since the day when I smote all the firstborn of Egypt, etc.”
+
+Chapter 13
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+
+
+Verse 2
+
+כל בכור, “every firstborn;” this refers to the firstborn human male; in earlier times sacrificial rituals were performed exclusively by such firstborn males.
+באדם ובבהמה, “of man or domesticated beast;” this comparison of the firstborn human being to the firstborn domestic animal, means that just as a firstborn human being belongs to the priest, so a firstborn domestic animal belongs to the priest, G-d’s representative on earth. Just as the redemption of a firstborn human being takes place on the thirty first day of his life, so the firstborn domestic beast has to be given to the priest on the thirty first day of its life. (Mechilta Pisscha 16)
+
+Verse 3
+
+
+
+Verse 4
+
+היום אתם יוצאים; this is an exclamation equivalent to: “remember that you are leaving Egypt in the month of spring” (nature’s renewal)
+
+Verse 5
+
+והיה כי יביאך, “it will be when Hashem will bring you, etc.” the Torah repeats that the prohibition to eat leavened products on Passover will remain in force also when the people are settled in their own country.
+
+Verse 6
+
+שבעת ימים תאכל מצות, “you will eat matzot for seven days.” Here too the Torah repeats this to leave no doubt that this law will remain in force when the people have reached their destination and settled in the land of Canaan (Israel).
+וביום השביעי חג, “and the seventh day you will observe as a festival.” “Why did the Torah here not mention that the first day was also to be observed as a festival?” (Our author appears to be the only one having raised this question.) Possibly it had already been answered by Sh’mot rabbah who points out that a reminder of this has already been found in verse three, where the Torah commanded “to remember this day (the 15th of Nissan) on which the Lord took you out of Egypt.”
+
+Verse 7
+
+
+
+Verse 8
+
+והגדת לבנך, “you will tell your son, etc.;” the son who is too young to pose the question, you will tell without his having asked: “why did G-d saw fit to make Pharaoh kick out the Jews before their dough had even had a chance to be baked into bread? Did He not have the power to keep them there until they could at least have taken baked bread with them?” You will answer the question you have put into the mouth of the שאינו יודע לשאול, the child that is as yet not curious to formulate his own questions: בעבור זה, “in order to make sure that I will observe these commandments involving the Passover sacrifice, the unleavened bread, and the bitter herbs as a commemoration of all the miracles he performed for me then when I came out of Egypt.”
+בעבור זה עשה ה' לי, according to Rashi this is a hint of the answer to be given to the son called רשע in the haggadah of Pessach. Rashi means that this is the answer to be given to the wicked son who does not even bother to ask about what is special on these days, and especially on the first night. The word לי, “for me,” and not for someone like him, would make this a suitable answer for the wicked son described in the haggadah as reacting to all the ritual he observes with a derisive: “why are you going to all this trouble?” The word לי implies that if he had been there at the time, G-d most certainly would not have bothered either with redeeming him or any of the miracles leading up to it.
+
+Verse 9
+
+, והיה לך לאות על ידך, “it shall be a symbol, (tangible reminder) for you on your hand (and arm);” all of this is part of what you are to tell your son. It is inscribed on the first parchment inside the phylacteries.
+לך לאות, “for you as a symbol;” logic dictates that first and foremost the phylacteries are to serve as historical reminder for you (sing.) on your arm (where not everyone can see it, but once you have put on phylacteries as a historical reminder for yourself, it must also serve as such for all the other Jews, (and gentiles) i.e. you must wear another one of the phylacteries on your forehead to trumpet this message to all who see you, i.e. בין עיניך, literally: “between your eyes.” Thus will be fulfilled what is written in Deuteronomy 28,10: וראו כל עמי הארץ כי שם ה' נקרא עליך, “and all the nations of the earth will see that the name of the Lord has been proclaimed upon you.”
+
+Verse 10
+
+מימים ימימה, “from year to year;” this is a reminder that one has to examine one’s תפילין, phylacteries once every year to check the writing on the parchments. This is the opinion of the school of Hillel. (His disciples) They based themselves on the fact that elsewhere the meaning of the word ימים means “days,” or maximum “a year.” The school of Shammai holds that they need to be examined only once in a lifetime. Hillel the elder, is reputed to have shown someone the phylactery of his grandfather. (Mechilta, Pisscha, section 17). In the Talmud Sanhedrin folio 92b, Yehudah ben Beteyrah who claimed to be a descendant of one of the dead resurrected by the prophet Ezekiel, is reputed to have shown the phylacteries that his father had bequeathed to him as stemming from that generation. (about 300 years prior)
+
+Verse 11
+
+והיה כי יביאך, “it will be when He brings you, etc.” the reason this introductory line is repeated here is so that we should not think that only the firstborn that came out of Egypt needed to be sanctified. The Torah therefore makes it clear that this law continues to apply to children born as firstborn to their parents in the Hoy Land (and in the Diaspora in due course)
+אל ארץ הכנעני, “to the land of the Canaanite;” the reason why the Canaanites had a legal claim to that country was that the children of Chet, a friend of Avraham, honoured Abraham and when they heard that G-d had promised this land to our forefathers, they emigrated from that land to make it available to the descendants of Avraham. In appreciation of that, G-d rewarded them by this land becoming known as “the land of Canaan.” (Mechilta Pisscha, chapter 18.) [According to my version of the Mechilta, printed in the chumash with Malbim’s commentary, it was not one of the Hittites that was so “generous,” but Canaan the grandson of Noach, whom his grandfather had cursed. According to that version he was rewarded with being given a land in Africa superior to the land in which he had resided at the time. Canaan, a grandson of Noach may well have still been alive during the lifetime of Avraham. I do not know how this jives with Canaan having been condemned to be a slave to his brothers. Ed.]
+כאשר נשבע לך, “as He has sworn to you.” The meaning of the line is: “you will receive it as an ancestral heritage as G-d had sworn to your forefathers.
+
+Verse 12
+
+והעברת כל פטר רחם לה, “you shall set apart for the Lord every first issue of the womb;” we encounter a similar expression in Numbers 27,8: והעברתם את נחלתו אל בתו, “you will set side his inheritance for his daughter.” In that instance, the inheritance of potential male heirs is set aside for a female heir, a daughter if there is one. Here too, the firstborn is set apart from the other heirs as an inheritance for the Lord.
+וכל פטר שגר בהמה, likewise every male firstling that emerges from the womb of a beast;” at that time the Israelites did not own any ritually impure beasts except donkeys; (no camels or horses) this is why there was no need for the Torah to add the expression: טהורה, “ritually pure,” in our verse.
+
+Verse 13
+
+וכל פטר חמור, “and every firstling of a donkey;” this paragraph has been repeated because the laws about the firstlings of donkeys, and the redemption of them was a totally new concept.
+בבניך תפדה, “as well as amongst your sons, you have to redeem.” This law did not become applicable until after the Levites had become sanctified in lieu of the firstborn sons during the second year of the Israelites in the desert. (Numbers 3,45)
+
+Verse 14
+
+?מה זאת, “what is the significance of this?” Seeing that your son observes that neither a gentile nor an uncircumcised Israelite is permitted to partake of the Passover meat, something that sets the festival of Passover apart from all other festivals, he is entitled to ask the reason for this. An alternate explanation: the words: מה זאת, do not refer to Passover and the unleavened bread, the reason for which we have already read about. However, the son asks, on the new concept of redeeming something that was perceived as sacred for something that was perceived as secular; you, the father, are to answer him in the words of the Torah that we imitate what G-d had done with the firstborn sons and beasts of the Israelites in Egypt on that night when He exempted them from execution at His hands. In exchange for being saved, we offer a sacrifice.
+
+Verse 15
+
+
+
+Verse 16
+
+.והיה לאות על ידכה, “it shall be as a symbol on your hand;” the phylactery to be worn on the arm (hand) is to serve as a symbol for the “strong hand,” with which G-d compelled the Egyptians to release the Israelites, as mentioned in the previous verse; the phylactery to be worn on the forehead however, is to be a reminder of the miracles G-d had performed as stated in Deuteronomy 6,22: ויתן ה' אותות ומופתים גדולים ורעים בפרעה ובמצרים לעינינו, “the Lord performed signs and miracles great and awesome before our eyes against Pharaoh and the Egyptians.”
+ידכה, the unusual spelling instead of ידך alerts us to the need to wear the phylactery on the left arm, our weaker arm. Seeing that we use our right arm for all manner of activities, it is not fitting that the holy name of G-d be attached to it. An alternate explanation: our sages have stated that seeing that the right arm and hand are used to attach the phylactery to our left arm, instead of vice versa, and in most instances the left arm or hand are called יד, there is nothing surprising in this.
+ולטוטפות, the word means: “something to look at.” We find in this context in Deuteronomy 28,10: וראו כל עמי הארץ כי שם ה' נקרא עלדך, “and all the nations of the earth will see that the name of the Lord) has been proclaimed upon you.” (Compare Talmud megillah 14 מטייפין)
+
+Verse 17
+
+ויהי בשלח פרעה את העם, “It was when Pharaoh had let the people go;” the reason why the Torah did not write that “Pharaoh let the Israelites go,” is because the word העם included fellow travelers who had joined the Jewish nation, as well as spies who would report back to Pharaoh on the route they had taken.
+ולא נחם אלו־הים, ”and G-d had not led them, etc.” G-d did not lead them on the shortest route that led to the land of Canaan; the letter ו in the word ולא is superfluous (if that was all this meant)
+דרך ארץ פלשתים כי קרוב הוא, “the route which runs through the land of the Philistines; although (or because), it was the shortest route.” According to our author what is meant is “although,” despite, the fact that it was the shortest route. We find a similar meaning for the word כי in Exodus 19,5: כי לי כל הארץ, “although the whole earth belongs to Me.” Another example of this meaning of the word כי is found in Psalms 41,5, “heal me although I have sinned against You.” רפאה נפשי כי חטאתי לך. Consider also Genesis 48,14: שכל ידיו כי מנשה הבכור, “he crossed his hands although Menashe was the firstborn.” In our context, although there was an additional boundary to be crossed between Egypt and the land of Canaan, namely the land of the Philistines, as we know from when while in the land of the Philistines G-d had commanded Yitzchok not to continue on to Egypt on account of the famine in the land of Canaan, (Genesis 26,1) so that it seemed strange that G-d did not lead the Israelites by this route, He was afraid that if they would find resistance to their traversing that land, they would refer to return to Egypt.
+כי אמר אלוקים פן ינחם העם, “for G-d had said: “lest the people have remorse;” we must not criticize this verse by saying that it cannot be reconciled with G-d’s Omniscience, i.e. that He did know all this in advance; besides, surely if G-d had wanted to He could have led the Israelites through the land of the Philistines without their coming to any harm; however, what is written here is an answer to the attribute of Justice which wanted to exploit that opportunity to accuse the Israelites of lack of faith in their G-d. Precisely, because G-d was aware that the Israelites were not yet in a condition to withstand the Satan, He decided not to give them that opportunity at this time. We find an example of a similar situation in Genesis 3,22 where G-d is portrayed as being “afraid” that Adam and Eve after having eaten from the tree of knowledge and having forfeited immortality might eat from the tree of life in order to regain it, and to thereby nullify the penalty G-d had imposed upon them. The Torah, justifying G-d’s expelling them from the garden, wrote there: ועתה פן ישלח ידו, “and now, lest he will extend his hand, etc.” There too you could have asked: “seeing that G-d knew what would happen, why did He not remove the tree, instead of depriving mankind of access to the garden?”
+בראותם מלחמה “when they would see they would be involved in war;” The Philistines would attack them, thinking that the Israelites were approaching in order avenge the 30000 men of Ephrayim they had killed 30 years previously when these people having miscalculated the time when their redemption was due had taken matters into their own hands and had marched out of Egypt in order to recapture their homeland. Their miscalculation had been that they thought the 400 years mentioned at the covenant of the pieces in Genesis 15,13 had commenced then and not at the birth of Yitzchok. Actually, the 430 years mentioned in Exodus 12,40 had commenced then, (although Rash’bam has trouble accounting for this). According to Yonatan ben Uzziel this may have been what Pharaoh had counted on. A grandson of Avimelch attacked the members of Ephrayim. According to Chronicles I 7,20, the battle with the Philistines occurred at Gat. According to some scholars the members of the tribe of Ephrayim killed during that battle were the “dried bones” resurrected by the prophet Ezekiel, (Ezekiel 37) כי קרוב הוא, “for he was very close to him;” according to some scholars Pharaoh and Avimelech of the Philistines were politically very close to one another, and Pharaoh counted on the Philistines to bring the Israelites back to him. He also counted on the promise of Avraham to Avimelech valid for 4 generations hence not to engage in hostilities against him. Actually, a grandson of the Avimelech with whom Avraham, had concluded a non aggression pact, a pact that his son Yitzchok had renewed, was still alive when the Israelites left Egypt. Avraham’s descendants did not engage in warfare with the Philistines for seven generations. (Moses was the seventh generation from Avraham). All these considerations prompted G-d not to lead the Israelites on the shortest route to the Holy Land. [Besides, if G-d meant for them to receive the Torah at Mount Sinai, this would have been quite impossible, and G-d had told Moses already at the burning bush that one of the reasons why He redeemed them earlier than expected was that they would receive the Torah at that site. Ed.] Our author also quotes the liturgist who in his poem makes reference to these points. For all the reasons quoted, G-d ensured that the Israelites did not take the route that had proven so tragic for the members of the tribe of Ephrayim some thirty years earlier.
+בראותם מלחמה, “when they come face to face with war.” This would have been a war on two fronts, the pursuing Egyptians at their back and the furious Philistines facing them, trying to force them back to their allies the Egyptians. Our author had explained already on Genesis 21,22 where the fact that the barren Sarah had given birth to a son for Avraham, that the prophecies given to him started to be taken seriously by the rulers of that time. Up until then they had not worried about these prophecies. In Joshua 13,3, we read about the Israelites indeed having had to face enemies on two fronts when Joshua had aged and not yet conquered all of the land of Canaan as he had been instructed to do. ושבו מצרימה. “and they will prefer to return to Egypt.” That this was a logical consideration is born out by the fact that the Israelites, even though not having taken that route, were on the point of voluntarily returning to Egypt on numerous occasions, on most occasions when they faced problems in the desert.
+
+Verse 18
+
+דרך המדבר ים סוף, “the route through the desert bordering the sea of reed.” The word של, “of” was omitted here as something that the reader can fill in for himself, just as it has been omitted in “הארון הברית,” in Joshua 3,14, where we read: הארון הברית instead of הארון שהוא ארון הברית, “the ark, which is the ark housing the covenant.” In Genesis 2,9 we find a similar construction, i.e. עץ הדעת טוב ורע, where we would have expected instead: עץ שהוא דעת טוב ורע, “the tree which is (the key) to knowledge of good and evil.”
+וחמושים, according to Rashi, the meaning of the word is: “armed.” According to Rashi, the fear of the Israelites was not due to their not having arms with which to defend themselves. They were well armed. You are not to wonder where the Israelites had taken all these arms from, arms which they used in the desert for several wars, starting immediately after they had crossed the sea of reeds and had been attacked by the Amalekites. They needed these arms again when the conquered the land of Canaan under the leadership of Joshua. An alternate explanation of the word: חמושים. The word refers to provisions for the journey. The word is used in Genesis 41,34, where it describes the provisions stored by Joseph in anticipation of the seven years of famine that were to follow the seven years of plenty. In practice this meant (according to tradition) that the dough the Israelites took with them lasted them a whole month until the 15th of lyar, when the heavenly food, the manna took over. The reason for the need for that miracle had been that G-d took the people on a detour through the desert. (Compare Mechilta)
+
+Verse 19
+
+כי השבע השביע, the repetition of the words “he made swear repeatedly,” was that Joseph did not know which generation would experience the Exodus. Joseph had told his brothers that by committing them to this oath he was not asking them for a favour: they who had been instrumental in his being dragged to Egypt as a slave if they wanted to complete the act of repentance,must ensure that he would be brought to burial in the land of his forefathers from where he had been kidnapped. He had performed a mission on his father’s behalf when he came to Sh’chem (Genesis 37,14) and this is why he expected to be buried near there. This is where he was interred eventually, as we know from Joshua 24,32.
+
+Verse 20
+
+ויסעו מסכות, “they journeyed from Sukkot;” on the second day.
+
+Verse 21
+
+., “and the Lord, etc:” the letter ו at the beginning of the word indicates that G-d’s “entourage” accompaniedHim.” An alternate interpretation: the letter ו, as we mentioned already on Genesis 19,24, refers to the angel Gavriel.
+ללכת יומם ולילה, “to keep marching both by day and by night, in order to convince Pharaoh that the Israelites were fleeing. This would make him pursue them.
+
+Verse 22
+
+עמוד הענן יומם, “the pillar of cloud by day;” The only other time when the word: יומם occurs in the Torah is when it describes a period when the sun shines on earth. On the other hand, the expression יום, occurs also both in the Torah and in the rest of the Bible when describing a particular day regardless of whether is daylight at the time. In the Torah we find: ביום הכותי כל בכור (Numbers 3,13) although we know that it was at midnight. In the Book of prophets we find the word יום applied to something that happened at night in Kings II 7,9: היום הזה יום בשורה, “this day, the day of good tidings.” It is clear from the context that these words were spoken at night. The speakers added: “let us wait with bringing this news until morning.” In Psalms 88,2 we read: יום צעקתי בלילה נגדך, “a day when I cry out at night before You.”
+לא ימיש, “it did not depart;” the word used is in the future tense, however; we would have expected the Torah to have written: לא מש instead.
+
+Chapter 14
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+
+
+Verse 2
+
+וישבו, “so that they shall turn back;” G-d said that He did not want the Egyptians to be able to say that Moses and Aaron had deceived him when they said that all they had requested was to travel three days into the desert (Exodus 8,23).
+לפני פי החירות, “facing a place called: Pee Hachirot, the entrance to Hachirot;” according to Rashi, this place was identical to the fortification of Pittom, one of the first two cities to have been built by the Israelite slaves. The reason why the Torah refers to it by a different name here was that it was the first town the Israelites encountered as free men. (חרות, freedom) The Egyptians had no cause to complain about the newly gained freedom of the Israelites as pointed out by Pessikta zutrata, (compare Torah schleymah, item 9 on this verse) where it is stated that it was the accepted practice of the Egyptians that if he succeeded in getting as far way as Pittom, he would have gained his legal freedom. An alternate exegesis: the words לפני פי החירות, mean that the reason why the Torah mentions that location is to mislead Pharaoh into thinking that the Israelites had gotten lost, as a result of which they had second thoughts about leaving Egypt, and the proof is that they encamped at that location, one familiar to them as they had built the fortifications in that town, it being known to them as Pittom.
+נכחו, “it was opposite;” a place called פי החירות, “perhaps best translated as “gateway to freedom.”תחנו על הים, (Moses instructing the people in the name of G-d) “you will encamp alongside the shores of the sea so that when Pharaoh comes he will see your flag.”
+
+Verse 3
+
+
+
+Verse 4
+
+ורדף אחריהם, “he will pursue them;” when Pharaoh would engage them in battle they would attempt to flee, and he would pursue them. He would become guilty in the eyes of G-d for not allowing them to return to Egypt [as they had promised they would. Ed.] As a result of this they could not be blamed for not bringing back the valuables that they had “borrowed.” At any rate, the houses and fields that they had left behind amounted to more in value than the chattels they had taken with them.
+וידעו, “they will know, etc.” this refers to the Egyptians who had remained in Egypt.
+
+Verse 5
+
+ויגד למלך מצרים, meanwhile the King of Egypt had received information, etc.” according to Rashi, he had received this information from the spies that he had sent along with the Israelites when they were leaving Ramses. They reported that after three days had passed the Israelites had not made any move indicating that they would return. According to Rashi, on the first day the Israelites had marched only a distance of a single day from Ramses to Sukkot. On the next day they had marched from Sukkot to Eytam, and on the third day they had turned around, so that by that time they were only a day’s march away from the Egyptian border. All this is based on the words: “they turned around and they encamped.” According to Rashi, then, they had presented offerings to G-d while facing Egypt all day long on the third day. The spies reported that on the following day that they had not made any move in the direction of Egypt. This they interpreted as proof that they intended to flee. According to this, the Israelites remained stationary until Pharaoh caught up with them. This is based on the Torah writing that Pharaoh caught up with them while they were along the sea. (verse 9) According to this, the Egyptians engaged in pursuing them on the fifth and sixth day, even though the people had not moved further away at all. We would have to explain this by assuming that an army which travels with chariots, etc., as described, moves more slowly than an ordinary army or cavalry. Otherwise, it makes no sense that they did not face their adversary until the sixth or seventh day.
+ויהפוך לבב פרעה, “Pharaoh experienced a change of heart;” the expression implies that he was sorry about what he had done. We have an example of this expression being used in that context in Lamentations 1,20: נהפך לבי בקרבי, “my heart is in anguish.”
+
+Verse 6
+
+ויאסור את רכבו, “he harnessed his chariot;” according to Rashi, he did this personally, not ordering his servants to do so. This is interpreted as part of the psychology of people who are extremely angry. They give vent to their anger by involving themselves personally.
+
+Verse 7
+
+
+
+Verse 8
+
+ביד רמה, “fully confident;” they thought that they had nothing to fear as they had left Egypt with permission.
+
+Verse 9
+
+
+
+Verse 10
+
+והנה מצרים נוסע אחריהם, “and here the Egyptians are pursuing them!” The Torah uses the singular mode for describing all these Egyptian soldiers and their officers. We have found examples of this in Numbers 13,23: ויבא עד חברון, “he came as far as Chevron,” when actually the Torah speaks of 12 spies. Or, another example: Joshua 8,12: האורב קם מהרה ממקומו, “The people lying in ambush arose quickly from their place.” The word: ממקומו, in the singular mode, means: “from its place.” Even though there were actually 5000 Israelite soldiers that formed the ambush.
+וייראו מאד, “They were very scared.” Why would 600000 male, able bodied, Israelites, be so scared of 600 Egyptian chariots? We had been told that they were all armed! Their fear was based on their slave mentality. Every slave is afraid of his master. These Israelites had not yet proven to themselves that they could fend for themselves.
+
+Verse 11
+
+להוציאנו, “To take us out;” we have to understand this word as if the letter א, had the vowel tzeyreh under it. This would be the correct transitive form of this word at this place. (Compare Ibn Ezra) There are several examples of this in the Bible, also in the reverse use of the respective vowels. (Vocalization was provided by the teachers of the Torah. Moses did not write the Torah down with vowels. Ed.]
+
+Verse 12
+
+
+
+Verse 13
+
+
+
+Verse 14
+
+ואתם תחרישון, “you only have to keep silent!” Do not keep on complaining to me accusing me as being “guilty” of taking you out of slavery.
+
+Verse 15
+
+?מה תצעק אלי, Why do you cry out to Me?” According to the plain meaning of the text Moses was quite sure that the Israelites would be helped and saved. Had G-d not told him: “I will deal very severely with Pharaoh? (verse 4) The question was addressed to the Israelites through Moses. The Torah is full of examples when G-d speaks to Moses, as representative of the whole Jewish nation. He is taking issue with the fact that the Israelites were complaining instead of displaying a little bit of faith by wading into the sea. G-d tells Moses to command them to get moving. He had already told them that He would fight on their behalf. (verse 14) They should therefore have been certain that G-d would not let the Egyptians defeat them.
+
+Verse 16
+
+ואתה, הרם את מטך, “as far as you are concerned “raise your staff, etc,” Moses was not to lift his staff in order to orchestrate a miracle, but on the contrary, he was to raise his staff so that the people could see that the miracle was possible not only by means of striking the sea with his staff. G-d told Moses that all he had to do was make a threatening gesture and the waters would already split. Our author quotes examples of similar constructions, citing Daniel 8,11 הורם התמיד, “the daily communal offering was removed;” or Isaiah 57,14: הרימו מכשול מדרך עמי, “remove obstacles from the path of My people.” Verse 21 tells us that as soon as Mosesextended his staff G-d was making the sea respond to the east wind etc.
+
+Verse 17
+
+
+
+Verse 18
+
+
+
+Verse 19
+
+ויסע מלאך האלוקים, “G-d’s angel travelled, etc.” the Torah speaks of the angel that moves the pillar of cloud and the pillar of fire. (Compare comment on 13,21) Previously the Torah had simply spoken of Hashem walking ahead of the Israelites, without mentioning the word “angel.” Seeing that an angel is always a messenger of G-d, the Torah had simply referred to him as “G-d.”A different interpretation: whereas initially the Torah had not given us specifics about what medium G-d employed, it now gives us more detail. [Possibly, seeing we have been told that one angel normally is charged with only one task at a time, here the same angel performed what could be interpreted as more than one task. Ed.] At any rate, as a result of the angel’s activity there was absolute darkness between the camp of the Israelites and that of the Egyptian pursuers. This will be spelled out clearly in the verses following.
+
+Verse 20
+
+ויבא בין מחנה, “he positioned himself between the camp, etc.” the Torah refers to the cloud that was controlled by the angel taking up position between the two camps. We encounter something similar in Joshua 24,7: וישם מאפל ביניכם ובין במצרים ויבא עליהם את הים, “He placed darkness between you and the Egyptians and He brought the sea upon them.” (Joshua’s parting speech to the people before they dispersed to their respective portions of the Holy Land.)
+ויאר את הלילה, “it lit up the night.” Rashi understands the word ויאר as being derived from אור, light, in the transitive mode of the verb. If you were to ask how it is that Rashi’s commentary on Psalms 139,11: ולילה אור בעדני, “night will provide me with cover” understands the word אור as meaning darkness, the correct interpretation of these verses therefore must be that the word חשך, darkness, refers to the Egyptian side of the pillar of cloud, whereas the reference to light refers to the Israelites’ side of that pillar of cloud. The Targum’s translation confirms this interpretation. ויאר את הלילה, the pillar of fire that had been travelling ahead of the marching Israelites did not change its function, for if it had positioned itself behind the Israelites it would have provided light for the Egyptians. However, the pillar of cloud which had up until then disappeared at dusk every day, instead took up a position behind the Israelites. This prevented the Egyptians from coming closer to the Israelites. A different interpretation: the meaning of the words: ולא קרב זה אל זה, “the one did not come closer to the other one,” does not refer to the camps of the Israelites and the Egyptians, but to the pillar of cloud and the pillar of fire. (during the night) Once morning dawned, they merged with one another, however, as we will explain shortly.
+
+Verse 21
+
+ויבקעו המים, “the waters split vertically right down to the bed of the sea.” In Moses’ song of thanksgiving, one half of a verse speaks of the waters “freezing solid,” קפאו 15,8) ,תהומות) whereas the other half describes this as occurring בלב ים, “in the heart of the sea,” which appears to contradict the interpretation that the waters split vertically right to the bottom of the sea. We must understand that the sea at that point was flowing over its banks. (the sea in question was tonguelike, like a very wide river, say the Amazon river near its delta.) If the sea had not split all the way down to the bottom the Israelites would have literally have had to descend to that bottom on one bank and to climb out of it afterwards again. Therefore the process described occurred in three stages, so that near each bank (shore) the waters froze horizontally to facilitate the Israelites’ descending and subsequent ascending on the opposite side. The waters formed vertical walls for the Israelites from either side. The simile of לב ים, “heart of the sea,” used by Moses illustrated this as the human heart in a certain manner divides the torso from the head and shoulders above and the lower part including the legs below. As a result of this division, the Israelites could cross without having to descend or to ascend at all. The waters after freezing and becoming dry, were level with the two shores. This is illustrated by the author of a liturgical poem recited in most synagogues in the morning prayer of the last day of Passover, (in the repetition of the amidah on the quote: וברוח אפיך נערמו מים, commencing with the words: פנו כאן וכאן שליש רום מימות, “while one side of the highest waters reared themselves on each side the remainder became bound up to form a path for their footsteps.”Verses 19,20,21, each have 72 letters, each word starting a different letter of the Hebrew alphabet, the first and third verse has the first letter of each word in the normal sequence, whereas the second verse has as the first word the last letter of the alphabet proceeding in the reverse order. Rashi has explained in his commentary on the Talmud in tractate Sukkot, folio 45, on אנ׳י וה׳ו, how by reading the three verses when they are written one on top of the other in the order in which they appear in the Torah vertically when reading from the top down we get the 72 names of G-d (in a three lettered version each.) Moses employed these versions of the names of G-d as a means to split the sea. Seeing that at the beginning of this process Moses was mentioned in the Torah as initiating it, when we recite the hoshaanot on the seventh day of Sukkot when according to tradition the world’s water supply is determined in the heavenly regions. The second acronym is taken from the 37th word in the arrangement we discussed. We may learn from this mystical approach that the Torah credited both G-d and Moses with having had a share in this miracle. [Moses’ staff, and G-d’s East wind. Ed.]
+
+Verse 22
+
+ויבאו בני ישראל בתוך הים, “the Children of Israel went into the midst of the sea;” the Israelites did not cross the sea by using it as a convenient crossing on their way to the land of Canaan, as it is well known that there is no sea separating Egypt from the land of Canaan. The only reason they had to enter the sea at all, was to give G-d a chance to lure the Egyptians to their death through pursuing the Israelites. This is why they turned back from the desert of Eytam to the sea.
+בתוך הים, “into the midst of the sea;” even if they set half a foot inside the water this is already called: בתוך הים. We know this from Numbers 11,4 when the Torah in describing the riffraff amongst the Israelites, of whom surely there were only very few, as והאספסוף בתוך העם, “the riffraff in the midst of the people.” Surely they had been at the fringe of the people!
+
+Verse 23
+
+ויבאו אחריהם, “they followed after them;” They might not have done so knowingly, but seeing that everything in front of them was darkness, they did not realise that they had done so until they were into what had been sea moments before.
+
+Verse 24
+
+באשמורת הבקר, “during the morning watch;” Rashi claims that seeing that the night is divided in accordance with the songs of the angels in heaven, these watches are called אשמורת. This word means “waiting for;” the angels have to be on time so as not to miss the turn allocated to them. We find the root שמר used in this context when Yaakov, hearing Joseph’s last dream is reported to have taken it seriously and he was waiting how that dream would play out. (Compare Genesis 37,11: ואביו שמר את הדבר, “his father kept track of the matter.”)
+באשמורת הבקר, in our domain: “close to morning.” It was an hour when people already look forward towards morning.
+בעמוד אש וענן, “through a pillar of fire and cloud;” the time when the pillar of fire made way for the pillar of cloud. At this brief moment the two phenomena appeared as if mixed up with one another in front of the camp of the Egyptians. The Egyptians had not been used to see a pillar of fire, they had only faced darkness up to that moment. As soon as they saw the pillar of fire they took fright and wanted to reverse direction in order to flee. The Israelites meanwhile had no need to stop, so that from that moment on they put more and more distance between themselves and their pursuers. Seeing that the frozen waters on both of their sides were security, they could proceed undisturbed.
+
+Verse 25
+
+ויסר, “the Egyptian tried to remove;”את אופן מרכבותיו, “the wheel of his chariots;” the root יסרis used here as in Judges 4,18 when the fleeing general Sisera of the Canaanites tried to find refuge in the tent of Yael. Here the Egyptians tried to reverse the wheels of their chariots but could not manage to do this. וינהגהו בכבדות, “He forced them to move with difficulty;” the principal difficulty of turning around chariot was the chariot following which was in the way so that most forward chariot could not even turn around. Eventually, every chariot driver became a hindrance to his colleagues. ויאמר מצרים אנוסה, Egypt’s commander now decided to flee on foot and to abandon the chariots. מפני בני ישראל, “from the Children of Israel;” even this did not help them as we know from verse 26 where G-d ordered Moses to extend his hand over the sea, so that the frozen waters of the sea would revert to their normal state and drown the Egyptians in the process.
+
+Verse 26
+
+
+
+Verse 27
+
+לפנות בקר לאיתנו, “when the morning had approached to becoming noon;” (B‘chor shor)
+נסים לקראתו, “fleeing toward it;” at the beginning the waters of the sea had frozen; when the Egyptians saw that the solidity of the water offered them a chance for escape they tried to use it as a route of escape seeing that climbing to the shore was too strenuous. When the waters started to melt, they realised that they had been fleeing in the direction of where the waves came from.
+
+Verse 28
+
+
+לא נשאר מהם עד אחד, “not a single one of them remained alive.” This is what David recorded in Psalms 106,11: אחד מהם לא נותר, “not a single one of them remained.”
+
+Verse 29
+
+ובני ישראל הלכו ביבשה, “meanwhile the Children of Israel had walked on dry land.” This verse is inseparably linked to the previous one, as it contrasts the experiences of the Israelites and those of the Egyptians at one and the same time. If we had to explain this scientifically, we would say that two winds each blowing in opposite directions had been at work during that period. The wind described in Moses’ song in 15,8, served the interests of the Israelites, whereas the words: נשפת ברוחך, “You blew with Your wind,” served to lure the Egyptians to their destruction.
+
+Verse 30
+
+ויושע ה' ביום ההוא, “on that day the Lord delivered;” this verse testifies to G-d’s having kept His promise of “'התיצבו וראו את ישועת ה, “stand firm and watch the deliverance orchestrated by Hashem!” This day was one of complete deliverance, as from that day on the Israelites did not see any more Egyptians in their lives [that generation. Ed.]) את מצרים מת, the Torah refers to all of them in the singular mode. We find other examples of this construction in the Holy Scriptures, the most recent one being in verse 10 of our chapter: והנה מצרים נוסע אחריהם, “and here Egypt was travelling behind them.”
+על שפת הים, “on the beach of the sea;” it is usual for the sea to disgorge its corpses on the beach; we know this from: Isaiah 57.20: ויגרשו מימיו רפש וטיט, “its waters tossed up mire and mud.”Some commentators understand this verse as being a condensation, the full text should have been: “the Israelites saw that on the beach of the sea Egyptians were dead from having drowned.”
+
+Verse 31
+
+ובמשה עבדו, “and in His servant Moses.” The Israelites now were full of respect for the quality of Moses’ prophetic powers.
+
+Chapter 15
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+ויאמרו לאמור, literally: “they said to say;” a somewhat unusual construction, meaning that the Israelites singing this song meant for future generations to recite it on appropriate occasions. [as we still do in our daily morning prayers. Ed.]
+
+Verse 2
+
+עזי וזמרת יה, “my victory and my song is G-d;” (Onkelos) according to Rashi, the vocalisation of the word ozzi here is most unusual as it should have been uzzi. Rashi examined this song grammatically in great detail; [seeing that it is poetry and you my readers are mostly not experts in classical Hebrew grammar (neither is this editor), I omit most of these comments. Ed.]
+ויהי לי לישועה, “He became my salvation.” Rashi explains that the expression ויהי should not raise any questions although we might have expected the word היה here for the past tense. He points out that we find similar constructions in Chronicles II 10,17, where we read about the kingdom of Yehudah having “appointed” Solomon’s son Rechavam as their king, and the word: וימלוך is used by the author, although the meaning is that Rechavam would continue to rule over the tribes of Yehudah and Binyamin as he had already been doing since his father Solomon had died and the country had not been split through the revolution which brought Jerovam to the throne of the ten remaining tribes. An almost identical verse is also found in Kings I 12,17.
+זה אלי, “this is my G-d.” Moses refers to G-d with the word, “זה,” “this,” although G-d, is, of course, invisible, This maybe the reason why we find Moses described on occasion as "זה משה האיש,” [even though after an absence on Mount Sinai of 40 days he had still not become visible again, not yet returned to the Israelite camp. (Compare Exodus 32,1)]
+
+Verse 3
+
+איש מלחמה, “a Man of war.” He acquired that title after having drowned His adversaries, the chariots of Pharaoh and their derivers, in the sea.
+
+Verse 4
+
+
+
+Verse 5
+
+תהומות יכסיומו, “the deeps covered them;” the letter מ in the word יכסיומו should have had the vowel cholem as have similar formulations of a verse, instead of the shuruk which our sages decided. The reason they did so was that there was already a vowel shuruk immediately in front of it. We find a similar example of this dilemma in Ezekiel 43,11, in the word: ומבואיו.
+
+Verse 6
+
+נאדרי, “glorious;” this adjective refers to G-d, the letter י at the end is superfluous, just as the letter י in Psalms 123,1 is superfluous in the word: היושבי. We therefore understand the whole sentence as if the Torah had written: ימינך ה' הנאדר בכח היא תרעץ אויב, “Your right hand o Lord, is the one that shatters the foe.”
+
+Verse 7
+
+תהרוס קמיך, “You break Your opponents.” This verb describes some kind of motion, stampeding, as in Exodus 19,21: פן יהרסו אל ה' לראות “lest they come stampeding in order to get a glimpse of G-d.” Compare also Isaiah 22,19: ויהרסו ממצבך, “and He will destroy you by crushing you.”
+
+Verse 8
+
+נערמו מים, “the waters rose up (like wall);” Onkelos translates these words as “חכימו מים,” the waters acted wisely, etc;” We understand this as the waters cooperating with G-d’s plan to pour the Egyptians into the water. This would conform with what we have read in Deuteronomy 11,4: אשר הציף ה' את מי ים סוף על פניהם ברדפם אחריכם, “how the Lord rolled back upon them the waters of the sea of reeds when they were pursuing you; i.e. the waters were pursuing the Egyptians.”
+
+Verse 9
+
+אמר אויב וגו, “the enemy had said, etc.; ”when he saw that the sea had had turned into a dry surface through the waves having frozen in the heart of it, the enemy considered this as an opportunity to catch up faster with the Israelites.
+אריק חרבי, “I will bare My sword;” our author feels that the letter ב before the word חרבי is missing here, and he quotes similar instances, so that as a result, the line would mean that by using His sword G-d separates body from soul; and blood from breathing; [personally I had no problem with the word חרבי as is. Ed.]
+תורישמו ידי, “My hand shall destroy them;” the root of the word is ירש, so that the meaning in our verse is “Will disinherit them in favour of My people”
+
+Verse 10
+
+ כעופרת, “like lead.” The word is a derivative of עפר “earth.” Whereas the other six types of metal, if buried in the earth will gradually diminish in weight and substance, lead retains its composition and does not deteriorate.
+
+Verse 11
+
+מי כמוכה באלם, “Who is like you among deities?” the letter י is missing in the word אלים. It is a hint of the inability of any so-called deities to even use the power of speech that ordinary human beings possess. They are totally dumb. Moses uses it here slightly differently by hinting that only our G-d can remain absolutely silent even when provoked. This degree of self-control is found nowhere else.
+נורא תהלות, “awesome in splendour.” It is the multiplicity of praises that make the Lord so awesome. We find the expression נורא applied to objects which possess more than the virtues or qualities required for them to live up to their reputations. For instance: המדבר הגדול והנורא הוא, “that great and awesome desert.” (Deuteronomy 1 19.) Or, Maleachi 3,23: לפני בא יום ה' הגדול והנורא, before the arrival of that great and awesome day.”: [The author quotes more examples. Ed.]
+עושה פלא, “working wonders.!” It is well known that air exhaled through the nose is warm or even hot. It could even be hot enough to cause substances with a low melting point to melt. On the other hand, air that is blown from the mouth is very cold and can even freeze something hot. But when G-d was described as exhaling hot air from angry nostrils, the result was that the waters of the sea piled up as blocks of ice instead. On the other hand, when G-d blew forth air from the mouth, these blocks of ice melted instead.
+
+Verse 12
+
+נטית ימינך, “You inclined Your right hand;” a reference to chapter 14,26 when G-d instructed Moses to extend his arm so that the waters would return to normal.
+
+Verse 13
+
+עם זו, “this nation;” Whenever the expression זו is used it means the same as אשר, “that one,” or “which;” compare Isaiah 42,24. It follows that in our verse, the words עם זו גאלת, mean: “You have redeemed a nation.”
+אל נוה קדשך, the entire land of Israel is called: “G-d’s holy residence.” As an example of this statement our author cites: Psalms 78,54.ויביאם אל גבול קדשו הר זה קנתה ימינה, “He brought them to the land of His holiness His right hand acquired this mountain.”
+נחית, “you guided;” both this word and the word נהלת, are to be understood as in the future tense, as Moses is predicting something that had not happened yet. This is very common use of language when prophecies or poems are involved.
+
+Verse 14
+
+חיל אחז יושבי פלשת, “fear gripped the inhabitants of Palestine.” They were afraid that retribution for their having killed tens of thousands of the members of the tribe of Ephrayim was at hand. Those members of the tribe of Ephrayim had been trying to leapfrog the appointed time of the end of Jewish slavery. They had been killed by the inhabitants of Gat, who had been born in the land of the Philistines. (Compare Chronicles I 7,21.)
+
+Verse 15
+
+אז נבהלו אלופי אדום, “then the chieftains of Edom were frightened.” They thought that they would now be punished for their founder Esau’s wrongful hatred of his twin brother Yaakov.
+נמוגו כל יושבי כנען, “all the inhabitants of Canaan’s hearts melted away.” They were certain that the time when the Israelites would drive them out of their homes was at hand. They were aware of the prophecy recorded in Exodus 3,8 that the Jewish G-d would descend from heaven in order to redeem His people, and drive out the Canaanites from their land.
+
+Verse 16
+
+תפול עליהם אימה ופחד, “may fear and terror descend upon them;” this is a prayer by Moses. He prays that they should continue to remain in this state of terror. The root נפל is used here in the same sense as when the Torah described the death of Yishmael in Genesis 25,18 with the words: על פני כל אחיו נפל, “he had fallen in the presence of all his brothers.” [If I understand our author correctly, he interprets Yishmael’s death as not that of a mighty hunter or hero, but as a person who was desperately afraid of death at the time. Ed.]
+בגדול זרועך, “through the might of Your arm;” this means the same as if the Torah had written: בזרוע גדלך, “with the arm of Your greatness.” We find a similar inverted expression of adjective and noun in Psalms 65,5: קדוש היכלך, which normally would be expressed as היכלך הקדוש, “Your holy Temple.”
+עד יעבור עם זו קנית, “until this people which You acquired as Your own through having taken them out of bondage from Egypt,” in order to bring them and implant them firmly in the mountain of Your heritage.”
+
+Verse 17
+
+תביאמו ותטעמו, “You will bring it and plant it;” these words belong to the words: עם זו קנית, “You have acquired this nation,” from the previous verse. Another example where words in one verse belong to the previous verse is found in Psalms 5,12: וישמחו כל חוסי בך לעולם ירננו ותסך עלימו; “and let all who take refuge in You rejoice; ever jubilant as You shelter them.” That verse too is actually part of the verse preceding it, contrasting it with it.
+תביאמו ותטעמו; according to Rashi, the fact that Moses spoke only about G-d doing this, is equivalent to a prophecy that he would not live to see his people entering the land of Israel. Otherwise he would have used the first person plural mode of: ”us.” If you were to argue that this is not news as we could have learned this from Exodus 6,1 where G-d had told Moses what he would experience, i.e. “now you will see what I shall do to Pharaoh, which some commentators interpret as Moses being told that he would not experience what G-d would do for the people when He would defeat the Canaanites. Rashi did not understand that verse in that sense, saying that this was our interpretation, but was not what G-d had meant to convey to Moses. Proof that Moses had not understood himself as being excluded is found in Numbers 10,29, when he says to his fatherinlaw Yitro: נוסעים אנחנו אל המקום אשר אמר ה' אותו אתן לכם, “we are about to journey to the place of which G-d has said: ‘I will give it to you.’”
+ותטעמו, “You will plant it;” the verb נטע meaning to plant, is always used with a plant that will endure for a long period. [Our author quotes Ezekiel 17,23, as proof although there the verb שתל is used? Ed.]
+מקדש ה, the name for G-d used in the spelling here is the one with the letters אד.
+
+Verse 18
+
+ה׳ ימלוך לעולם ועדת, ‘the Lord will rule forever;” a prayer, meaning: “may it be Your will that the Lord Who rules over us now will continue to do so forever, and may He continue to do favours for us similar to the ones He just did.” Although at first glance the word: ימלוך may be misunderstood a it is in the future tense, it is used as a present tense. One of many such examples is found in Deuteronomy 32,11: כנשר יעיר קנו ירחף, “as an eagle that stirs up its nest hovering over its young.” The verse continues in the future tense but describes matters that occur all the time.
+לעולם ועד; this is an abbreviated version of the expression: לעולם ועד עולם, “from one world until the next world.” There is no reason to wonder that the word ועד does not appear in the construct mode, as we find more such examples, such as in Isaiah 57,15: שוכן עד מרום וקדוש שמו, “forever dwells the One Whose name is high and holy;” the meaning of the line is: His name will remain forever exalted and holy.”The author explains that it is a peculiarity of classical Hebrew that the emphasis is placed on the letter following the prefix ו, in other words, on the letter ע in the word ועד. He cites Leviticus 7,23 שור וכשב ועז as an example, as well as Genesis 3,13: הנחש השיאני ואכל, “the serpent seduced me and I ate,” as another example.
+
+Verse 19
+
+כי בא סוס פרעה, “when Pharaoh’s horse entered the sea and G-d brought back the waters of the sea upon them, while the Israelites continued to walk on a completely dry sea bed, Miriam, the prophetess, sister of Aaron, took her drum and began to sing a song of thanksgiving.
+
+Verse 20
+
+מרים הנביאה, “Miriam the prophetess;” the word “prophetess” is used here to describe Miriam’s extraordinary ability to use words to express her feelings. [According to Rash’bam,] the word is also used as describing someone who preaches to people to behave morally and ethically correctly. Compare when G-d told Moses that his brother Aaron would be נביאך, which can hardly mean: “your prophet,” as Moses outclassed him in that department.
+
+Verse 21
+
+שירו לה' כי גאה, “raise your voices in song to the Lord, for He has been triumphant;” the women sang the whole of Moses’ song, word by word; seeing that the text had already been recorded, the Torah does not need to repeat all of it and mentions only the beginning.
+
+Verse 22
+
+
+שלשת ימים במדבר, “for three days in the desert.” They camped three times, at Eytam, Pihachirot, and Marah.
+
+Verse 23
+
+
+
+Verse 24
+
+
+
+Verse 25
+
+ויורהו ה׳ עץ וישלך אל המים, “the Lord taught him about a certain kind of wood, and he tossed it into the water;” although G-d had other means of making the water sweet, without using that kind of wood, G-d wanted to teach Moses some common chemistry, i.e. how to use natural products to sweeten something that only needs sweetening in order to make it drinkable or edible.
+שם שם לו חק ומשפט, “there He made for them a statute and an ordinance; according to Rashi, one of them was the law of the red heifer, although in practice it could not be practiced until the second year of their wanderings. [There is no earlier source for Rashi’s saying that this law was revealed at Marah. Ed.]
+
+Verse 26
+
+ויאמר, “he said;” the subject is Moses. 'אם שמוע תשמע וגו, “if you will surely listen etc.;” Moses quotes what G-d had said to him to tell the people. 'כל המחלה אשר שמתי במצרים וגו, “every disease with which I have afflicted the Egyptians in Egypt, etc.” לקול ה' אלוקיך, the letter ל in the word לקול, has a “crown”. [something exceptional for that letter. Ed]
+לא אשים עליך, “I will not afflict you with.” G-d implied that the reason He would not do so is that He would otherwise have to trouble Himself to cure the Israelites from these diseases.
+כי אני ה' רופאיך, “for I, the Lord, am your physician.” I would have to act as your physician after you had decided to listen to My voice, having been afflicted with such diseases as I struck the Egyptians with. [If understand our author correctly, he means that these diseases would not be considered as “natural,” as the Israelites had learned while in Egypt that they were means of G-d punishing people as opposed to diseases that had not been inflicted upon the Egyptians. Ed.] G-d hints that no physician but He could have turned water into blood and reversed the process.
+
+Verse 27
+
+ויחנו שם, “they encamped there.” The reason why they did so was to devote time to study the laws G-d had taught them, as we read about in verse 25.
+
+Chapter 16
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+ויבאו כל עדת בני ישראל, “the entire community of Israel arrived, etc.” the unusual formulation is meant to emphasise that since the departure from Egypt until this point not a single Israelite who had left Egypt was found missing.
+בחמשה עשר יום לחודש השני “on the fifteenth day of the second month.” We had learned already that the first day of the month of Nissan during which the people left Egypt had occurred on a Thursday. It follows that the 15th day of Iyar the day on which they arrived at the desert of Sin must have been a Sabbath. They used this fact to complain to Moses by wishing they had rather died in Egypt than have had to face the problems they had to contend with [since having become a “free” people. Ed.] Moses reassured them that as soon as the Sabbath was over they would be provided with meat to eat, and that on the following morning they would be given manna. [It had been the day on which the dough/matzot they had taken with them had run out. Ed.] The Talmud in Shabbat folio 87, states that they had left Refidim on a Sabbath, even though they had been given the basic laws of the Sabbath at Marah. [One opinion there claims that the restriction of travelling more than 2000 cubits on the Sabbath away from an inhabited area, was not yet applicable. Ed.]
+
+Verse 2
+
+וילינו כל עדת, “the entire community complained;” the word: וילינו while written with the letter י after the letter ל is read as if that letter י had been the letter ו.
+
+Verse 3
+
+מותנו ביד ה, “if we had died directly as an act of Hashem;” they meant that they rather would have died at their appointed time, instead of having had their lives cut short through dying from starvation.
+בשבתנו על סיר בשר, “when we had been sitting besides a pot of meat.” They did not imply that they actually had meat in Egypt, but that they had adequate food. Another example of where לחם does not literally mean “bread,” but a meal, is found in Genesis 37,25. The same is true for the expression סיר בשר.
+
+Verse 4
+
+לחם מן השמים, “bread originating in the celestial regions.” The word שמים, both here and in numerous other instances describes any region in the universe inaccessible to human beings. The expression שמים, “heaven,” is used to remind the people daily that their needs will be met from heaven.
+ולקטו דבר יום ביומו, “which they will collect on a daily basis;” if you were to ask why would they not get a large supply all at one time, instead of having to collect it on a daily basis, G-d immediately answers this question before it could even be raised: למען אנסנו הילך בתורותי אם לא, “if the people will live according to My teachings or not. To this end, I will command them not to keep in storage any of the daily quantity of manna overnight, and I will let it go rotten, in order to teach them to have faith that I will supply an additional amount on the next day. Anyone following My instructions not to save any of it for the following day will be considered by Me as having displayed his faith in Me. Consequently R. Elazar of Modi’in said that a person who has enough to eat for one day, and is worried about the morrow, is considered as having displayed lack of faith in Me. Another explanation of הילך בתורותי is: The Israelites have to learn that He Who created the universe also has created the means for His creatures in it to remain alive and well, so they will have the time to devote for learning Torah.
+למען אנסנו, “in order that I may test etc.” As far as the Lord is concerned there is no such thing as testing for a result, since being omniscient He knows all the results beforehand. Whenever the Torah uses this terminology it is to be understood as G-d satisfying the attribute of Justice that what He is about to do is justified in response to an accusation by that attribute against the individual to be tested. Alternately, He uses that means in order to justify denial of a demand for mercy by the attribute of Mercy on behalf of a certain individual when in G-d’s opinion that he has already received more mercy than is due to him. [The author has explained this already in his commentary of G-d ”testing Avraham” before the binding of Yitzchok. Ed.]
+ויצא העם ולקטו...והיה ביום השישי...והיה משנה, The people went out and collected;...... and it was on the sixth day.....and there was an amount twice as much as regular; these verses are not part of the commandment, but G-d had told Moses: I shall do such and such, and they will do such and such. The following will occur, i.e. they will find that each had collected an amount appropriate for the requisite needs of the number of members of his family. It happened that on the sixth day the leaders of the people came to Moses to find out why they had each received a double daily portion of manna, although they had only expected to collect the regular amount, not intending to take to their tents more than that.
+
+Verse 5
+
+והכינו את אשר יביאו, “let them prepare (for the morrow) that which they shall bring home. The word והכינו does not only mean: “to prepare,” but also to conceal after having prepared something for presenting it at a later date. We find this expression in Genesis 43,25, when the brothers of Joseph, already in his private residence after having been invited for lunch, arranged the gift they had brought with them from their father before revealing it when he came into the house. [Chizkuni adds another example from 2 Chronicles 29:19 in which the word is used in a quite different manner: we have restored all the vessels which King Ahaz had caused to be abandoned.]
+
+Verse 6
+
+ערב וידעתם, “by evening you will know; and in the morning you will see;” this sounds somewhat inverted as usually you see something before you know it. Actually, G-d is simply saying that they will see and become conscious of both blessings, meat and bread. We find a similar inverted construction in Zecharyah 9,17: דגן בחורים ותירוש ינובב בתולות, “producing young men like grain, young women like new wine.” The meaning of that verse is: “G-d will enable the young men and virgins to be receiving blessings appropriate to both genders, instead of each sex receiving only what it had hoped to receive.
+
+Verse 7
+
+כי תלונו, this word (on this occasion as opposed to verse 2) is spelled with the letter ו in the middle, whereas it is read as if that letter had been a י.
+
+Verse 8
+
+ויאמר משה: בתת ה' לכם, “Moses said: “when Hashem gives you, etc.” this refers to an announcement he had already commenced with in verse 6, but these words have been repeated here as the announcement is longer than usual. The whole announcement is: “in the evening you will know when the Lord will give you meat to eat and in the morning you will see when He gives you bread to satisfy yourselves with, that your complaints should not have been directed at us when you accused us being to blame for your deprivations by saying that we had taken you out of Egypt. You will become aware that your deprivations were caused by G-d and taken care of by Him to teach you several lessons.”Moses reminded the people that when a person has a complaint against a master, he dares not blame the master to his face, but prefers to blame his servant instead.
+
+Verse 9
+
+
+
+Verse 10
+
+
+
+Verse 11
+
+וידבר ה' אל משה, “Hashem spoke to Moses; actually we have been told this already in verse 4. [This may have been repeated as Moses and Aaron had not immediately included what G-d had said concerning the manna on Friday being a double portion. Therefore here we have a stronger command, Hashem being quoted as וידבר instead of the softer ויאמר, Ed.]
+
+Verse 12
+
+בין הערבים תאכלו בשר וגו, from this verse we learn that basically, the Israelites were to eat a meal twice daily, in the evening and on the morning following.
+
+Verse 13
+
+ותעל השלו, “the quail appeared;” the gift of quails was a one time occurrence, which explains the people’s complaint in Numbers 11,4 where they craved meat. On that occasion G-d provided them with meat a second time as stated in the Talmud Erchin folio 15. Rashi writes that the demand by the people for meat in their diet described in Numbers was more insistent. The manna was provided by G-d daily for forty years. [After the disastrous results of many people dying from overeating on meat in the second year of their wanderings, and dying as a result, we never hear of such a request again. Ed.]
+
+Verse 14
+
+ותעל שכבת טל, “when the daily layer of dew lifted, there was left a flaky substance on the surface of the desert.” The words: ותעל שכבת הטל, are interrupted here to prepare us for what follows. We encounter a similar construction in Psalms 102,25: אל תעלני בחצי ימי, “Do not take me away in the midst of my days.” 
+The words: שכבת הטל, (especially with the prefix ה indicating that the dew was a well known phenomenon,) refer to the daily descent previously of that layer of dew; we have a similar construction in Job 38,37: ונבלי שמים מי ישכיב, “who can tilt the “bottles” of the sky?” (a hint at the phenomenon of dew) The root שכב, “to come to rest in a prone condition,” is used in both these verses. (Ibn Era)
+
+Verse 15
+
+מן הוא, in the Egyptian language this word is equivalent to the Hebrew: מה, “what?” People were asking one another about the nature of this layer of a flaky substance above the layer of dew.
+
+Verse 16
+
+זה הדבר אשר צוה ה, “this is the subject concerning which Hashem has commanded: “collect some of it!” We must not misunderstand this verse as a commandment to collect ail the manna. We know from what follows that each personregardless of how much he thought he had collectedhad collected only one omer per family member. This is why the Torah could report that the people had fulfilled this command with the words: ויעשו כן בני ישראל, “the Children of Israel did so. The socalled commandment was to be an ongoing commandment valid as long as the manna descended from the celestial regions on a regular basis. The ongoing miracle, in addition to being “heavenly bread,” was that it was meant to be לשובע, “to eat enough to be satiated,” not to gorge oneself. Therefore, even an Israelite who thought that he had collected two omers, upon returning to his tent found that he had collected only one omer. The word צוה here is to be understood just as the word צוה in Psalms 33,9: הוא צוה ויעמוד, “He commanded and it endured.” In other words, the commandment in question had no time limit attached to it. It applied equally in the reverse; if someone had intended to collect only half an omer, and was sure that he had done so, upon measuring it after he came home, he found that he had in fact collected a whole omer.
+
+Verse 17
+
+
+
+Verse 18
+
+ ולא העדיף המרבה, “these words have to be taken at their face value, i.e. if someone found that he had collected more than an omer he would throw out the excess, and if someone found he had collected less, he went back to gather the balance.
+
+Verse 19
+
+אל יותר, “do not leave any over!” The word יותר is word is to be understood as if it had been spelled in the transitive mode אל יותיר. We have other examples of such a formulation, as in Genesis 24,53, where Avraham’s servant Eliezer is described as taking jewelry out of his pocket or luggage, to give to Rivkah, and instead of the Torah writing: ויוציא העבד, it wrote: ויוצא העבד, “which literally translated would mean ”he went out,“ instead of “he took out.” These formulations of the root יצא also occur in the opposite direction as in Psalms 105,43: “He led His people out in gladness, “מוצא רוח מאוצרותיו ויוציא עמו בששון,“ or in Psalms 135 7: מוצא רוח מאורותיו, “He releases the wind from His vaults.”
+
+Verse 20
+
+
+
+Verse 21
+
+ וילקטו אותו בבקר בבקר, “they collected it morning after morning.” They rose to collect the manna before it started melting when the sun became hot. At that time it was impossible to collect it.
+
+Verse 22
+
+לחם משנה, from the expression לחם משנה we can deduce that each person unwittingly collected two omers. Seeing that this is so, why did the Torah have to add the words: “two omers for each person?” The reason is that the second portion of manna collected on that day was destined especially for consumption on the Sabbath, and that is the reason why the letter ל at the beginning of the word לכם has the full vowel kametz under it instead of the semivowel sh’vah which we would have expected.
+ויגידו, “They told;” the people told Moses about this phenomenon as they were afraid that if they were to hide the extra portion until the following morning he would become angry at them, as he had already previously been angry at any of the people who had saved some manna overnight against his warning not to do so. He had not informed them beforehand about the rules governing the manna on the Sabbath in order that they should not go out on the Sabbath eve to collect one omer only to find that they had come with two omers each.
+
+Verse 23
+
+הוא אשר דבר ה, “this is precisely what Hashem had said;” Moses refers to what we have read in verse 5 that the people on the Sabbath eve were to prepare the manna in anticipation of eating it on he Sabbath.
+ואת כל העודף, “and any excess of the regular amount of manna” was intended for the two meals to be consumed on the Sabbath. It was not to be consumed on the night that had already passed. G-d had decreed especially that contrary to what had occurred during the week days, the excess had not become smelly and unfit to eat and worm ridden.
+
+Verse 24
+
+
+
+Verse 25
+
+
+
+Verse 26
+
+וביום השביעי שבת, “and the seventh day is to be a day of rest called Sabbath; the people who were lacking in faith however, were saying that Friday and the following night were called Sabbath; the proof that this is what they thought is that when Moses upbraided them he says to them: “it is Sabbath today;” the emphasis on the word: “today” is meant as opposed to yesterday and last night. He had also told them on Friday: “tomorrow is the holy day Sabbath you will not find any.” (verse 23) The people who believed that the night follows the day in the Jewish calendar had been wrong all along, as Moses had made plain from the way he described the law concerning the eating of matzo on the Passover festival, that it would be from the evening of the 14/15th of Nissan until the 21st day of the month. In addition he had said to them in Leviticus 23,32 that the Day of Atonement commences on the evening and lasts until the following evening.
+
+Verse 27
+
+ויהי ביום השביעי, “it was on the seventh day;” the seventh day after the manna had descended for the first time. This was a Sabbath (counting from when the Israelites had been given a lunar calendar on the first day of Nissan)
+יצאו מן העם ללקוט, “some of the people left the camp intending to gather in manna;” they desecrated the Sabbath by doing so because they took their containers with them. They had already been told that this day was the day of the Sabbath when Moses had told them: “tomorrow is a holy day to G-d.” (verse 23)
+
+Verse 28
+
+מצותי, “My commandments;” a) they had left over manna for the following day;b) ותורותי, “and My teachings;” they had been given the reason why the Sabbath was to be a day of rest. An example of the use of the word Torah meaning “teachings,” is found in Exodus 18,16: והודעתי את חוקי האלוקים ואת תורותיו, “and I will make known the laws and teachings of G-d.”
+
+Verse 29
+
+אל יצא איש ממקומו, “None is to leave his place on the seventh day.” There is no need for anyone to leave his home in order to seek his sustenance as I have provided it already yesterday.
+
+Verse 30
+
+וישבתו העם ביום השביעי, “the people remained inactive on the seventh day.” henceforth and forever.
+
+Verse 31
+
+ויקראו שמו ״מן״, “they named it “manna.” The reason was that the first time when they had put it into their mouth they had asked one another: מן הוא. (Exodus 16,15) By naming it thus they meant to say that their first reaction to it at the time had been justified, seeing that it was something no one had ever seen or tasted. Since that time the meaning of that word has been: “preparing food,” as in Daniel 1,5: וימן להם המלך דבר יום ביומו, “the King prepared food for them on a daily basis;”
+והוא כזרע גד, “it was similar to coriander seed;” the Torah had described it in verse 14 as being thin like hoary frost; the frost referred to is distinct by not having definite dimensions, sometimes it is a thicker layer than at other times. והוא כזרע גד, “and it is like coriander seed;” seeing that the Torah had previously described the manna as also being thin, in varying degrees, it wished to compare it also to something else, so that the reader who has never seen it, and is unlikely to ever see it, can get a better mental image of it. It was like the seed of a plant known as coriander. This plant is better known as cilantro (Spanish).
+כזרע, the letter כ has the semivowel sh’va, and the letter ז is vocalised with a segol.
+וטעמו כצפיחית בדבש, its taste resembled a wafer smeared with honey, i.e. it is eaten without further preparation. When we read elsewhere in Numbers 11,8 that its taste was like sweet cake with cream, that described its taste after it had been ground and baked.
+
+Verse 32
+
+
+
+Verse 33
+
+
+
+Verse 34
+
+
+
+Verse 35
+
+אל ארץ נושבת, to a land that was inhabited, as opposed to a desert. Compare Deuteronomy 12,7: ועברתם את הירדן וישבתם בארץ וגו', as soon as you cross the river Jordan you will dwell in a land, etc.”
+
+Verse 36
+
+והעומר, “and the amount known as omer, etc; omer is the measure of man that they collected every day”.
+עשירת האיפה הוא, It is equivalent to the well known measure eypha, a measure used for measuring grain.
+
+Chapter 17
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+ממדבר סין למסעיהם, from the desert of Sin on their journeys; the Torah used an abbreviation here. The truth, as described in Numbers 33,12-14, is that the way stations after the desert of Sin were: Dofkah, Alush, and Refidim, at which point they found themselves short of water. The reason why two waystations are omitted here is because of the disgrace of Israel who had wished to return to Egypt by the shortest possible route.
+
+Verse 2
+
+תנו לנו מים, “give us water!” although Aaron had not been mentioned in this paragraph at all, the people used the plural mode when addressing Moses, although there had been no need to mention him at all.
+מה תריבון מה תנסון, “Why do you quarrel? Why do you try the Lord?” Both of these words are spelled without the letter ו. [not in our versions of the Torah scrolls or the printed versions. Minchas shay quotes our author as the source of the above, without commenting. Ed.]
+
+Verse 3
+
+
+
+Verse 4
+
+
+
+Verse 5
+
+וקח אתך מזקני ישראל, “and take with you some of the elders of Israel.” They were to be witnesses to the miracle that was to occur when, in response to Moses hitting the rock, a supply of water would materialise. The presence of these elders would prevent the people from claiming that the location (near Sinai) from which this water originated was one where fountains of water were located. Even though Aaron hit the rock, Moses was credited with supplying the water.
+אשר הכית בו את היאור, “with which you had struck the river Nile;” [and turned its water into blood. Ed.] Moses was to demonstrate that his staff was not only an instrument with which to produce harmful effects. Actually, it had not been Moses who had struck the Nile but Aaron. (Exodus 7,19) The fact is that whatever Aaron did in Egypt, he did as the disciple of his master, Moses. This time, instead of denying water through his staff, he produced water by means of it.
+
+Verse 6
+
+בחורב, והכית בצור, although the people were encamped at Refidim, Moses went all the way to Mount Sinai to find the rock that would produce water.
+
+Verse 7
+
+
+
+Verse 8
+
+ויבא עמלק, “Amalek came;” where did Amalek come from? Our verse must be understood in terms of what we have been told in Genesis 36,6, where Esau and all his clans are reported as having moved away from the land of Canaan, after the reconciliation which included Esau’s ceding the claim to the land of Canaan to his brother Yaakov’s descendants. At that time Rashi explained that Esau, aware of the promise and curse G-d had made toAvraham at the covenant between the pieces in Genesis chapter 15, the promise of taking over the land of Canaan had been made conditional on Abraham’s descendants having been strangers and part of that time even slaves, for 400 years. Esau decided then to forego the promise in order to escape the curse of the 400 year wait. His descendants, one of whom was his grandson Amalek, realised that the 400 years had elapsed and that by now the only thing that was left was the promise. He therefore decided that as the older son of Yitzock’s descendant, to stake his claim by force. He was also aware that his grandfather had been motivated to leave the land of Canaan as he had looked like a great fool for having sold his birthright, which had given Yaakov, as the firstborn, a claim to the land of Canaan. [He believed the time was ripe then, especially while the Israelites were in no man’s land, land that they had no claim to, would not enjoy preferential treatment by G-d in such an encounter.]
+
+Verse 9
+
+בחר לנו אנשים, “select for us some men!” Moses wanted men who had been born in the second month of Adar, (people born in that month were believed to be free of fear of sorcerers and witches (compare a Midrash quoted on this verse in Torah shleymah by Rabbi M. Kasher, item 58) Such people reputedly were not subject to negative influences of the twelve constellations of the zodiac. [This editor does not understand, how, seeing that the lunar calendar for the Jewish people had only been introduced a few weeks before the events in which the events related in our chapter took place, Joshua could have known who had been born during what would have been the second month of Adar. You may also find the commentary of Rabbeinu Bachya on this verse of special interest. Ed.] The Amalekites were reputed to be great astrologists, and able to foretell future events based on that. Seeing that the second month of Adar is the thirteenth month, and not governed by any constellation, people born in that month did not need to fear predetermined events they might be subject to. The sorcerers would be powerless during that month. Another interpretation of our verse: Moses instructs Joshua to mobilise a number of fighting men that would equal the ones at the disposal of the Amalekites.
+אנכי נצב על ראש הגבעה, “I will position myself on the summit of the hill;” Moses wanted to be able to follow the course of the battle while personally watching, and even more, so that the Israelite fighters could see their leader and be encouraged by this visual contact. We find a verse in Joshua 8,26, where the latter, by that time the leader of the Jewish people, emulated Moses’ example by not lowering his spear until victory in battle had been secured. It is a common practice in war that one of the popular heroes positions himself on a hill or tower, holding aloft a flag in order to serve as encouragement to the troops seeing that the flag is a common symbol. As long as the troops can see their flag being held aloft they derive encouragement from this. If for some reason the troops fail to see the flag being held aloft they become demoralised. Moses’ staff in this instance served as a flag for the Israelites fighting Amalek.
+
+Verse 10
+
+ומשה ואהרן וחור, and Moses Aaron and Chur; seeing that the Torah will tell us about what Aaron and Chur did during that time, Chur was introduced to us here. Aaron and Chur would support Moses’ arms while Moses was standing on the summit of the hill.
+
+Verse 11
+
+
+
+Verse 12
+
+וידי משה כבדים “and Moses’ hands became heavy;” it was tiresome for Moses to have to stand all day long, as we know from verse 9 where he announced that on the following day he would take up a position on the top of the hill, and it would be difficult for him to keep his hands lifted upwards all day long. Aaron and Chur provided a stone for Moses to sit on; and they supported his arms from either side so that he could keep holding his staff aloft. All of this was necessary in order that the people would not become demoralised. The expression: אמונה, describes anything that does not weaken or decrease in size when remaining in the same position for a long time, such as from morning to evening. An example of the meaning of אמונה what we described are found in Isaiah 22,23: ותקעתיו יתד במקום נאמן, “I will fix him as a peg in a firm place.” There are numerous other examples of this kind. Moses’ doing this enabled Joshua to weaken the Amalekites and their troops. Once the Torah writes of ידו, “his hand”, singular mode, and another time it writes ידיו, “his hands,” plural mode. At the beginning of the battle Moses raised only one of his hands, while lowering his second hand; eventually both of his hands had become too heavy for him to keep aloft without someone supporting them. In the Midrash quoted in Torah shleymah item 94, in the name of several well known commentators, none of whom have revealed the name of that Midrash, we find the following interpretation of the words in this paragraph: the word אמונה, is a reminder of Avraham who had been complimented by G-d on his emunah, “faith,” already in Genesis chapter 15. When Moses’ prayer on behalf of his people embattled against Amalek had not elicited a response from Hashem, he appealed to the forefather Avraham to join his plea. The words: עד בא, are a hint that he similarly turned to the Jewish people’s forefather Yitzchok, of whom we read that he had returned from prayer at the well where Hagar’s prayer had been answered. (Genesis 24,62). The words: עד בוא השמש, are a reminder of our forefather Yaakov who had prematurely spent a night at Luz where he had his first prophetic revelation in the dream with the ladder. (Genesis 28,11 כי בא השמש). Moses called on the combined merits of all three forefathers to reinforce his prayer. Our author quotes from Genesis 49,22 and Samuel I4,15, as well as from Joshua 20,9, that the word אמונה applied here to both of Moses’ hands, is a legitimate mode of the feminine mode corresponding to the masculine plural mode of the word אמונים.
+
+Verse 13
+
+ויחלוש יהושע את עמלק, “Joshua succeeded in weakening the armies of Amalek.” [In order to understand the following it is important to realise that in this battle we do not hear of either side suffering fatalities. The word חרב, for “lethal sword,” does not appear once. Ed. The Amalekites had employed the weapon of sorcery in order to weaken the Jewish people. The swords used had not caused a single death, hence the Torah only speaks of the Amalekites having been “weakened.”Another interpretation of the unusual expression: ויחלוש. This term was used since the Torah had previously written that when Moses’ hands had weakened וגבר עמלק, “Amalek was gaining the upper hand,” it was appropriate to use a word meaning the opposite after the battle ended, i.e. while the Israelites had gotten the upper hand, they had only succeeded in beating off the attack. On the other hand, there is an instance where the expression ויחלוש, is used as describing someone dying, i.e. וגבר ימות ויחלש, (Job 14,9).
+
+Verse 14
+
+כתוב, “record in writing!” but not only orally; if this piece of history would be handed down from father to son only orally, it would be exposed to becoming forgotten in the course of time.[When G-d eventually commanded King Shaul to carry out the commandment to wipe out Amalek, and that nation had not had any contact with the Jewish people for 200 years, none of the Israelites would have understood why they had to commit this kind of genocide. Ed.] The written Torah itself had foretold in Deuteronomy25,19, that this commandment would be carried out only after the Jewish people faced no more enemies all around it.
+זאת זכרון בספר, “this atrocity that the Amalektites had committed against the Jewish people, attacking it in the desert, without any provocation whatsoever. Our descendants when the time came must have a written record of this dastardly attack on perfectly harmless people who had never attacked anyone. זכרון בספר, “a written record as a reminder;” the prefix ב with the vowel patach, meant that this book already existed, and was known as 'ספר מלחמות ה, “the book recording wars fought by or on behalf of Hashem;” it is only due to our sins that this book has not been preserved, just as the book known as sefer hayashar is also no longer in our possession. Another book no longer in our possession is the book written by the prophet Iddo, as recorded in Chronicles II 13,22 by its author Ezra. There were also written records known as the history of the kings of Israel (Kings I 14, 1929) as well as the books of Solomon (Kings I 5,12) (Compare Ibn Ezra on this)
+ושים באזני יהושע, “and commit it orally to Joshua;” he who had begun to carry out the commandment of wiping out Amalek deserves the credit to see to it that this book is handed down from generation to generation until a king will arise in Israel who will complete the task that Joshua began. G-d warns the people not to be astounded at the absolute harshness of this command Neither are we to assume that there had been military encounters between the Israelites and the Amalekites until some 400 years later years later under King Shaul. There had not been any. The unforgivable sin of the Amalekites was that when after the Israelites had crossed the sea of reeds and the Egyptians drowned in pursuit, when all the surrounding nations had been so impressed and lived in trepidation so that they were ready to accept the universal kingdom of heaven, this nation had appeared to show them that one could stand up against the chosen people and survive such an encounter, i.e. that their G-d was not invincible.
+
+Verse 15
+
+ויבן שם מזבח, “he built an altar there; Moses built the altar at the bottom of Mount Chorev.
+ויקרא את שמר: ה' נסי, “he named it: “Hashem is My banner.” According to Rabbi Eliezer hamoda-i, the subject of the words “he named it” was the Lord Himself. Rashi points out that we know of something similar from Genesis 33,20: In that verse we read that Yaakov, after being the first Jew to be able to buy a piece of land in the Holy Land (apart from the tomb of Sarah) built an altar and when the Torah reports that that altar was called: א-ל אלוקי ישראל, that was the name given to this altar by Hashem.
+
+Verse 16
+
+כי יד על כס יה, “for as long Israel will possess the power to appoint to sit on the throne of G-d;” we know of a similar though strangely sounding formulation, from Chronicles I 29,23: וישב שלמה על כסא ה' למלך תחת דוד אביר“Solomon successfully took over the throne of the Lord as king instead of his father David.” The verse describes conditions when it will be possible to wage G-d’s war against Amalek.
+יד, the word יד normally translated as “hand,” in this instance refers to power, Royal authority.” We know of a similar example for the meaning of that word from Samuel I 15,12, where the prophet Shmuel was advised of Shaul’s arriving at Mount Carmel, and he prepares for this by erecting a יד, for him, i.e. an altar. The words there are: והנה הוא מציב לו יד. In Samuel II 8,3 we also find the word יד used in this sense when David built an altar. [Not the traditional understanding of the word by most commentators. Ed.] The word כסא usually is used as a symbol of power, Royal Power.[If this is so, the word יד in the same line cannot mean the same, of course. Ed.] A different interpretation: the verse means that as long as nations, or especially Amalek, see in Jerusalem and what its stands for its spiritual nemesis, there will be an ongoing war between G-d and His representative on earth, Israel; מלחמה לה' בעמלק, “a state of war between G-d and Amalek; this phrase is what the liturgist has in mind when he wrote in his poetic prayer recited on the Sabbath preceding the reading of Parshat zachor on the Sabbath preceding Purim.־, commencing with the words: אלוקים אל דמי לך, “do not be silent o G-d”; the author queries G-d’s relative inactivity versus Amalek although He has dealt more harshly with other adversaries throughout history. [There are only few congregations in which this liturgical poem is recited nowadays in the synagogues. It is lengthy and the language requires assistance by commentaries as provided in the prayer book known as otzar hatefillot. Ed.] G-d’s answer is that until Amalek attacks G-d directly, not just His people, it is our task to deal with him, once he does the latter, G-d personally will wipe him out, This is why when Titus destroyed the Temple in Jerusalem G-d dealt with him, whereas at this stage it was our task to fight him. According to Jeremiah 3,17 Jerusalem is called G-d’s throne.
+
+Chapter 18
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+וישמע יתרו, “Yitro heard;” according to Rashi, Yitro heard about the Israelites having crossed the sea of reeds and the Egyptians having drowned in it during their pursuit of them. Rashi’s explanation is supported by Joshua 2,10 where the spies of Joshua are told by Rachav forty years later that she and her people are still scared of the G-d Who had orchestrated that event. It is also supported by the fact that the Torah mentions Yitro and Amalek in one breath in Samuel I 15,6: ויאמר שאול אל הקיני סורו רדו מתוך עמלקי פן אוסיפך ע��ו. “Shaul said to the Kenite: “separate yourself from the Amalekite so that you do not become a victim when I wipe out the Amalekite.’” Yitro had seven different names in the Torah, one of which is “Kenite.” How did Yitro hear about all this now? Maybe someone had escaped from the battle with Amalek and he heard it from him.
+יתרו; “ according to Rashi he had seven names; Reuel, Yeter, Yitro, Chovav, Chever, Keyni, Petuel. If you were to ask why the name Rechev is not included in this list, seeing that in Jeremiah a descendant of his is referred to as from בית הרכבים (Jeremiah 35,2). Presumably, Rashi only referred to the names that are mentioned in the Torah itself.
+כהן מדין, the priest of Midian. He must have been of high rank as he is compared to Yavin, King of Chatzor, as an equal. (Compare Judges 4,17) There he is called Chever.
+חותן משה, “father-in-law” of Moses. Rashi comments that here Yitro honoured Moses by referring to himself not by his title, but by his relationship to Moses, his soninlaw, someone who after living as a refugee from Egypt with him had now become the head of a people numbering in the millions. Years earlier, when Moses was in the home of Yitro, Moses described his claim to fame as having Yitro the priest as his father-in-law. (Compare Exodus 4,18).
+את כל אשר עשה אלוקים למשה, “all that G-d had done for Moses.” 1) That G-d had saved him from Pharaoh; 2) that he had become the leader of a great nation. 3) That he had achieved this stature in a place that previously sought to execute him.
+
+Verse 2
+
+אשת משה, “Moses’ wife.” She is mentioned here by her name as her husband [by having become a king since the last time she had seen him, Ed.] had elevated her status.
+אחר שלוחיה, after he had sent her home to her father’s house. If the Torah had not told us this at this point, we would not have known that Tzipporah and her children had never been in Egypt with Moses, i.e. had not participated in the Exodus. The last that we heard of her was that Moses had taken her and his children with him on the way to Egypt and that they had been riding on a donkey (Exodus 4,20). [She had performed the circumcision on her younger son, but nothing had been written about her returning to Egypt.] Now we learn that when Aaron and Moses met, the people of Israel suffered great deprivations while Yitro was living in luxury. She and her boys were therefore sent back to her father’s house.
+
+Verse 3
+
+גר הייתי, “I had been a stranger, etc.” the word הייתי is not to be understood as being in the past tense, just as Genesis 23,13: נתתי or 14,22 הרימותי or 32,11 הייתי לשני מחנות are not to be understood as being in the past tense. There are many more such examples.
+
+Verse 4
+
+ושם האחד אליעזר, “and the name of the one was Eliezer.” Even though he was Moses’ second son, the Torah describes him as “the one;” the reason is that his name was due to an event involving him personally, seeing that it recalled that he had had to flee from Egypt. It therefore appeared to Moses as if this really was his first son.
+ויצילני מחרב פרעה, “He has saved me from the sword of Pharaoh.” The Pharaoh who sought to kill Moses had died some time earlier. G-d had told him this in Exodus 4,19. An alternate explanation: He did not call Eliezer his second son, as his birth had nothing to do with that of Gershom, as we explained on Exodus 4,26. The reason was that he had not been able to circumcise his first son due to the agreement with his father-in-law at the time he had married Tzipporah. [Compare what the author wrote on page 376. Ed.] From G-d’s point of view, Eliezer was Moses’ first son, as after having been circumcised he was Jewish. As such he belonged to G-d, seeing that we all are G-d’s firstborn.
+
+Verse 5
+
+
+
+Verse 6
+
+ויאמר, “he said:” the subject is Yitro’s messenger announcing his impending arrival in the camp of the Israelites.
+אני חותנך יתרו בא אליך וגו, “I, your father-in-law, Yitro have come to you;” seeing that we have heard from this man that he was extremely modest, when he criticized Moses for sitting down while the people waiting in line to have their problems solved by him had to stand, (verse 14), it appears totally out of character that he commenced a sentence by saying: “I, your father-in-law, etc.” We must realize that the clouds of G-d’s glory surrounded the camp of the Israelites making it impossible for outsiders to find them. This prevented Yitro’s messenger to get to his destination. He therefore attached a note to an arrow which he shot into the cloud explaining who he was and why he wanted to be admitted through the cloud. (Tanchuma)
+
+Verse 7
+
+וישתחו וישק לו, “he prostrated himself and kissed him;” according to Rashi it is not clear who prostrated himself before whom; if we are to assume that the Torah also referred to Yitro by the honorary title of איש, seeing that we have read in Exodus 2,21: ויאל משה לשבת את האיש, Moses agreed to make his home with the man,” we would have to counter that the Torah refers to Moses as being extremely modest when writing: והאיש משה עניו מאד, “the man known as ‘Moses,’ was very modest and humble, more so than any other איש;” (Numbers 12,3) so that we are faced here with a dilemma; we must therefore assume that the reason that the Torah compliments Moses in Numbers 12,3 by adding these additional words, is to show that he, the king, prostrated himself before his father-in-law, and that he was even more modest than Yitro.
+האהלה, “into the tent;” the prefix letter ה before this word shows that this tent was a tent well known as Moses’ tent.
+
+Verse 8
+
+
+
+Verse 9
+
+ויחד יתרו, “Yitro rejoiced;” we find this root meaning the same in Psalms 21,7: תחדהו בשמחה, “You gladdened him with the joy (of Your presence)” [A reference to the Messiah having been gladdened. Ed.] [I have not understood what follows concerning the comparison with Numbers 21,1 and Job 31,27. Ed.] Rashi on this verse brought the talmudic saying: “That is what people say (what the common proverb says): A proselyte even though his heathen descent dates from as far back as the tenth generation, do not speak slightingly of an Aramean (any non-Jew) in his presence (Sanhedrin 94a).” There are some (Hadar Zekenim) who say that this is because Ishmael son of Netanya that was a tenth generation descendant to an Egyptian convert, and he had made the Egyptians revenge on Israel.
+אשר הצילו מיד מצרים that he had delivered them from of the hand of Egypt; they could have kept them enslaved for a longer period according to one interpretation of the Covenant of the Pieces (Gen.15,13).
+
+Verse 10
+
+אשר הציל אתכם, “Who has saved you;” the subjects are Moses and Aaron.
+
+Verse 11
+
+כי בדבר אשר זדו עליהם; Yitro explains what had prompted him to say that he now realises that the G-d of the Israelites is greater than any other deity. The reason is that when analysing the method by which G-d imposes penalties on the sinners, it becomes evident that the punishment matches the sin committed. The Egyptians’ crime had been that they drowned the Jewish babies; they had been punished by being drowned themselves. In Nechemya, chapter 9, where when a celebration of the Sukkot festival, after a Day of Atonement on which the people confessed their collective sin in Jerusalem is described in detail, the author also describes the greatness of G-d as being reflected in the manner in which punishment matches the sins committed. (verse 10)
+
+Verse 12
+
+עולה וזבחים, ”burnt offerings and meat offerings” (the latter to be consumed by the owners of those animals and their guests). Both types of offerings were in the nature of thanksgiving offerings.
+ויבא אהרן וכל זקני ישראל, “Aaron and all the elders of Israel came (to partake in the meal) Moses did not need to “come,” seeing the offerings were consumed in his tent. The other dignitaries came in honour of Yitro, Moses’ fatherinlaw.
+לפני האלוקים, according to the plain meaning the word לפני means the same as מלפני, ‘to take part in what had been offered in the presence of the Lord,” i.e. the meat offerings. [The burnt offering was always completely burned up on the altar. Ed.]
+
+Verse 13
+
+ויהי ממחרת, “it was on the morrow;” according to the plain meaning of the text the day referred to is the day following the meal just described. The previous day had been spent in honouring Yitro so that Moses did not have time to sit and judge the people’s complaints. Rashi’s explanation of the word ממחרת commences with the words that it was the day after the Day of Atonement when Moses had returned from Mount Sinai for the thirdtime. [This would have been way after the sin of the golden calf. Ed.] You might ask how it was possible for Moses to sit in judgment of the people at such a time, when all their sins had just been forgiven, and especially in view of the fact that the Torah testifies that immediately after Moses’ return on that occasion Moses assembled the people (Exodus 35,1) and after briefly explaining that the building of the Tabernacle which was to commence forthwith did not override the work prohibitions of the Sabbath, and that that work was completed already on the 25th day of Kislev of the same year (second year after the Exodus), we must understand the line describing Moses as sitting judging the people, does not refer to all the people who had problems lining up at that time, [after Moses for over 120 days had not spent a single full day in the camp since his ascent to Sinai to receive the first set of the Tablets. Ed]. He dealt only with the problems of the individuals who were not busy with donating for the Tabernacle or helping Betzalel in its construction. Rashi himself, in his commentary on Exodus 34,2932, comments that after descending from the Mountain, Moses sat down to teach Torah to all those not preoccupied with the building of the Tabernacle. Rashi in his commentary on our verse here writes: “this paragraph has not been written (or inserted) in the chronological order of events, seeing that the words: ויהי ממחרת, seeing that Moses did not part with Yitro who returned home until the second year of the Israelites wanderings as we know from Numbers 10,29, something even admitted by the scholars who claim that Yitro had arrived at the camp of the Jewish people already before the revelation at Mount Sinai.” If the lines in Number 10,29 referred to an event before the revelation, why did the Torah not record that Yitro did not even stay for that event? Moreover, when we read in Judges 4,11, that the descendants of Yitro at that time had lived near Kedesh near the shores of the sea of Galilee, how come that their even leaving their homeland Midian was not mentioned anywhere? (part of Rashi on our verse) Our author continues: Yitro, in Numbers definitely declined Moses’ offer of becoming part of the Jewish people, when he said: “I will not go (with you).” (Numbers 10,30) If this statement were to apply to a point in time before the revelation, i.e. that our paragraph describes events before the revelation, what was the point of Moses being quoted as debating Yitro’s remaining with the Israelites at a time at least a year later?We have a verse in Proverbs 14,10: לב יודע מרת נפשו ובשמחתו לא יתערב זר, “the heart knows of its soul’s bitterness; a stranger does not share its joy.” Our sages in an early version of Midrash Tanchuma, interpreted this verse to mean that G-d did not want that Yitro should share the joy of the Jewish people at the time of the revelation at Mount Sinai, as this was reserved for the people who had endured the hardships of slavery at the hands of the Egyptians. At any rate, Moses did not bid farewell to Yitro at the time discussed here. If he had come to the Jewish camp prior to the revelation, then he had had to temporarily withdraw during these days before rejoining the Israelites for almost another year. As soon as he returned from his temporary absence he observed Moses teaching the Torah, and he questioned the fact that the people had to stand, and that Moses had not appointed any delegates at all. When we read in verse 27 of our chapter that Moses bade his fatherinlaw farewell, and the Torah adds that he returned to his homeland, it is clear that he had bid him farewell once before when Yitro had not yet returned to his homeland.
+וישב משה לשפוט, Moses sat down in order to hand down judgments or rulings; whenever we encounter the term וישב, it refers to someone who sat down in the expectation that he would remain seated for a longer period. An example of this is found in Deuteronomy 1,46, where it meant that the Israelites stayed in Kadesh about 19 years.
+לשפוט את העם, “to judge the people.” Some commentators believe that the word: העם refers to the mixed multitude, the fellow travelers whom Moses had accepted as converts, and who, as a result, had demanded from him that they receive a share of the loot of their fellow Jews who had taken these from their former relatives In Egypt. (Compare Torah shleymah by Rabbi M. Kasher in his notes on item 95)
+מן הבקר עד הערב, “from the morning till the evening.” Is it conceivable that Moses spent the entire day judging? We therefore have to pay closer attention to the precise wording. The words: מן הבקר, mean: from after the morning, not the entire morning. Similarly, the words: עד הערב, “until evening,” are meant to exclude the period called evening. If it were to be understood literally, when would the students have time to study Torah? Therefore the word מן here as well as elsewhere, is meant as a limitation, not the whole morning but part of the morning hours. Similarly, when the word appears in connection with היום, it does not refer to the whole day but to part of the day. Our sages suggested that what was meant is the first six hours. (Based on the Baraitha of Rabbi Eliezer.)
+
+Verse 14
+
+אשר הוא עושה לעם, “what he was doing to the people.” They were making one another impatient. On the one hand, the common people were forced to stand in line most of the day waiting for their turn. On the other hand, Moses was becoming more and more weary having to deal with so many disputes.
+?מדוע אתה יושב לבדך, “why are only you seated?” Yitro did not criticize Moses for sitting and the people having to stand; he meant that if Moses would delegate some of his tasks there would not be such long queues. The Torah itself expects the litigants to be standing, as we know form Deuteronomy 19,17: 'ועמדו שני האנשים אשר להם הריב לפני ה, “and the two men who have a dispute are to stand in the presence of the judges;”Besides, it would not have been appropriate for Yitro to chastise a great man like Moses, someone who was even addressed as “my master” by his own brother Aaron who was three years his senior. (Compare Numbers 12,11) The verse in front of us has to be understood as follows: “what made you decide to shoulder the entire burden of judging all the people’s problems all by yourself, without assistance from anyone? You would do well to appoint junior judges that can share the burden with you, so that you would only have to deal with the litigations that these juniors could not find a proper solution for. All this will result in your burden being decreased so that you do not break down under it prematurely. Moses had first misunderstood his father-in-law as being critical that he alone remained seated throughout these proceedings. This is why he had replied that the people had come to him; (verse 15)
+מן בקר עד ערב, from morning till evening. Yitro meant that “even if you were to sit here from morning till evening you could still not cope with such a load.”
+
+Verse 15
+
+
+
+Verse 16
+
+את חוקי האלוקים ואת תורותיו, “G-d’s statutes and His teachings.” Moses refers to the statutes and teachings that G-d had already taught him prior to the revelation at Mount Sinai, and his ascending that Mountain to receive the whole Torah. Those teachings had been referred to when the people had been encamped around Marah when the bitter waters had been turned into sweet waters (Exodus 15,25)
+
+Verse 17
+
+לא טוב הדבר, “the matter is not right;” in my eyes what you are doing now is not good;
+
+Verse 18
+
+נבול תבול, “you will definitely become worn out;” the word is similar to ערבוב, “being confused.” Compare Genesis 11,7 Where G-d confused man’s languages. Yitro felt that both Moses and the litigants would become confused. One would shout that he wanted to be heard next and another litigant would also shout. As a result, Moses himself would become confused since he would be unable to hear each person correctly. And they would also be unable to hear what you say.
+גם אתה, “you also.” Rashi understands the word גם as including Aaron and Chur, and the seventy elders. If you were to point out that in Exodus 32,5, on the words: ויבן מזבח לפניו, “he built an altar in front of it (the golden calf),” Rashi comments that Aaron, having seen that Chur (his nephew) had been killed by the mob when he tried to interfere with their worshipping the golden calf, decided to instead build an altar and declare the following day a holiday in honour of G-d. The events related there occurred on the 17th of Tammuz in the first year of the people’s wanderings. Yitro meant that even if Aaron, Chur and the seventy elders were to assist Moses, this would not nearly be enough for governing such a large nation. We find an example of such thinking in Jeremiah 15,1, where G-d tells the prophet that even if Moses personally as well as the prophet Samuel were to intercede on behalf the people of the Kingdom of Yehudah at that time, their merits would not suffice to make Him change His mind concerning the impending doom of that kingdom. G-d mentioned Moses and Samuel who had already long ago passed on, The events recorded in the paragraph that we are dealing with here occurred the day after the Day of Atonement on the eleventh day of Tishrey, over 80 days after Chur had been killed. Nonetheless, Rashi saw fit to mention him as an example of a worthy assistant of Moses. However, in verse 23 in our chapter, Chur is not mentioned by Rashi. When Rashi understands the words: וכל העם הזה (and all this people) as applicable to Aaron, his two older sons, and the seventy elders, no mention is made of Chur. וכל העם הזה, they will also not be able to endure the long wait all day long to have their litigation dealt with.
+
+Verse 19
+
+היה אתה לעם מול האלוקים, “be you for the nation an intermediary between them and G-d;” Yitro meant that Moses appoint himself as intermediary due his constantly being prepared through ritual purity and readiness to warn them against trespassing any of G-d’s laws.
+
+Verse 20
+
+
+
+Verse 21
+
+אנשי חיל, “men who are mentally able to through the strength of their personalities to endure the people demand and not be cowed by their threats."
+יראי אלוקים, men who only fear G-d, and not their fellow human beings.
+שונאי בצע, men who despise to make money only through being successful in litigation. Rashi bases himself on the saying in the Talmud in Baba Batra folio 58; “any judge from whom one extracts money only by means of legal proceedings, is not fit to be a judge.”What is the correct interpretation of the expression: “they hate money gained through litigation?” Example: one of the litigants threatens the judge that if he is not found justified in his claim against his fellow man, that litigant will burn the judge’s house down, or threats of a similar nature. If such a judge is undeterred by such threats, he truly fits the definition of people whom Yitro called שונאי בצע. If, however he indicts the innocent and convicts the guilty, out of fear of the threats that had been made against him, the opposite party of the one who had won in the litigation is considered as having won judgment only by dint of legal proceedings but not by dint of having been found righteous in his claim.
+שרי אלפים, “chiefs in charge of thousands; according to Rashi, there would be 600 such “chiefs.” There would be six thousand chiefs” of hundreds and 60000 chiefs of ten Israelites each, so that there would be a total of 78600 “judges.” If so we have to assume that these were in addition to the 600000 ordinary Israelites, and who had not been included in the census. [There are numerous problems with this count. See Tossaphot Baba Batra 121, Ed.] Some commentators suggest that there is no problem at all as all these “judges” were over the age of 60, and thus would not have been included in the census at any rate. The Talmud stated explicitly that males under 20 years of age and over 60 years of age were never included in any census. A third opinion holds that each group of “chiefs” was included in the census of his particular category, i.e. the chiefs of thousands in the count of each one thousand Israelites, etc.
+
+Verse 22
+
+ושפטו את העם בכל עת, “they would be ready to sit in judgment of the people at any time.” The reason they would always be available, said Yitro, was that they did not have to take time out to speak with G-d as Moses often was in the habit of doing.
+והקל מעליך, “thus you can make it easier for yourself;” according to some commentators this phrase can be understood not only as advice or prediction, but as tantamount to a command.
+
+Verse 23
+
+על מקומו, “to his tent.”
+יבוא בשלום, they will immediately be able to go home, as they did not have to line up at a single point [in a camp the size of which was over 12 by 12 kilometers. Ed.]
+
+Verse 24
+
+
+
+Verse 25
+
+ויבחר משה אנשי חיל, “Moses selected capable men;” the meaning of the words אנשי חיל, is that he selected men whose qualities corresponded to the criteria stipulated by his father-in-law, Yitro in verse 21. Moses at least knew beyond doubt who were the wealthy men among the Israelites, and who could therefore be more or less immune to the temptation of bribes. As far as the invisible virtues were concerned that his father-in-law had stipulated as criteria for making someone suitable to be a judge, he had to rely on his intuition and G-d’s help. This is why they were not mentioned here[, as Moses’ judgment was not based on evidence acceptable in a court of law]. Even forty years later when Moses recalls the episode, he speaks only about characteristics which are visible, i.e. possessing insight, displaying wisdom and possessing knowledge, i.e חכמים נבונים, ידועים because these are characteristics that humans can recognize in their neighbors (Compare Deuteronomy 1,13). No one, on the other hand, can be sure if his fellow man truly is a G-d fearing person.
+
+Verse 26
+
+
+
+Verse 27
+
+וישלח, “he accompanied him, (when Yitro left for home;)” This is what he had learned from Avraham, who after royally hosting the angels saw them off by accompanying them some distance as reported in Genesis.ואברהם הולך עמם לשלחם :18,16Some commentators believe that the entire episode reported from the beginning of chapter 18, took place after the revelation of G-d at Mount Sinai when the people received the second set of the Tablets, Moses having smashed the first set. Moses had descended from the Mountain with that set on the tenth day of Tishrey, and the verse beginning with the words: ויהי ממחרת, “it was on the following day, etc.” would have been the 11th day of that month. (18,13) What had been reported prior to this, i.e. Yitro’ arrival, being welcomed, and offering sacrifices all took place still on the tenth, after Moses had arrived and placed the Tablets in the ark which had been prepared for it. This corresponds to the way Rashi explains all this at the end of Parshat ki tissa, (Exodus 33,11 and 34,29. Compare Rashi on Deuteronomy 1,9 on the whole subject and the apparent contradictions there.) Whether Yitro had arrived at the camp of the Israelites prior to the revelation or subsequently, there is unanimity amongst the sages that he did not return to his homeland before the second year in the month of lyar when the people made ready to proceed to the Holy Land, having been encamped around Mount Sinai for almost an entire year. If the line reporting Moses accompanying Yitro on his departure occurred in the chronological sequence reported by the Torah, then both he, Tzipporah, Moses’ wife, and his two sons would have belonged to the only generation that ever experienced such a revelation. If the Torah did not report events in their chronological sequence, we have to make peace with the fact that Tzipporah and her sons did not experience this event. [Yitro’s experiencing it or not is of secondary significance in the opinion of this editor. Ed.] The fact that neither of Moses’ sons are ever mentioned again by name in the Torah lends some support to the opinion that they had not stood at Mount Sinai.
+
+Chapter 19
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+בחדש, “on the first of the (third month);” the word חדש is used here as in Samuel I 20,18: מחר חדש, “tomorrow is new moon.”
+השלישי, it is called thus because it was when the Israelites were enslaved, נשבו, when they were liberated, נשתחחרו, and when they converted to Judaism, נתגגיירו. The latter word is the reflexive mode of גר, alien, stranger. Our sages in the Talmud Ketuvot 37 taught us: different categories of female converts, including those who were prisoners and have been released and converted have to wait three months before they can marry a Jew, to eliminate the suspicion than a child born to them was sired by a gentile before they had converted.
+ביום הזה, ”on this day;” the day referred to is the day they broke camp in Refidim. It was the first day of Sivan which occurred on a Monday, according to the opinion of the majority of the scholars. There was unanimity among the scholars that the day of the revelation was Sabbath. (Shabbat 86) According to the majority of the Rabbis who hold that that the revelation occurred on the sixth day of the month of Sivan, the first day of that month had to have been on a Monday. This is based on the month of Iyar during that year having had 30 days. If you were to argue that if this is so then 50 days as opposed to 49 days, i.e. seven weeks, had elapsed since the Exodus, the answer is that the commandment regarding when the omer is to be offered was not given to the people (or obviously could not apply) until they had taken possession of the land and planted a crop.
+ביום הזה באו מדבר סיני, “on this day they arrived at the desert of Sinai.” Rabbi Levi in Pessikta de Rav Kahane Mandelbaum edition page 205), relates a parable [to explain that the Torah describing this detail conveyed a lesson worth taking to heart, Ed.] A king had a son who had recovered from a serious illness. He was told by a pedagogue that the son should go an elementary school forthwith. The father protested by saying to the pedagogue that his son was still too frail to go to school and be subjected to a strict regimen. He agreed to send him to school after a recovery period of three months. He intended to pamper him during these three so that he would recuperate faster.
+
+Verse 2
+
+ויסעו מרפידים, “they journeyed on from Refidim, etc.” according to Rashi, these words mean that the people moved forward spiritually, i.e. that they had repented their conduct once they moved on. All the time they were at Refidim they had not yet repented. [The reader is referred to chapter 17 where upon questioning whether the Lord was in their midst, and the subsequent attack by Amalek when they encamped at Refidim as His way of showing them what would happen if He were not in their midst. Ed.] Rabbi Yoshua in the Talmud Sanhedrin, folio 106, understood the word Refidim as an allusion to the people’s having become very weak in their Torah orientation, as a result of which G-d had showed them that His protection of them would weaken accordingly.
+ויחנו במדבר, “they encamped in the desert;” the desert is no man’s land, open to all and sundry to make their home there without being legally challenged.
+נגד ההר, “facing the Mountain.” (Mount Sinai, also known as Mount Chorev). According to Rashi, the reason for the Torah adding this detail is that it tells us that the Israelites faced East. It is noteworthy that Rashi does not say; במזרחו, “on its eastern side,” but: למזרחו, “facing its eastern side.” Had he written במזרחו, this would have meant that the people had already passed the Mountain. We would have wondered how it was possible that the people had passed the Mountain before receiving the Torah, something G-d had told Moses they would do in Exodus 3,12, in answer to his query why the time for redemption had been advanced so many years over what G-d had said to Avraham at the covenant between the pieces in Genesis chapter 15. We must therefore understand Rashi here as meaning “the people encamped facing theMountain, looking eastward, as they had been doing every time they had made camp, every time since they made camp for the first time at Eytam after they had previously converged together at a place named Sukkot, (Exodus 13,20) They continued facing east when encamping until they came to the steppes of Moav, prior to crossing the Jordan river in a westerly direction. (Compare Rashi on Numbers 34,3) This is what prompted Rashi, based on the Mechilta, that the word נגד when used by the Torah in connection with the Israelites’ journeys always means “eastward.” The only exception is when the people are described in Numbers 2,2, as encamping מנגד סביב לאהל מועד, where it means ��opposite,” i.e. the Tabernacle was in the middle of the camp, the tribes camping around it, each group from a different direction.
+
+Verse 3
+
+ומשה עלה, “and Moses had ascended;” he ascended the Mountain on the second day of the month, i.e. on a Tuesday. He had not done so spontaneously but in response to an invitation by G-d, Who had called to him from the Mountain to address the whole nation, i.e. כה תאמר לבית יעקב וגו', “thus you shall say to the house of Yaakov, etc.”Some commentators believe that Moses did ascend the Mountain without having asked for permission in order to enquire how precisely to serve G-d there. He did so as G-d had told him in Exodus 3,12 in response to his enquiry why the Jews were going to be redeemed long before the 400 years of which G-d had spoken to Avraham in Genesis chapter 15 had been concluded. At that time G-d had told him that the people would accept the Torah at this mountain, and that in anticipation of that they were being redeemed ahead of time, “on credit,” so to speak. Actually, we find that the Israelites offered sacrifices near the Mountain prior to the revelation as reported in chapter 24,4-6.
+ותגיד לבני ישראל, “and explain in detail to the Children of Israel!” According to Rashi, the reason for the apparent repetition, the first part of the verse is addressed to the women who will be told in a brief outline, whereas the second part is addressed to the men in far greater detail emphasizing reward and punishment for observance or non observance of the Torah commandments. He derives the word ותגיד which is uncharacteristically spelled with the letter י in the middle as derived from the word גיד, meaning “a tough sinew,” as a hint that some of the commandments will be found to present a real challenge for those willing to observe them. According to the plain meaning of the text, however, the words: ותגד לבני ישראל, refer to verse 4 where G-d tells Moses: אתם ראיתם, ”you have seen, etc.” The reason why this is the preferable version is that homiletic explanations never speak in terms of the future, but always in terms of the past. Here G-d instructs Moses concerning what he is to do in the future when he addresses the people.
+
+Verse 4
+
+ואשא אתכם על כנפי נשרים, “I have carried you on eagles’ wings;” Rashi comments on this that this refers to the day on which the people came to Raamses. If you were to counter that in chapter 12,37 this magic carpet referred to the day G-d transported the people from Raamses to Sukkot, we must answer that G-d referred to both these days according to Rashi.
+על כנפי נשרים, over the sea, like a bird that carries its young across a river by means of flying across it.
+
+Verse 5
+
+ושמרתם את בריתי, “you are to observe My covenant;” this refers to the covenant of blood discussed in Exodus 24,8, that Moses took the blood of the different types of offerings presented on the altar he had built and divided it in half, as a sign of a covenant between G-d and Israel.
+סגולה מכל העמים, “more treasured than all the other nations.” Seeing that the entire earth belongs to Me, I am able to raise your stature above that of all the other nations. The word כי in this verse is to be understood as meaning: in spite of, just as it means this in Genesis 48,14: כי מנשה הבכור, “although Menashe is the firstborn,” or the word כי in Exodus 13,17, כי_קרוב הוא, “although it is near.”
+
+Verse 6
+
+ואתם תהיו לי ממלכת כהנים “You are to become for Me, a kingdom of priests.” All this is the result of My fondness for you and My authority to do so since I own the universe.
+
+Verse 7
+
+ויבא משה, “Moses came;” on the same day, and called the elders of the people to accompany him.
+
+Verse 8
+
+וישב משה, “Moses brought back, etc;” this was on the following day, the third day of the month, the fourth day of the week. On the next day, the fourth day of the month: G-d, as stated in chapter 24,verse 1, G-d said to Moses in verse 2 that Moses was to proceed further, alone. He immediately said to Moses that He would appear to him screened by a thick cloud, etc.; the purpose was that the people would be able to hear G-d speak to Moses and believe that he was truly the messenger of Hashem and that they would believe in his conveying truly what G-d said to him. If they had not been able to actually hear G-d speak to Moses, they would later on claim that G-d had not appeared to him. This is why He told Moses that as a result of what He was commanding him now the people would believe in him and never doubt him again. The words written in chapter 24 were spoken on this day, the fourth day of the month of Sivan, even though they appear only in Parshat Mishpatim. Moses related all these words to the people as stated in verse 9 in our chapter. They concluded with: וגם בך יאמינו לעולם, “and they will also believe in you forthwith.” He also related to them at that time all the laws that he had been taught by G-d at Marah, (Exodus 15,28) and committed them to parchment. Immediately thereafter the people responded in verse 3 by agreeing to carry out all the instructions they had received from G-d via Moses. Upon hearing this, Moses immediately conveyed the people’s response to G-d, as stated here in our chapter in verse 9, quoting what is reported in chapter 24, verse 3. Rashi, in our verse here, comments that the people in addition requested to hear all this from G-d personally, claiming that hearing matters directly from the source is always even more effective than hearing the same words from the messenger. (based on the Mechilta here) The source for all this which has not been spelled out in the text of the Torah is verse 11, where G-d tells him the on the third (after this) He will personally let them hear the Ten Commandments from His own mouth. G-d uses the expression: לעיני העם, that His words will be perceived by the “eyes” of the people. From this we deduce that people had asked for a visual revelation of G-d. [At the end of the Ten commandments in chapter 20,15, the Torah reports that G-d’s words were indeed a visual appearance for them when the Torah writes that all the people “saw” the “sounds.” Ed.] On this same day, the fourth of the month, G-d told the people to sanctify themselves in preparation for the revelation on Mount Sinai. By refraining from engaging in marital intercourse for three days, they would be sufficiently sanctified by the 6th day of the month to merit this revelation. That day would again be the Sabbath. Sanctification included immersing their clothing in a ritual bath as commanded in verse 10, and carried out in verse 14. We know that the root כבס includes such sanctification through a ritual bath from Leviticus 17,1516 that failure to do so will result in ritual contamination of a person that had eaten either animals that had died without undergoing ritual slaughter first, or parts of an animal which was found as having been diseased internally after being examined subsequent to ritual slaughter. Another example of the process of sanctification of human beings is found in Samuel II 11,4 where David is reported as not sleeping with Bat Sheva until after she had sanctified her body in a ritual bath. [She had been invited to his house by the King’s messengers. Ed.] The Israelites, both male and female, who at this point were undergoing similar immersion in a ritual bath, would then qualify for taking part in the revelation.
+
+Verse 9
+
+ויגד משה, Moses told G-d what the people had said in detail. When we encountered a similar phrase previously in verse 8, it was appropriate for the Torah to use the expression: וישב, “he brought back a reply,” as at that point he brought back a reply to something that had been requested from them, i.e. “if you will surely listen to Me.” Now there was no need to phrase their comments in this mode, as their willingness to obey G-d’s wishes had been established already. As Rashi noted, “It is our wish to see our King.”
+
+Verse 10
+
+
+
+Verse 11
+
+ליום השלישי, “for the third day.” This was the Sabbath on which the Torah would be given, the third day after Moses had been commanded to prepare the people for that day on the fourth of the month, a Thursday. On that day G-d would descend to the Mountain. Seeing that at this point the Torah did not spell out a specific time or date, this had to be done on another occasion, i.e. in Deuteronomy 5,27 where Moses is to tell the people to return to their daily routine, whereas he is to ascend Mount Sinai and receive the whole Torah there during the next 40 days, as detailed at the beginning of chapter 24 in Exodus. Some commentators accept neither the opinion of the majority of the scholars nor that of Rabbi Yossi, both of whom held differing views as to the precise sequence and timing of the days of the week and days of the month on which events commencing with the Israelites encamping in the desert of Sinai and the conclusion of the revelation have been reported in the Torah.
+
+Verse 12
+
+והגבלת את ההר, “you are to “fence in“ the mountain; actually the Torah writes: “you shall set boundaries for the people,” את העם. Our author understands this as fencing off the east side of the camp from the mountain. This is the direction from which the glory of G-d would appear, as we know from what Moses described in Deuteronomy 33,2 when he spoke about G-d having first offered His Torah to the gentile nations, who, upon enquiring what it contained decided to decline acceptance. He said then: ,וזרח משעיר למו הופיע מהר פרן, “He shone forth from the land of Seir (in the east) and He appeared from Mount Paran.” [But the Torah wrote סביב – fence the mountain roundabout; Cf. Mekhilta ad loc.]
+לאמר, “to tell as a warning so that each Israelite would warn his neighbour.”
+
+Verse 13
+
+לא תגע בו יד, “you must not touch him;” (the offender in order to pull him back) rather he shall be killed by stoning or by shooting arrows at him, but he must not be touched by human hand in order to be brought before a court of law to be dealt with. The Torah adds therefore that his death should occur without humans touching him. This prohibition applies equally to the Israelites’ beasts. If you were to ask why ascending the mountain is a worse offense than killing such a person by stoning him while ascending? The reason is that if the offender were to be killed through human action, the party touching that body, dead or alive, would also be considered as having personally touched that Mountain, whose holiness is such that it must not be touched by human bodies. Seeing that the Torah did not even allow a beast to touch that mountain, and a beast is not ritually impure while alive, how much more would the Torah not allow a human being to touch it, seeing that a living human being is subject to being ritually defiled while alive as well as when dead; so why did the Torah have to spell out this regulation as applying also to the people?The answer to this question can be learned from matters involving a high level of sanctity, such as the Tabernacle which was completely out of bounds to non priests. As soon as Nadav and Avihu approached to offer incense not prepared in accordance with the regulations pertaining to it, they were killed by lightning descending from G-d. They were not convicted after trial by a human court. Their corpses defiled the Tabernacle, although if they had been jailed and executed after a trial, the sanctity of the Tabernacle would not have been defiled. The same thing happened when Uzziah, King of Yehudah, not a priest, ascended the altar in the Temple of Solomon, planning to offer incense; after having been warned and having ignored the warning, he was struck by the dreaded skin disease of tzoraat on his forehead, something which defiled his entire body even though he was standing on the holiest place on earth. (Chronicles II 26,16) A different interpretation of the words: כי סקול יסקל, “for he will be stoned to death;” either with stones only, or with hail (stones). The words או ירה יירה, referring to the kind of hail that was a plague in Egypt would symbolise death both by stoning and by burning. Rashi claims that we would have expected the Torah to decree death by either drowning in water, i.e. ירה יירה, as in Exodus 15,4 when the Egyptian army was tossed into the sea to drown, or if not then by stoning. He bases this on the principle stated in Sanhedrin 45, that prior to stoning, the victim is pushed down by one of the witnesses who had testified against him from a wall two stories high into a pit, and if that did not kill him the others stone him by throwing stones at him. Alternately, the word או in our verse here does not mean: “or,” but means the same as אשר, “which,” as it does in Exodus 21,6, והגישו אל הדלת או אל המזוזה, “to the door, i.e. the door post;” this line has been translated by Yonatan ben Uzziel Targum as ויקריבנו לות דשא דלוח מזוזתא “he will bring him close to the entrance which is the doorpost.” The meaning of the line accordingly, is: “for the person violating this commandment will eventually be stoned to death after first having been thrown down into the pit.”
+אם בהמה אם איש, “regardless if man or domestic fourlegged animal; the category “bird” is not mentioned seeing that the messengers of the court would have no means of bringing it to justice. It would escape by flying away as soon as chased.
+במשוך היובל, “after the ram’s horn emits a long blast, etc.” actually, the reference is to the horn of the ram, קרן היובל, not the ram, יובל, as written here. It is not equivalent to the shofar used during the yovel year. That shofar was not used until after the Tabernacle had been built during the second year of the Israelites’ wanderings. On this occasion, Moses used a ram’s horn to signal to the people that the Revelation and all this entailed had been concluded. Based on the interpretation by Rabbi Saadyah gaon. Still another interpretation: the words: במשוך היובל, mean: “when the sound of the celestial shofar the people had been hearing during the revelation had come to end.” We find the word משך used in this context also in Hoshea 7,5: משך ידו את לוצצים, “he extended his hand to scorners (instead of protecting the king).” The expression here signals that the presence of the glory of Hashem above the Mountain had come to an end.
+
+Verse 14
+
+וירד משה, “Moses descended;” on this same day, the fourth of the month, a Thursday.
+ויקדש את העם, “he sanctified the people.” The three days of sanctification commence on this day and concluded on the morning of the third day, although technically they could have immersed themselves in a ritual bath already after nightfall of the previous day, seeing that there were so many foreigners (ערב רב see Ex 12.38) among the people, Moses extended the period for ritual immersion until the morning of the third day, thus giving them additional time. [“days” here are parts of days, according to the halachic principle of מקצת היו ככולו, any portion of a “day” is considered as if it had been a full day.” Ed.]
+
+Verse 15
+
+ויאמר אל העם, “he said to the people;” on the same day when he issued the instructions he told the people to be ready for the needs of what was going to occur at the end of this period of consecutive three days of sanctifying themselves, (by not having marital relations).
+לשלשת ימים, according to the plain meaning of these words the meaning is: “in anticipation of the third day.” According to the plain meaning, Moses did not add an additional day of preparation (sanctification) as suggested by some scholars. Other examples of a similar formulation in the Bible as here are Genesis 42,17: ויאסוף אותם אל משמר שלשת ימים, “Joseph put them in jail for three days.” Or, in the verse following: ויאמר אליהם יוסף ביום השלישי, “Joseph said to them on the third day;” or Genesis 40,19: בעוד שלשת ימים, “within another three days;” and in the verse following: ויהי ביום השלישי, “it was on the third day;” or Exodus 19,16: ויהי ביום השלישי, “it was on the third day;” there are numerous other examples.
+
+Verse 16
+
+ויהי ביום השלישי, “It was on the third day;” this was the Sabbath on which the Torah was given to the Jewish people, the third day of the preparatory ritual of sanctification. It was the third day after the fourth day of the month when these preparations had commenced. You have a total of six days from the day when the people made camp in the desert of Sinai, as stated in the first verse of our chapter. This is the interpretation of these verses according to the majority opinion of the scholars of the Talmud who held that the revelation took place on the sixth day of the month of Sivan. I shall now proceed to explain the view of Rabbi Yossi according to which the Torah was given to the people on the seventh day of Sivan. The words: ביום הזה, “on this day” in verse 1 of our chapter, which was the first day of the month as well as the first day of the week, is based on the tradition that the day of the Exodus was on a Thursday. Accordingly, the first day of Sivan of that year would have been on a Sunday. On that day the people arrived at the desert of Sinai, and on that day Moses did not tell them anything as they were tired and were required to pitch their tents, etc. On the second day, i.e. on Monday, Moses ascended the Mountain. This is followed by: “He called to him, etc.” until verse 8 where the people express their willingness to carry out any instructions they would receive from G-d. On the day following, on Tuesday, Moses conveyed the people’s answer to G-d. On the same day G-d told Moses in verse 9 that He would appear to Him screened by a thick cloud, up to and including the words: “they will believe in you forthwith.” The day after, on the Wednesday, Moses relayed the people’s answer to G-d, i.e. ויגד משה את דברי העם. On the same day G-d says to Moses that the people should sanctify themselves on that day and the day following including their garments by immersing them in a ritual bath, activities performed on Wednesday and Thursday so that they would be ready for the revelation on the day following, (the third day of the preparations (verse 11) On the day following that day on the seventh day of the week, on the Sabbath, the Torah was given to them as agreed by all the scholars seeing that on that day G-d would descend onto to Mount Sinai, the day when it was forbidden to ascend the Mountain as the people had been warned in verse 13. In verse 14, we read about Moses descending from the Mountain and carrying out G-d’s instructions. That day was Wednesday He told them to be ready on the third day (verse 15) by the end of the first 12 hours [the day is divided into two periods of 12 hours each. Ed.] on the fourth day as he had been on the Mountain until daybreak on that Sabbath. It emerges from this that Moses had added an additional day for the people to prepare themselves for the revelation, seeing that G-d had only spoken of היום ומחר, “today and tomorrow.” (verse 10). G-d had referred to the Wednesday and Thursday, whereas Moses added Friday. According to the opinion that the letter ל in the word: לשלושת in verse 15 is superfluous, just as the letter ל in Exodus 14,28 is superfluous in the phrase: לכל חיל פרעה, and just as the letter ל is superfluous in Exodus 27,3 in the phrase לכל כליו תעשה נחושת, G-d ordered the people to prepare for three whole days as explained by Rashi. When Rashi wrote: “at the end of three days, i.e. the fourth day,” this refers to Wednesday when Moses still stood on Mount Sinai.
+בהיות הבקר, “during the early hours of the morning;” according to Rashi, G-d put in an appearance before the Israelites did, although, normally, the students assemble before the teacher arrives, in this instance G-d did so for their sake.
+ויחרד כל העם, in this instance the root חרד does not mean that the people were afraid, but the meaning is similar to Samuel I 14,15: המצב והמשחית חרדו, “the garrison and the spoilers also made a commotion.” See also Samuel I 13,7: וכל העם חרדו אחריו, “and all the people rallied to him.” When they heard the voices, even though they were still in their beds, they rallied to their appointed positions near the mountain.
+
+Verse 17
+
+.ויוצא משה את העם, “Moses brought forth the people;” some commentators claim that Moses brought them forth because without his urging they were too scared to come forward.
+ויתיצבו בתחתית ההר, “they took up a position at the base of the Mountain” due to the lightning and thunder. Rashi here writes that G-d threatened to bring down the Mountain upon them. This sounds strange, as they had already expressed their willingness to accept the Torah without examining what is written therein. [Exodus 24,7, that whole chapter describes events prior to the revelation Ed.] We would have to understand this Rashi as referring to the Israelites accepting the oral Torah which they had not yet accepted.
+
+Verse 18
+
+
+
+Verse 19
+
+משה ידבר, “Moses would be speaking,” he would be speaking with G-d, but his voice could not be heard except by G-d. This is why the Torah writes that G-d answered him in a loud voice. This was also because the sound of the blasts from the shofar which are described as loud, would have to be overpowered by G-d’s voice.
+
+Verse 20
+
+על הר סיני, “on Mount Sinai.” The reason why the Torah was not given to the people in the land of Israel was so as not to give us a pretext to claim that since this law was given in the land of Israel, gentiles had no share in it [refusal to accept converts. Based on Yalkut Shimoni Yitro paragraph 275. The edition I own was printed over 300 years ago in Amsterdam. Our author quotes the same Yalkut as saying almost the reverse, i.e. that if the Torah had been given in the land of Israel, they could claim that this was the reason that it was not addressed to them and they were not morally bound by it. Ed.] An alternate explanation: If the Torah had been given to the Israelites when they were in the land of Israel, this would have resulted in jealousy between the different tribes. Each one would have claimed that it had been given in his part of the country. It is significant that the word: סין, when it appears in Scripture (16,1) was changed to סיני, Sinai, The implication is that something that had been the cause of strife, negatively, was changed after the Ten Commandments, had been given, i.e. “My strife,” constructive competition, (in fulfilling My commandments.)
+
+Verse 21
+
+
+
+Verse 22
+
+וגם הכהנים וגו׳, “and also the priests, etc.” who were these “priests?” They were the seventy elders who are all firstborns at the same time. (compare Mechilta on בחדש הזה Exodus chapter 12). [Seeing that at this time the tribe of Levi had not yet been chosen to replace the functions of the firstborns. Ed.]
+יתקדשו, “shall become sanctified;” they shall be warned to be prepared for this, and shall not say: “seeing that we are already appointed to perform the priestly functions, we do not need to undergo an additional process of sanctification.” They shall not presume on their familiarity with Hashem. An alternate explanation of this verse: Who is meant by the word: הכהנים, the people’s elite, the nobility, and the judges.
+הנגשים אל ה׳, the Torah underlines that precisely the people appointed as priests need to be the first to sanctify themselves instead of presuming on their superiority. Based on the verse in Deuteronomy 1,17, כי המשפט לאלוקים הוא, “that ultimately true justice is reserved for G-d,” i.e. that if the judges err, justice will still be done, these judges are not ever to lose sight of this by acting superior. In this instance, they might have argued that they are busy studying the halachot Moses had taught them in order to carry out the judicial duties, i.e. being busy with one commandment frees you from the need to perform another commandment at that time; [that argument is true only when due to time limitations on the performance of both commandment they conflict with one another. Ed.] It is impossible to accept the word: כהנים in the accepted meaning as there were not yet any kohanim at that time.
+
+Verse 23
+
+
+
+Verse 24
+
+ויאמר אליו ה' לך רד, Hashem said to him: “go and descend, etc.” If you were to ask why was there any need for three separate warnings (verse 12, verse 21 and this verse)? The warning in verse 23 refers to the warning in verse 21 where G-d had warned the people not to approach the mountain in order not to become a victim of destruction by trying to have a visual image of G-d. Moses had assumed that the very fact that they had been warned would be equivalent to the people’s inability to violate G-d’s commandment. G-d had already said in verse 12 that the people would be immediately killed if they were to try and ascend the Mountain or even its lower edge. Surely they could exercise control over their feet! Concerning their having control over their eyes, not to try and see the glory of G-d was a much more difficult task. This is why the warning had to be repeated. They would think that it was a good deed to try and catch a glimpse of their King! Moses had misinterpreted the prohibition as applying only to a physical ascent of the Mountain. This is why G-d had to add that not only ascent was potentially fatal, but even touching the base of the Mountain and even trying to catch a glimpse of G-d’s Majesty.
+ואהרן עמך, “and Aaron with you;” he was allowed to accompany Moses part of the way to the base of the Mountain. Moses was going to explain to the people the last nine of the Ten Commandments, starting with the words: לא יהיה לך, “You must not have, etc.” which the people had not heard or understood clearly from G-d’s mouth. Another way of interpreting G-d’s instructions here: G-d told Moses to descend in order that the people and the priests would not be under the mistaken impression that Aaron was no better than they as they had all been forbidden to ascend or even begin to ascend the Mountain. By being allowed to accompany Moses far closer to the Mountain than they had been, it became clear to them that Aaron was on a higher spiritual level than they. To prevent the people from thinking that Aaron could ascend all the way G-d told Moses to descend before Aaron could do so.
+
+Verse 25
+
+.ויאמר אליהם, “he (Moses) said to them,” that only he and Aaron had been given permission to proceed further.
+
+Chapter 20
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+וידבר אלוקים את כל הדברים האלה, The reason for this introduction is that the Torah wishes to show that G-d organises His words just as human beings organise their words prior to expressing them to outsiders. Hence: “G-d spoke all these words:”The word: וידבר here is to indicate that G-d said these words to Himself, in a preparatory manner; subsequently, the word: לאמור, refers to the final draft of this address by G-d to the people.“I am the Lord your G-d;” this is what Job meant when he said: (Job 28,2728) אז ראה ויספרה, הכינה וגם הקרה ויאמר לאדם, “then He saw and gauged it; He measured it and probed it and said to man etc.:” the Torah teaches you what are good manners, i.e. that even if you are an erudite scholar do not be arrogant enough when facing a crowd until after you have weighed carefully every word that you are going to say. You will do well to practice what you are going to say two or three times before actually addressing your words to an assembly of people. It happened once to Rabbi Akiva in a synagogue (Tanchuma item 15 on our verse) that the sages called upon him to read publicly from the Torah scroll, i.e. to accept an aliyah. He declined the honour. When his students asked him why he had declined, quoting that he had taught them a verse in Deuteronomy 30,20, according to which reading from the Torah in public is one of the highest achievements in your life, so how could he refuse such a request? He answered them that indeed this was so, but that he had declined to do so as he had not previously reviewed this particular portion and it would be an insult to the congregation to presume to read to them unprepared as he had been. He should have first gone over that text at least two or three times. He quoted our verse from the Torah as the source of his reticence. If G-d had not addressed the Jewish people before having marshaled His thoughts first, how could he permit himself to do less?
+את כל הדברים האלה, according to Rashi, G-d uttered all these words as a single utterance, something no human being is able to do. If so, why did He repeat the first two commandments a second time? The second time He spelled out each of these commandments separately word by word. This explains why the first two commandments were written in direct speech whereas parts of the remainder were written in indirect speech. The Israelites found it too overwhelming to have to listen to all of this without collapsing, and this is why they interrupted by asking Moses to act as their go between, as related by Moses in verse 16. They had been literally afraid of dying before hearing the end of the commandments.(Rashi bases himself on the Mechilta on our portion) According to the Talmud in tractate Makkot folio, 24, the last 8 commandments were each addressed to the Israelites one by one and relayed to the people by Moses. This is hinted at by the numerical value of the letters in the word תורה in the line: תורה צוה לנו מ��ה, “Moses commanded the Torah to us.” The combined numerical value of the word Torah is 611, the other two commandments of the 613 commandments had been communicated to the people by G-d directly, without an interpreter. This interpretation seems reasonable as a close look at the first two commandments creates the impression that the author was speaking about Himself, as opposed to the third and fourth commandment which sound as if the author is addressing an audience, although referring to Himself in the third person. According to Rashi’s commentary, all of the commandments were spoken twice, once by G-d and once by Moses.
+
+Verse 2
+
+אנכי ה' אלוקיך, “I am the Lord your G-d;” Rabbi Levi is quoted as saying (old version of Tanchuma Yitro 17) G-d appeared to the Israelites as if a multifaceted portrait visible to a thousand people at the same time (by means of refraction) so that all could see Him and vice versa. The people each heard His voice in a similar manner [as of course a visual image was out of the question since even if they had seen one that would be proof that it could not be His “face.” Ed.]. In this way every Israelite was able to claim that G-d had spoken to him individually, saying: “I am the Lord your G-d, etc. This is the reason that G-d had not said: אלוקיכם “your G-d (plural mode,)” but אלוקיך, “your G-d, (singular mode)”. He had addressed all of them in the order in which they stood assembled around the Mountain. This corresponded exactly to G-d’s commandment to Moses in 19,12: והגבלת את העם סביב לאמור, “you are to set bounds to the people around, saying:Do not raise the question that if the people had been used already to receive their daily ration of manna by picking it up around the boundaries of the encampment, and in spite of each one receiving the same amount, its taste would vary in accordance with the imagination of its recipient, then each one would presumably have a different recollection of how G-d’s voice had sounded to him?
+ה' אלוקין, “the Lord your G-d,” (two separate attributes of G-d) the author refers the reader to his commentary on Genesis 1,1 where he had pointed out that the “plural” ending in the word אלוהים, is not a plural ending at all.
+אנכי ה' אלוקיך, this is the beginning of the first of the ten Commandments. By means of this declaration G-d commands the people never to forget that is was He Who had redeemed the people by taking them out of bondage in Egypt. As a result, He had now become their new Master. He implies that they are far better off serving Him than remaining slaves to Pharaoh.
+אשר הוצאתיך, “Who has taken you out;” why did G-d choose this activity when He could have said: “I have made you,” or “I have created you?” He could have listed any number of favours that He had performed for the Jewish people already. Each one have them would have established His claim to be their Master and to obey Him. The answer is simple; they would have replied that G-d had performed deeds of loving kindness for the other nations also without requiring them to accept His Torah as a result. The one He listed here He had not performed for anyone else, however. By listing the Exodus as His claim to become their Master, He forestalled any such replies by the people.
+
+Verse 3
+
+לא יהיה לך, “You must not retain for yourselves;” do not say that you will serve Me as well as other deities. Seeing that only I took you out of Egypt without the assistance of any other powers, it is clear that no other deity deserves your respect. Besides, they are useless even if they had attempted to help you.
+אלהים אחרים, “other deities,” This translation is incorrect. The correct translation is: “deities worshipped by others.” If they are so useless why do they have the title: “deity?” According to Rabbi Yossi in the Mechilta chapter 6 on this verse, (a dissenting voice there) explains the need for G-d to say: לא יהיה לכם אלוהים אחרים, as follows: He said it so that the gentiles would not have a pretext to say that if these “deities” had been called by their individual names in the Torah, instead of simply “non gods,” this would be proof that G-d had had need of them for some purpose at some time. [There had indeed been a time when man had referred to such “deities” by the same title as G-d; this happened during the generation of Enosh, a grandson of Adam, when the Torah in Genesis 4,26, reported: 'אז הוחל לקרא בשם ה, “at that time some people called (other forces) by the name that had been reserved until then for G-d.” When that happened, one third of the earth’s landmass was flooded by the oceans rising, a mini-deluge as a warning to mankind. Ed.]
+אחרים, according to Rabbi Eliezer, in the same paragraph of the Mechilta, the expression elohim acheyrim means that they coined new names for new deities constantly, i.e. when one proved impotent, they exchanged it for another. If a deity made of gold had proved worthless they substituted one made of silver. He derives this from when Moses said in Deuteronomy 32,17: חדשים מקרוב באו, “new ones, which had come into existence only lately.”
+לא יהיה לך אלוהים אחרים, “you will have no authority over you other than Mine.”
+על פני, “in My place;” we find a similar use of this expression in Deuteronomy 21,16: על פני בן השנואה, where the Torah forbids to treat the firstborn son of a beloved wife, that has been born later than the firstborn son of a less beloved wife, preferentially. In other words, as long as the firstborn son of the less beloved wife is alive, his claim to be treated as the firstborn of the father cannot be overruled. We also have this expression when after the death of the two oldest sons of Aaron, Nadav and Avihu, his sons Elazar and Ittamar were appointed as priests in their stead. An alternate explanation: “If you were to accept any of these deities as your gods this would be against My express wishes and would arouse My anger against you.” An example of a similar construction would be: חמס ושוד ישמע על פני, “before Me constantly are grief and wounds.” Or: ,אם לא אל פניך יברכך, “if not he will curse you to your face.” (Job 2,5)
+
+Verse 4
+
+לא תעשה לך פסל וכל תמונה, “do not make for yourself a sculptured image or any likeness (of what is in heaven above or on earth below)” In Deuteronomy 4,15 the Torah supplies the reason for this prohibition when we read: “for you have not seen any likeness (at the revelation)”. You should not be able to say that I am a G-d Who hides Himself, and since no one can see You I am forced to make for myself an image in order to constantly remind myself of You and to prostrate myself before Your image instead, in Your honour.
+וכל תמונה, “nor any likeness;” the prefix letter ו seems unnecessary; it is meant to mean: “do not make for yourself a sculptured image of any likeness, even if it is doesn't have a face (and as Mercurius stone heaps does not have a face). Since the reason of making such artwork is to be a symbol of G-d - then it is idolatrous by definition. In the verse, the word "כל" is in the same grammatical sense as in כל אלמנה ויתום, meaning "none", in contrast to the usual meaning of כל "every".
+
+Verse 5
+
+לא תשתחוה להם, “neither must you prostrate yourself before them even if they [are not yours and. Ed.] have been made by others.”
+ולא תעבדם, “and you must not serve them;” even if the mode in which they are being served represents something disgraceful and despicable in your eyes.
+כי אנכי ה' אלוקיך, “for I am the Lord your G-d;” seeing that you have a benign Master, you have no need to turn to idols.
+אל קנא, “a philosopher asked Rabbi Yehudi Hanassi since when a superior individual demeans himself by being jealous of someone way below him physically and mentally. The Rabbi answered him if he thought it appropriate that someone should call his dog by his father's name? Does it not make sense that his father should be angry of being compared to a dog? The philosopher was forced to agree.
+פוקד עון אבות, “who remembers the sin of the fathers, etc;” G-d explains that He must demonstrate that He cannot simply “forget” the sins of the fathers, even if He delayed punishment for good reasons. This statement does not mean that the children will be taken to task for their father’s sins, seeing that the principle of each person is executed on account of his own sins not because of the sins of his fathers. (Kings II 14,6) This attribute of G-d must be understood as follows: when a person sins, G-d is apt to delay punishment to give the sinner an opportunity to become a penitent and to therefore rehabilitate himself. G-d’s patience may extend beyond the lifetime of the sinner and even the sinner’s son and grandson. If during these years the descendants of the original sinner have not mended their ways but continue to sin, G-d has to punish the great grandson for his own sins immediately, so that He will not be viewed as “forgetting” the original sin. He does so by removing that fourth generation of sinners from the world. He does so only when these generations successively have all been unrepentant sinners. He relates to such “sinners” in this fashion only if they do not sin inadvertently but “hate” Him and His laws,
+לשונאי, to those who hate “Me.” Having said this we might think that G-d operates in a similar fashion in delaying rewards for those who have lived exemplary lives; He therefore assures us that on the contrary, His memory of meritorious deeds performed by the fathers will be taken into consideration of the treatment of their children and children’s children for up to two thousand generations. He adds the words: לאלף דור, “for as long as a thousand generations,” i.e. forever. (Compare Deuteronomy 7,9)
+
+Verse 6
+
+לאוהבי, ��to those who love Me.” This is a reference to the category of Jews known as “chassidim” by their fellow Jews. [These are people who excel in their piety. Ed.]
+ולשומרי מצותי, “and to the ones who are observe My commandments;” [the Jews who are careful not to violate any of My negative commandments; the tzaddikim.” Ed.]
+
+Verse 7
+
+לא תשא את שם, “do not utter the sacred name, etc.” Seeing that you have not ever seen a visual image of G-d, you can utter an oath only by invoking His name. Even so, you must not even swear an oath in His name unless there is an absolute necessity to do so, as G-d does not allow His sacred name to be used for profane reasons, or for secular purposes. This is one sin which will not be subject to being wiped out even by repentance, i.e. כי לא ינקה, “He will not consider such a person as being free from guilt.”
+לשוא, “in vain.” Do not make a habit of prefacing any parts of your speech by invoking the name of G-d (unless as a pseudonym), even if what you say is the truth. The very habit of uttering G-d’s name on too many occasions will lead you to do so when it is a blasphemy, or an outright lie. If that were to happen it would result in an unforgivable sin, i.e. כי לא ינקה.
+
+Verse 8
+
+זכור את יום השבת, “remember the Sabbath day;” this commandment begins with an infinitive, “to remember;” the reason is because it is a day which should dominate your thinking throughout the week, seeing it is the most important day of the week. Also, the other six days of the week during which you are preoccupied with matters concerning your livelihood are not likely to be “forgotten,” as opposed to the Sabbath, the day of rest. Seeing that it is the spiritual highlight of your week and has been sanctified by G-d, it deserves special attention. The expression: ”to remember,” as opposed to the ”planning” of the six days to follow, is always something that is concerned with the past, one remembers things that have already passed, not things that are to come. [as opposed to the way we use the word in our daily language. Ed] In the second version of the Ten Commandments in Deuteronomy, the word in the written text is replaced by the word: שמור, as there it is connected to the purpose of the day, to provide constructive rest, למען ינוח, both for yourselves and for your servants and beasts. An alternate explanation: the line זכור את יום השבת “remembering the Sabbath day” is aimed at reminding you of the first time you heard about the concept of the Sabbath at Marah (Exodus 15,25). This is why the word: “remember” is appropriate. Still another exegesis of the infinitive used here is that this day must be remembered every day of the week, and that is why when describing each day of the week, i.e. naming it, we always do so in relation to the previousSabbath, i.e. “the first day after the Sabbath, the second day after the Sabbath, etc. Another approach: the words: זכור את יום השבת in the infinitive mean that you are to be mindful of the Sabbath day at all times, i.e. you should remember each day when the last Sabbath occurred and when therefore the next Sabbath occurs. The reason that you have to do this is so that when the next Sabbath occurs you will not forget it, not fail to observe its commandments. When you understand the line of זכור את יום השבת לקדשו, “keep on remembering the Sabbath day to observe it as a holy day,” it is practically the same as when it says in the second version of the Ten Commandments: “make sure you observe the Sabbath day to keep it holy, i.e. שמור את יום השבת לקדשו. This is what the rabbis meant when they said that the two words were spoken by G-d simultaneously, although we human beings cannot duplicate this exactly. This is what Rashi meant to tell us in his commentary. In our portion the commandment is phrased as a positive commandment, while in the Book of Deuteronomy it is phrased as a negative commandment, warning us not to violate the prohibitions applicable on that day. Our sages spelled this out in the Talmud tractate Eyruvin 96. It is a rule in the written Torah that whenever the expression השמר פן, or אל, occurs in the Torah, this introduces a negative commandment to be careful not to do something, It also includes women as being included in that prohibition. In other words, anyone to whom the warning of שמור is addressed, is automatically included in a commandment which is elsewhere expressed by the positive aspect of that commandment described by the word זכור.
+
+Verse 9
+
+ועשית כל מלאכתך, “and you may (or must) go about all your weekday activities;” our author does not understand the word: כל in our verse as literally “all” or “every,” but as a euphemism for “part of all your activities,” as for instance in the expression: כל מגפותי, “usually translated as “all My plagues,” which we all know was not meant to mean: “all the plagues at G-d’s disposal.” (Compare Exodus 9,14,) and numerous similar occasions when such an expression is used.
+
+Verse 10
+
+שבת לה׳ אלוקיך, “as a Sabbath for the Lord your G-d;” and not for you; in other words, during the preceding six days you pursue your own agenda; on the Sabbath, seeing that you are relieved of having to pursue your own agenda, I expect you to pursue My agenda.
+לא תעשה כל מלאכה, “do not perform any work of a purely secular nature. The meaning of the word כל in this verse is the same as in the expression לא תעשה כל תמונה, in verse 4, or as in Exodus 22,21: כל אלמנה ויתום, i.e. “any widow or orphan.”
+ועבדך ואמתך, “nor your male or female slave.” Seeing that the Torah here does not spell out here the reason or purpose for this prohibition, this has been spelled out in Deuteronomy 5,15 where the Ten Commandments have been repeated, i.e. in order to contrast this day with your status in Egypt when you were slaves and never had a day of rest from menial work. It is the lawgiver of this commandment who redeemed you from that status.
+
+Verse 11
+
+כי ששת ימים עשה, “during the six days of creation preceding the Sabbath of creation, G-d had created the six directions of the spatial universe, i.e. north, south, east, west, up and down. What had He left for you to complete, seeing that He had done it all? This verse is a reminder that there had been nothing left for the Creator to do on that day and that we are to emulate Him as a reminder of this. Just as He had looked at His completed universe, so we are to look at having completed our secular tasks during the preceding six days, before turning to the six days following and the tasks awaiting us then.
+
+Verse 12
+
+כבד את אביך, “Honour your father;” elsewhere we have a more detailed formulation of what is meant by “honouring” our parents, i.e. when Solomon spelled this out in Proverbs 3,9 saying: כבד את ה׳ מהונך, “honour the Lord with (part) of your wealth; all G-d asks of us is a small part of the wealth He has granted us, not all of it. We are to emulate Him in our relations with our parents, our progenitors on this earth. In Leviticus, another aspect of our relationship with our parents has been legislated when the Torah writes in Leviticus 19,3 as the first commandment after bidding us to try and become holy ourselves, that we are to revere our parents. When the Torah there continues with repeating the requirement to observe the negative commandments of His Sabbath, it hints at the definition of “reverence” being not to disregard our parents’ instructions. The Torah decrees the death penalty for anyone who curses father or mother (Exodus 21,17) a penalty similar to that decreed for cursing G-d, (using a euphemism, which is difficult to warn him not to use in this fashion) (Leviticus 24,15) (which because not carried out by human tribunal makes that sin practically unforgivable so that the penalty will be karet, posthumous disbarment as member of the Jewish people.) The death penalty for cursing parents is completely natural, as when cursing one’s parents one automatically curses G-d also, as He is one third partner in any human being, having supplied the soul. (Talmud Kidushin folio 30)
+אשר ה׳ אלוקיך נותן לך, which the Lord your G-d is giving you (the soil).[The following Midrash appears in the Pessikta de Rav Kahane chapter 21 on the Ten Commandments, but there the Roman is not Turnusrufus, but the Emperor Hadrianus. In my edition, (Mandelbaum) I have not found it. Ed.] The wicked Roman governor Turnusrufus asked Rabbi Akiva why the name of the Lord is mentioned seven times in the first five of the Ten Commandments, while His name does not appear even a single time in the last five of these Commandments? Thereupon Rabbi Akiva went to the palace of Turnusrufus and showed him where he kept his lance. The next time he went to the dining room of the palace and showed him where he kept his shield. The next time he went to his study and showed him where he kept his armour and his various weapons. When he visited him again and came to his toilet, he found that there was no weapon or defensive shield. Upon asking why this was so, he was told that the Emperor considered it as disgraceful to bring his weapons, etc. to such a place. Thereupon Rabbi Akiva answered him that in the first five of the Ten Commandments the subjects are all sacred or at least honorable. In the second half of the Ten Commandments where the subjects are murder, theft, adultery, perjury, and man’s basic carnal urges, it would not be appropriate that the name of G-d would appear there as if He associated Himself with people guilty of such crimes. An alternate explanation regarding the presence of G-d’s name in the last five of the Ten Commandments. Violation of any of the first five Commandments means sinning against a Being that is infinite, eternal, is permanent, When someone violated one or more of the last five Commandments he only sinned against transient creatures. G-d’s name therefore did not need to be mentioned.
+
+Verse 13
+
+לא תרצח, “do not murder!” The absence of any qualifying adjectives or adverbs means that murder by hand, by speech, or even by silence is equally forbidden. Example: you have obtained information that someone is about to be murdered and you fail to warn the prospective victim. The expression רצח is not applicable unless applied to death caused by illegal means. The expressions מיתה, or הריגה can be applied to death by other means whether legal or illegal.
+
+לא תנאף, “do not commit adultery!” Do not argue that whereas it is forbidden to reduce the number of living human beings through murder, there is nothing wrong with increasing the human population even through sleeping with a woman who is someone else’s wife. The same prohibition also applies to all other prohibited sexual relations.
+
+Verse 14
+
+לא תחמוד אשת רעך, “Do not lust after your fellow man’s wife!” Do not scheme to how bring about her divorce so that you can marry her. The translation of lo tachmod cannot be that you shall not kidnap her or otherwise force her to sleep with you. This prohibition was already included in the prohibition to commit adultery. The first five commandments were all in the category of לא מבעיא, there being no question of their being necessary. The need to accept G-d as Israel’s Master hardly had to be spelled out. Neither did the commandment not to worship competing deities or the need not to swear an oath by any other deity, or to observe the Sabbath, seeing that G-d Himself had observed a Sabbath; nor was there a need to decree to honour one’s parents. Every gentile does so without having been ordered to do so by G-d. Even the last five of the Ten Commandments did not need to be legislated as universal disregard of either of these commandments results in complete anarchy and the destruction of the human race by itself. In most of the Ten Commandments we find two cantillation marks per word (as opposed to only one on a word.). The symbolism that is represented by that fact is a reminder that we have two versions of the Ten Commandments in the written Torah. When the Torah is read in public on the festival of Shavuot, which is the anniversary of the revelation on Mount Sinai, we read the second commandment לא יהיה לך as well as the whole commandment commencing with the word: זכור using the major cantillation marks in order that each one of them be understood as a single verse. The 6th - 9th commandments are read on that occasion by using the minor cantillation marks, in order to understand them as separate verses. The reason is that although we never find a verse that has only two words, in this instance the Rabbis decided to remind us that we are dealing here with separate commandments. When the Torah is read on an ordinary Sabbath in the month of Sh’vat, however, and the Ten Commandments are read as part of the portion known as Yitro, we read the entire Ten Commandments using the minor cantillation marks as a result of which we make four verses of each one of them. The reason why on Shavuot we read the first and second commandment with the major cantillation marks is to remind us that they were uttered by G-d as a single continuous verse. [The author had explained there that these two Commandments were heard by all of the people from G-d’s mouth without Moses acting as an interpreter. Ed.] [In the second version of the Ten Commandments where the 7th - 10th commandments are linked to one another by the prefix letter ו, it is clear that they are to be treated as separate commandments each. Ed.][The author proceeds to spell this out in greater detail. Readers familiar with the significance of each cantillation mark will be able to check this themselves. Ed.]
+
+Verse 15
+
+וכל העם, “And all the people;” from here on as far as verse 23, לא תגלה ערותך עליו, “you must not reveal your nakedness while on it (the altar),” the sequence of the way in which the Torah has been written is unusual, as the words: ולשומרי מצותיו, “and to those who observe His Commandments,” should have appeared at the end of verse 6. The reason why they do not appear at that point is in order not to interrupt the sequence of the Ten Commandments.
+רואים את הקולות, “were seeing a visual image of the thunder.” The plain meaning of the verse is that even phenomena normally not subject to being seen, had become visible during the revelation. [In our time: “sound waves had become visible to the naked eye.” Ed.] Kohelet 7,27 already used the verb ראה “to see,” when he said: “see this is what I have found;” he referred to something that no one else before him had been able to find, (with his eyes). Or, compare Exodus 32,1 וירא העם כי בושש משה, “the people saw that Moses was tarrying.”
+
+Verse 16
+
+דבר אתה עמנו ונשמעה, “you speak with us and we will listen (obey)” They said this as they were afraid of the thunder and lightning.
+
+Verse 17
+
+
+
+Verse 18
+
+
+
+Verse 19
+
+אתם ראיתם כי מן השמים דברתי עמכם, “You have seen that I spoke with you from the heavens. G-d points out that although He spoke to them from the heavens they still did not see any image of His glory. Moses makes that same point again in Deuteronomy 4,15, where he relates what transpired at Mount Sinai to the new generation. Seeing that this is so, you are also not to make an image symbolising Me, as you never saw an original that you could have made a copy of. Even if you were to use precious metals such as silver and gold, this would not do justice to Me.
+
+Verse 20
+
+לא תעשון אתי, “you are not to make in addition to Me.” (some kind of symbol out of either silver or gold)” in verse 4 the pronoun לך, “for yourself,” had followed this commandment, whereas here the pronoun אתי is used. If you were to ask how you could possibly serve Me in practice when all these restrictions apply, the answer is that I require only a simple earthen altar upon which you can present your offerings to Me. Slaughtering the appropriate animals on such a structure is all that is required.
+
+Verse 21
+
+מזבח אדמה, “an altar of earth which does not lend itself to carve images upon, is what you should erect for Me;
+וזבחת עליו, “you will slaughter upon it;” not literally upon it, but “thereby;”
+את עולותיך ואת שלומיך, “your burnt offerings and your peaceofferings;” the burnt offering must be presented on the northern section of the altar and the peaceofferings on its southern section. Whence do I know that only the northern half of the altar is suitable for the performance of these presentations? We derive this from Leviticus 14,13: ושחט את הכבש במקום אשר ישחט את החטאת ואת העולה, “he is to slaughter the sheep on the place where he will slaughter the burnt offering and the sinoffering.” (Compare Mechilta “bachodesh” chapter 11) What precisely did the Torah mean when writing: במקום הקדש, “on the place that is sanctified?” These words are to teach that any part of the altar‘s surface that is in the northern section of it is acceptable.
+וזבחת עליו, “you are to slaughter upon it” Why are these words necessary? To teach that even an ordinary Israelite, not only a priest, may perform that part of the service, as we accept the principle that the act of slaughtering an animal sacrifice is acceptable even when performed_by a non priest. (Talmud tractate B’rachot, folio 31.) Any step commencing with the placing of the animal’s blood into a special receptacle is reserved for the priests, According to the Talmud in Yuma folio 27, non priests were allowed on the area immediately surrounding the altar. [We are speaking of the copper altar situated outside the Temple building. Ed.] In the Talmud Sukkah, 45, it is stated specifically that on the festival of Sukkot, the people at large walked around that altar carrying their aravot, willow branches.
+בכל המקום, “on any place,” seeing that the Tabernacle, after the Israelites had crossed the river Jordan was to stand at different periods in Gilgal, Shiloh, Nov and Giveon, before being moved to Jerusalem, we know that the presence of G-d’s glory was not limited to a single area in the Holy Land. From the above words the sages derived this principle, as the Torah did not bother to spell out the names of any specific place.
+
+Verse 22
+
+ואם מזבח אבנים, “And if an altar made of stones, etc.” Rashi comments on these words, (quoting Rabbi Yishmael of the Mechilta) that everywhere in the Torah where the word: אם appears, what follows is something voluntary, as opposed to mandatory, with the exception of three times, our verse being one of these three. Our author warns us that if someone were to raise the question that the line in Exodus 21,30: אם כופר יושת עליו, “if ransom is laid upon him,” this is not something voluntary, this is not something mandatory, as the Torah in that paragraph does not describe events that are bound to occur, and the verse only deals with the consequences of such events after they have occurred. The meaning of our verse is that if it is your desire to build an altar out of stones, (instead of only earth) you are free to do so provide that these stones have not been touched with metal tools when being shaped. [The Torah considers “stones” as included in the definition of “earth.” Ed.] You must use whole stones to build an altar. The reason follows, i.e.
+כי חרבך, “for your sword, etc.;” the word כי, here is used as an alternate proposition for the word אם. “if.” The altar is meant to promote peace and life, whereas the sword is used to shorten life. Something that had been shaped by the same material as that used to shorten life, could not serve as a symbol of peace and life, (Talmud Midot chapter 3 Mishnah 4)ותחלליה, “and you have profaned it.“ We have been told about the penalty for violating this commandment without having previously been informed of the prohibition. The Torah rectifies this by spelling out the prohibition not to use metal tools in hewing the stoned for such an altar in Deuteronomy 27,5: לא תניף עליהם ברזל, “do not wield an iron tool over them.
+
+Verse 23
+
+ולא תעלה במעלות על מזבחי, “and do not ascend My altar by steps.” The word עליו restricts this prohibition to taking big steps to the altar, not including the manner in which you can walk in the Temple itself. (Mechilta בחדש, section 11)
+
+Chapter 21
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+ואלה המשפטים, “and these are the ordinances, etc.” according to Rashi whenever the word אלה appears, it signals a break with what preceded, whereas when the word ואלה appears it signals a continuation or addition of the subject that had been discussed previously. In other words, the correct translation of the word: אלה is: “these opposed to what preceded it,” whereas ואלה should be translated as “and these as well as the preceding verses.” The author warns the reader not to challenge Rashi by quoting the word אלה in Leviticus 27,34, or the same word in Numbers 36,13, and Numbers 30,17 nor the same word in Deuteronomy 28,69, as in those instances as well as in others like it, the previously mentioned subject has been concluded. ואלה המשפטים, Rabbi Avahu, quoting Rabbi Yossi ben Zimra said that the word אלה represents a break with what was written previously, whereas when the word appears with the prefix letter ו it signals some type of continuation. He quotes Exodus 15,25, as an example, where the Torah had written: שם שם לו חוק ומשפט ושם נסהו, “there He made for them a fixed rule and gave them social laws, there He put them to a test.” המשפטים, prior to this paragraph the Torah spoke about aspects of being G-d fearing, whereas from now on it concentrates on laws that enable living in the land of Israel as a civilised nation. An alternate interpretation: previously the Torah spelled out prohibitions as warnings, as for instance: “do not commit murder; do not commit adultery;” from here on in the Torah repeats the prohibitions but adds the type of penalty that applies to violating these prohibitions deliberately. As to the commentary by Rashi here, who poses the question why we read here about the details of an altar, something entirely different from the subjects the Torah deals with here, he bases himself on the Mechilta, which suggests that this is a hint that the High Court should have its office near the Temple and that all these laws had been told to Moses while he was on the Mountain. The altar was after all also close to the Temple, immediately in front of its eastern entrance. Logic dictates that the whole paragraph commencing with 21,2 “when you purchase a Jewish slave, etc., until chapter 23,10, ושש שנים תזרע, “and during six consecutive years you may plant seeds,” are all laws that G-d taught Moses while he was on the Mountain before the people had heard the Ten Commandments. Concerning all these laws, Rashi has written: these laws are a continuation of the earlier laws.” He is referring to the laws listed in Parshat B’har in the Book of Leviticus.
+לפניהם “before them;” on this word Rashi comments: “before the Israelites and not before the gentiles,” even if you know that the gentile judges are experts in the section of law concerned in the litigation. When someone submits his legal problems to gentile judges he thereby desecrates the name of G-d, and simultaneously honours the reputation of the deity whom these judges worship. If the Jewish judges have given a ruling on the case and his Jewish opponent has not submitted to that judgment, the party deemed in the right may then appeal to gentile judges who have more power to enforce their ruling. [If both Jewish parties concerned are living in the Diaspora. Ed.]
+
+Verse 2
+
+כי תקנה עבד עברי, “If you acquire a Jewish slave, etc.;” the reason why the Torah commences its list of social laws with this particular law is that the Israelites had recently been redeemed from slavery themselves, so that they had good reason to understand how important it is not to treat one of their own as they had been treated in Egypt. Even if an Israelite had committed a crime for which he had been sold, the maximum length of time he was allowed to have his freedom to choose his employer restricted was six years. Even during these six years, his master, who did not own him bodily even then, was not allowed to force him to perform menial tasks. כי תקנה, “when you purchased etc.” Rashi explains that the “slave” the Torah speaks about was not purchased at a public auction, but was acquired as a servant from a duly elected Jewish Court whose task it also is to ensure that a thief’s victim is compensated by his victim. If he cannot do so from his own means he is “sold,” i.e. his labour is sold for a maximum of six years, his victim being paid the wages that this servant would earn during the next six years if he had not been “sold,” and is given by the court to his victim. [This editor has rounded out the picture based on the Talmud, for the benefit of readers totally unfamiliar with this subject.] There was some discussion in the Mechilta if our verse deals with an Israelite who had fallen on hard times and accumulated debts that he could not repay and who “sold himself,” (based on Leviticus 25,39). According to that view an Israelite “sold” by the court would not automatically be able to terminate his employment after 6 years maximum. This view is in apparent contrast with what the Torah wrote in Deuteronomy. According to Leviticus 25,46, gentile slaves who are owned bodily by Jews may be inherited by their children. The words ונמכר לך, “and he has been sold to you,” refer to an Israelite “sold” by the court. The Torah continues by decreeing that such a “slave” must not be required to perform menial tasks for his “master.” Clearly, this rule does not apply to gentile slaves whose bodies are owned by their Israelite masters. Deuteronomy 15,12 makes it quite clear that the law of releasing a slave after 6 years applies only to Jews who have been sold by the court. The passive form of yimacher, is absolutely clear. The Mechilta does not disagree, but derives the rule from a different type of exegesis. The author there (Rabbi Yishmael) uses a method known as gezeyrah shaveh. [I have slightly abbreviated our author’s presentation of this subject. Ed.] שש שנים יעבוד, “he is to serve for six years.” The number “6” in this verse is viewed also as an allegorical reference to six empires that at one time or another will enslave the Jewish people. They are: “Egypt, Ashur, Babylon, the Medes, the Greeks, and the Romans, (descendants of Edom). According to this interpretation, after the collapse of the Roman Empire the Jewish people, [as a whole, Ed.] will not again experience enslavement. This is based on the end of the verse: “and in the seventh year he will be released unconditionally.”
+יעבוד, “he will serve.” The word refers here to ordinary household chores etc., not to backbreaking labour.
+ובשביעית, “and in the seventh year;” at the beginning of his seventh year of service. The reference is to the beginning of the seventh year after this servant had been “sold.” and not to Shemita-Seventh Year. This is true both for the Jew who has been sold by a Court and for the Jew who sells himself because of his extreme poverty. Release at the onset of the Jubilee year applies to any Jewish slave who has not yet completed his six years of service, as well as to the slave who has voluntarily extended his servitude “forever” by having his ear pierced on a door post (Exodus 21.5-6). 
+יצא לחפשי, “he will exit to freedom.” G-d, so to speak, is quoted as saying: “I have redeemed the Israelites from Egypt from the house of slavery (Exodus 20,2). My intention was that they will henceforth be free men. They are therefore not “free” to sell themselves into servitude.” This is the meaning of Leviticus 25,10: “for the Children of Israel are My servants.” My document proving that they are Mine has preceded anyone’s subsequent document, which is thereby rendered legally invalid.
+לחפשי, some commentators claim that the letter ל at the beginning of this word, meaning “to” is superfluous, just as that letter is superfluous in Chronicles I 3,2: והשלישי לאבשלום, which means nothing other than והשלישי אבשלום, “the third: Absalom.” Here too the Torah had to write only: יצא חפשי, “will go free.” The letter י in the word חפשי, is a preposition just as in the word: הקדמוני in Ezekiel 10,19, which converts that word to mean: “which is at the eastern gate.” It is similar to the words: שלישי, רביעי, “third, fourth, etc. Other commentators understand the prefix letter ל in לחפשי as converting its meaning to a noun: “לחופש, to freedom.” They compare it to expressions such as “to דרור.” If so, then the letter י at the end of the word: לחפשי would be superfluous, just as the letter י in the words: ,היושבי, המגביהי המשפילי in Psalms 23,1, 113,5 and 113,6 are superfluous. [seeing that there we deal with poetic form of expressions, it is not fair to declare these words as superfluous. Ed.] The word: חנם, “without compensation to the master,” is the Torah‘s way of informing us of this condition. חנם, without bureaucratic delays such as a document proving that the “slave” had been released by his master. Neither did he have to compensate the master for any hours of work not actually served during any part of those six years (such as the time when he was sick).
+
+Verse 3
+
+אם בגפו יבא, בגפו ילך, according to the plain meaning of the text the meaning is: “he will leave in the same condition as when he had begun his term of service.” The Torah proceeds to illustrate this by quoting examples of how his personal status might have changed during these six years. Even though his master might have given him a gentile slave to live with and to have children with, the “wife” and children remain the property of his master.
+בגפו יצא, “he will leave alone.” According to Rashi, the line means that if this “slave” entered service while single, he will also leave while single. If he had been married before, his master can give him a gentile slave for the duration of his service. The reason is that if his master were to “give” him a gentile slave of his as a “wife,” and he would have children with her, he might grow so fond of her and her children, that at the end of the six years he would choose to remain with his master rather than to rejoin his Jewish wife. The chances of this happening to married man, is more remote. He presumably longs for his former family life, and he will leave as soon as is legally possible. His plea of preferring his gentile “family” under such circumstances is not acceptable by the Torah.
+ואם בעל אשה, “but if he was married, to a Jewish wife“ at the time the court had ‘sold’ him,” his wife will leave with him; the wording means that he had consummated the marriage before being sold, not that he was only engaged, or that he was betrothed to the widow of a brother who had died without ever having had children. On this verse Rashi explains that the purchaser of a Jewish “slave,” is legally obligated to assume responsibility for said “slave’s” wife and children if any. Although nothing of that kind is written here, seeing that the Torah only writes that “he will leave with his wife,” Rashi deduced it from a verse in Leviticus 25,41: ויצא מעמך הוא ובניו עמו, “he together with his children will leave.” In that verse no mention is made of his wife. We combine both verses in order to get the true meaning of the Torah.
+
+Verse 4
+
+אם אדוניו יתן לו אשה, “If his ‘master’ will give him a wife;” according to Rashi, the “wife” is a gentile slave of his master, and this verse is the halachic source that this is not only permitted, but that he may insist on his servant having a woman with whom he, and only he, performs marital union. (Mechilta, chapter 2, on this verse) The logic according to our author appears to be that seeing that the master is at any rate obligated to provide for the Jewish wife and children of such a “slave,” he may recover some of the expense giving this Jewish “slave” a Canaanite slave-woman and the children from such a union shall remain his property. Targum Onkelos adds to his translation that the master is not permitted to “give” a female Jewish salve to such a “slave”, as no Jewish woman may be forced to marry someone. If the “slave” had married a Jewish slave of his master during his stay there she will leave with him without the master receiving any compensation. Rashi points out here that proof that the master has no control over the body of a Jewish slave is that the Torah legislates that if such a Hebrew slave sold by her father reaches earlier than usual puberty, she immediately can leave her master. He quotes 21,7 as well as Deuteronomy 15,12 as his proof.
+האשה וילדיה, “the woman and her children;” children are always mentioned after their mother; Compare Psalms 116,16: אני עבדך בן עמתך, “I, Your servant, son of Your servant maid.”
+
+Verse 5
+
+ואם אמר יאמר העבד, “and in the event that the ‘slave’ will say insistently, etc.;” from this verse we learn that he must express this wish already during those six years, and repeat it at the end of his term of service.
+העבד, the Torah means that such a person deserves to remain a “slave,” as his actions reflect the kind of actions that the Canaanites are known for. If someone prefers the status of servitude, abandoning his choices in life, he acts like Canaanite slaves.
+
+Verse 6
+
+אל הדלת או אל המזוזה, “against the door or doorpost of the courthouse; we find an example of this in Deuteronomy 17,5: והוצאת את האיש ההוא אל שעריך, “you are to take out that man to your gates, (court);” This procedure is designed to give publicity to the irrational behaviour of this Jewish “slave;” let all the people passing the courthouse know who it is that has preferred life as a slave with a gentile slave to life as a free Israelite. He will have no chance to escape this status before the next Jubilee year.
+או אל המזוזה, “or against the doorpost;” Rashi comments on this that the Torah draws a parallel between “door” and “doorpost;” both are upright. What Rashi means is that the doorpost is compared to the door only in respect of their both being upright. The definitive aspect of this procedure is found in Deuteronomy 15,17, where the Torah stipulates that the ear of the person who is going to have it pierced is to be adjacent to the door at that time. This is proved by the Jerusalem Targum which translates the word או in our verse as meaning אשר, “which is;” there are similar constructions to this, as in 21,36 או נודע כי שור נגח הוא, where the word או also means אשר, i.e. “an ox which is known to be aggressive.” The author quotes more examples. In our verse here, Rashi prefers an allegorical explanation based on the Mechilta, i.e. the ear which had heard G-d say at Mount Sinai: ”do not steal,” and which had heard G-d say: “the Children of Israel are My slaves,” needs to be reminded of this by being pierced after having opted to ignore both of these statements by G-d. Our author corrects the reference to “do not steal” from the Ten Commandments, as that commandment speaks of stealing persons, i.e. kidnapping. Therefore the version found in Leviticus 19,11 is preferred as there the Torah speaks of the theft of objects. Also, the prohibition in the Ten Commandments carries a death penalty as opposed to the version of theft discussed in Leviticus. In that version the ordinary penalty is to make restitution of twice the value of the stolen objects; if the thief is unable to come up with the money, then he [his labour, Ed.] is sold by the court to someone willing to buy him and to abide by the Torah’s rules concerning how to treat him. The reason why Rashi chose the prohibition of stealing when he had so many others to choose from, is because the thief displayed greater fear of the Lord than many other kinds of sinners, as he committed his sin in secret when insulting G-d by being more afraid of the police seeing him than of G-d seeing what he did. Moreover, the Jewish servant choosing to continue serving his master in spite of living with a non Jewish mate and raising non Jewish children, has demonstrated that he does not care what G-d had said nor what G-d’s servant, his master, has said. Hence his deliberately “faulty” hearing is being punished.
+ורצע אדוניו, “and his master will proceed to pierce his ear;” the practical use of this procedure is that if he were to escape from his master during the years to come, the mark left on his ear will serve as evidence that he is an escaped slave. He will also not be confused with a Canaanite, as Jewish law forbids mutilating any part of a gentile’s body. Besides, when it comes to proving this when the escaped slave is positioned against the door where his ear had been pierced, the height of the hole in the door will match the hole in the slave’s ear when he is positioned there.
+את אזנו, “his ear;” the reason why this part of the body has been chosen by the Torah for this procedure is that if the slave were to protest that he had inflicted this hole upon himself, he would not be believed, as it is impossible for him to have done so.
+את אזנו, it was customary to mark someone who had not conducted himself as he should, by piercing his ear. From this custom evolved the practice to do this to thieves.
+במרצע, “with an awl;” I have heard the following allegorical explanation of why this tool was chosen by the Torah for this procedure; (Compare Torah shleymah by Rabbi Menachem Kasher on the source item # 137) The cost of an awl used to be 400 coins of a certain denomination. G-d had decreed 400 years for Abraham’s descendants to be strangers and slaves, but He had subsequently decreased the length of their serfdom. This slave who could have gotten his freedom, instead volunteered to lengthen his period of serfdom.
+ועבדו, ”and he is to serve him (his master)” only for his original master, not his son or daughter, if he dies prematurely. This verse is the source of the statement in the Mechilta :“A Jewish “slave” serves his master (during the first six years) or his master’s son, but not his master’s daughter. If he had his ear pierced, or if it was a female Jewish “slave,” neither will serve after the master has died.
+לעולם, according to Rashi, this word does not mean: “forever, i.e. the rest of his life,” but until the onset of the next Jubilee year. To the question that possibly the Torah did indeed mean that the “slave” in question would now have to remain a “slave” for the remainder of his life, the question is that in that event what was the point of the Torah having to write in Leviticus 25,46: והתנחלתם אותם, “you may leave them as an inheritance to your children,” (Canaanite slaves)? If even a Jewish “slave” could be inherited by your children, surely the Torah did not have to tell us that the same was true for bodily owned Canaanite slaves? Clearly therefore the Torah meant that such a Jewish slave would continue to the end of his natural life, usually no longer than seventy years in the status he had acquired as a result of having had his ear pierced. The Torah’s example here assumes that the thief had been about 20 years of age at the time he committed his crime, so that he had a life expectancy of another 50 years. It follows that the term לעולם, is another way of saying “for up to 50 years.” If the Torah had written: לעולם ועד, it would have meant: “until he dies.” This could have been supported by Samuel I 1,22, where the mother of Samuel tells her husband that she will hand over her son to the High Priest Eli, and she clearly meant by that “for the rest of his life.” In the event, Samuel died at 52 years of age, 50 years after having been handed over to Eli. Rashi, on that verse, explains that she prophesied that Samuel would die at that age, without having been aware that her words had been a prophecy. He adds that 50 years are considered a euphemism for “a lifetime.”Furthermore, as stated previously, Leviticus 25,10 in which a slave is included in the possessions that must be restored to their original status, the Jubilee year, the fiftieth in a cycle, is described as such a radical turning point in his life.
+
+Verse 7
+
+וכי ימכור איש את בתו, “in the event that a father ‘sells’ his daughter, etc.;” the reason why the father here has been described as איש, “a man,” is to make clear that a mother is not allowed to “sell” her daughter.
+את בתו, “his daughter,” but not his son.
+לא תצא כצאת בעבדים, “she will not leave her “master’s” employ according to the same rules as does a male “slave.” Rashi explains the word עבדים in this verse as referring to Canaanite slaves. If someone had thought that it referred to Jewish slaves, consider the fact that the Torah had separately legislated what the terms are when Jewish slave leaves his “master” in Deuteronomy 15,12. The conditions for releasing Jewish “slaves” had stipulated there that no difference is made between males and females. If you were to ask why the same rule does not apply regarding releasing a Jewish boy “servant” when he displays signs of puberty, seeing that we have a principle that the exegetical tool known as heckesh, a comparison spelled out in the Torah, must not be applied in an arbitrary manner, the reason is that there cannot be a situation in which such a comparison could be legally valid, as there is no situation when the Torah provides for a male’s puberty resulting in such a change of his status. If he had sold himself as a minor, the sale would not have been recognised as legally valid. We have already learned that his father was also not legally empowered to sell him. Rashi explains further that the comparison that the Torah made between a female Jewish “slave” and a male one, applies to the fact that neither of them obtain their release by having lost one or more of their organs, including even the loss of a tooth. This law applies only to gentile slaves. If you were to argue that we did not need to have this spelled out for us as we could have arrived at this conclusion by using simple logic, i.e. if a female Jewish ”slave,” who is released after displaying signs of puberty, is not released when losing an organ, it is clear that a male Jewish slave who is not released from service when displaying signs of puberty, is most certainly not released either when he loses an organ. We must therefore conclude that this socalled logic is faulty, as an opposite conclusion could be arrived at by using the “same” logic in reverse. What is the disadvantage a female Jewish “slave” labours under? She does not get her release as a result of losing an organ. Seeing that she had not been sold as a result of having committed theft, her male counterpart would certainly not be released under similar circumstances as he had been sold as a penalty for having committed theft. In order not to arrive at the wrong conclusion by using “our” logic, the Torah therefore wrote: “the male Jew or the female Jew” in Deuteronomy 15,12. לא תצא כצאת העבדים, “the rules for her release are not the same as that for her male counterparts.” According to the plain meaning of this verse the Torah here is inserting a rule of civilised behaviour, derech eretz. Men are sent on errands all over the earth, by day and night, and encounter all kinds of temptation while doing so. If women had to doo this, this would be considered a great disgrace for them. The Torah therefore states that female Jewish servants are to be used by their masters only for tasks that do not require tem to leave their immediate environment, the master’s home. In Psalms 45,14 this is summed up under the heading of: כל כבודה בת מלך פנימה, “the entire glory of the King’s daughter is within her,” (not on public display) Furthermore, the female Jewish “slaves” under discussion here are all minors. An alternate approach: Whereas the male “slaves” leave the master’s employ unaccompanied by children they had sired while in his employ, (as discussed earlier) the female Jewish “slave,” if her master wants to have children by her, must first marry her, in which case she ceases to be a “slave” anyways. If the marriage does not work out, she will be divorced and take her children with her, like any normal woman who is divorced from her husband and gets a financial settlement.
+
+Verse 8
+
+אבל אם רעה, “but if she is ugly, etc.” the term רעה while often used to describe moral ugliness, is also used to describe physical ugliness, i.e. being “sourfaced,” as we know from when Joseph asked the baker and cupbearer who had dreamt dreams which had upset them. Compare Genesis 40,7: ?מדוע פניכם רעים היום, “why do you look so crestfallen today?” בעיני אדוניה, “in her master’s eyes;” so that he does not wish her to remain in his house as a prospective bride until she will have completed her years of service;
+יעדה, based on the word מועד, “appointed time;” it is used here as in Samuel II 20,5: מן המועד אשר יעדו, “from the appointed time that he (David) had set for him.” The spelling and reading of this word are יעדה and יעדו respectively. The first word in the phrase is written in the Torah לא but read as לו. Since the sound of the two words is identical, we use both words in the interpretation: “She was not meant for him.”
+והפדה, “in order to release her.” Seeing that neither her master nor his son are prepared to marry her, and he does not want her to release herself, but prefers for her to continue to work for him on a socially demeaning level, he has to release her and pay her some compensation. [We must remember that her master had paid her father in advance for up to six years service. Ed.]
+והפדה, according to Rash,i he must contribute to the cost of cancelling her contract, i.e. that she must repay for the years of the contract she had not fulfilled her part of. The master must forfeit part of what he could have claimed, as his contribution. You might well ask what the difference is between גרעון and סיוע? (verse 10) Since she has repaid the master for the years she has not worked, what loss did the master experience? Her value as a maid increased with every she grew closer to puberty. We might therefore have assumed that the value of her work is not based on the same amount each year. By not getting back more per year for the last three years this girl did not work, than for the each of the first three years when she was quite young, the master actually did experience a loss, גרע, by releasing her from her contract early.
+לעם נכרי, “to an unrelated person;” (compare Ibn Ezra) to anyone other than her master he must not “sell her” to have dominion over her.
+לא ימשול למכרה, “he must not abuse his position of mastery to marry her off to someone other than himself or to his son.” למכרה, “to hand her over.” We find this term used in this sense also in Judges 4,9: כי ביד אשה ימכור ה' את סיסרא, “for the Lord will hand over Siserah into the hand of a woman.”
+בבגדה בה “seeing he had betrayed her trust.” By not going through with his promise to marry her when she was old enough, he had betrayed her trust. The expression “betrayal” occurs often in relationships between husband and wife. It describes usually the break up, severance of married life with a partner. Our author quotes verses from Maleachi 2,14, and Jeremiah 3,20, where the prophet in each case refers to Israel having betrayed its relationship with Hashem. Some commentators understand the words: לעם נכרי as referring to a Canaanite, seeing that Canaanites are referred to as נכרי in Judges 19,12: אל עיר נכרי אשר לא מבני ישראל המה, “to a foreign city that does not belong to the Children of Israel.” Also in Kings I 8,41: ובא הנכרי אשר לא מעמך הוא, “or if a foreigner who is not a member of your people comes, etc;” there too the reference is to the Canaanite. Some commentators explain the words as follows: the subject of the word והפדה, is not the girl’s master but her father; he will have the right to cancel the contract and get his daughter released from its terms seeing that he who had purchased her has reneged on his promise to marry her.
+לעם נכרי, “to any other nation;” i.e. the father does not have the right to sell his daughter to anyone but a Jewish master. He might have been under the impression that since the Torah permitted him to sell his daughter while she is a minor, it does not matter to whom he sells her. After all, seeing that the Torah did not forbid him to sell himself to a gentile if his fellow Jews did not help him to stay financially afloat, so why could he not do the same with his daughter? Therefore the Torah had to expressly forbid him to do this.
+בבגדו בה, “for having betrayed her,” as it was not proper for him to sell her, but he did sell her.”
+
+Verse 9
+
+כמשפט הבנות, “according to the norms applying to daughters.” Normally, men betroth attractive girls to themselves and marry them, and celebrate the wedding with joy and decor, not like when one takes a lowly maid as a wife.
+
+Verse 10
+
+ועונתה, some commentators believe that the root of this word here is עון as in Isaiah 13,22: וענה איים באלמנותיו “ and the wild beasts of the islands shall cry in their desolate palaces.” The letter מ in the word מעון having been replaced similar to the way it has been in the words: מלון, מזון and מדון our verse then would prescribe that if, after marrying the young girl he married additional wives, she continues to be entitled to receive from her husband food, clothing and housing.
+
+Verse 11
+
+ואם שלש אלה, “if he fails to provide any of these three items, she will leave his house without paying the master any compensation for leaving his employ before her contract had been completed.” (Ibn Ezra)
+
+ויצאה חנם, “she will leave, with the consent of the court;” the Torah here does not specify a particular point in time, but does so at a later time in Deuteronomy 15,12, where we read: כי ימכר לך אחיך העברי או העבריה ועבדך שש שנים, “when your brother the Hebrew is forced to sell himself to you or your sister a female Hebrew, he/she is to serve (work for) you for six years.” אין כסף, “if she falls sick at the end of her six years and is unable to leave, and her master supplies her with food, she need not compensate him for this. (Based on Torah shleymah by Rabbi Menachem Kasher Mishpatim, quoting Jerusalem Talmud, item 230 on our verse.) According to the simple meaning of the text, the words: אין כסף which are superfluous after the word חנם, “without compensation,” are a way of underlining the statement, just as the statement מת את ולא תחיה, “you are dead and will not live.”
+
+Verse 12
+
+מכה איש ומת, “if someone strikes a man and he dies as a result;” Rashi explains this as being based on Leviticus 24,17: ואיש כי יכה כל נפש אדם מות ימות, “if a man strikes a lethal blow on another human being it is a capital offence and the attacker will be subject to execution.” If you were to ask: “where did we ever hear that if a person strikes another and he does not die as a result, that he is still subject to execution? After all, even if he did cause his victim to lose a limb, he is only liable for monetary compensation? Some commentators have provided what is a very forced answer by saying that if the injury to the victim of the blow is such that he will die within 12 months that the attacker will be subject to the death penalty. Alternately, the verse could have meant that death resulted from a blow with an instrument not meant to cause death. Since we could have thought that he would still be guilty of the death penalty as it is the result that counts, the Torah had to write that unless the weapon used was of a kind that is used as a lethal weapon the killer is not liable to the death penalty.
+The reason why this paragraph follows closely after the paragraph dealing with how to treat a slave, is because most masters are in the habit of hitting slaves when they do not perform their duties diligently. The expression: מות יומת “he must certainly be executed,”by decree of the court, is meant to exclude the legislation applicable to a gentile slave
+
+Verse 13
+
+והאלוקים אנה לידו, “and it was a result of divine will;” in other words, the person becomes guilty of death at the hands of heaven. Rashi on this verse understands it as referring to an inadvertent killing, which was the result of inadequate precautions being taken by the person who caused it. He interprets it as a demonstration of the verse: מרשעים יצא רשע, “wicked people will cause wicked acts.” What is meant is that if someone has committed a serious sin unobserved and intentionally, so that he could not be brought to trial, providence sees to it that he will have to atone for this by committing unintentional death of an apparently innocent person. The example quoted is that the “sinner” was ascending a ladder, a rung of which broke and caused him to hit someone standing nearby in his fall. On our verse, Rashi comments: “this refers to unintentional killing.” He interprets the verse from Samuel I 24,13, by providing an illustration. The person sitting under the ladder had once killed intentionally, but no witnesses were present who could testify against him in a Court that would condemn him to death. On the other hand, the person falling from the ladder had once killed unintentionally when there were no witnesses who would have forced him to take refuge in the city set aside for such situation. Now, through divine intervention, both had received their penalties, each appropriate to his sin. Alternately, the scenario should be as follows: the party who had previously committed deliberate murder, fell onto someone holding a knife in his hand at the time. If we would not explain the verse in this manner, the person who had been guilty of execution by the sword would not have died by the proper type of execution, i.e. the sword. The example quoted also teaches that a person cannot become guilty having to go to the city of refuge twice. The reason is that once you have killed someone if in the process you have killed someone also unintentionally, you are penalised only for the more serious crime.
+ושמתי לך מקום, “I set aside for you a special place;” this commandment would not become effective until the people took up residence in their homeland. It is a hint of the cities of refuge to be legislated and introduced still during Moses’ lifetime.
+
+Verse 14
+
+מעם מזבחי, even when the murderer has taken refuge near My altar; all the more so when he escaped to one of these cities of refuge.
+
+Verse 15
+
+ומכה אביו ואמו, “and if someone strikes either his father or his mother;” why did this verse have to be written? [If killing someone not related to him by blood results in execution, is it not natural that he will not face a lesser penalty for killing his father or his mother? Seeing that theTorah had written: עין תחת עין, “an eye for an eye,” the Torah had to let us know that this law does not apply when the eye of one’s father had been gouged out by his son, but that he faces a more severe penalty in that instance. The Talmud employs an exegetical tool called heckesh, i.e. [according to some scholars, the 19th of these tools enumerated in the 32 such tools listed by Rabbi Eliezer son of Rabbi Yossi hag’lili. Ed.] In order to have halachic validity, this instrument being used in a particular instance must have been a well known tradition, called in the language of our sages: halachah miMoshe mi Sinai, a ruling as binding as if it had been given to Moses at Mount Sinai. Ed.] In our case it would work as follows: just as someone if he has struck his neighbour’s animal is not culpable for such a deed unless the animal sustained a visible wound, so if one strikes one’s father or mother he becomes guilty of the death penalty only if he had actually wounded his father or mother by such a physical blow. The reason it appears in our context in the Torah is that the penalty is parallel to that for murder, something discussed in our paragraph.
+ומכה אביו ואמו מות יומת, “and someone striking his father or mother must be put to death.” The peculiarity here is that the Torah informed us of the penalty for violating the commandment before having spelled out the commandment not to strike anyone. Actually, the commandment that the penalty for striking someone and his being subject to 39 lashes has been established, and the Torah had added that this number of lashes, (Deuteronomy 25,3) must not be exceeded by the person carrying it out as agent of the court. Actually, we could have derived that from logic also, i.e. “if the agent of the court who carries out striking an individual is commanded not to exceed his authority, how much more so does such a rule apply to someone who had no authority to strike anyone!” (Mechilta, Mishpatim chapter 5)
+
+Verse 16
+
+וגונב איש, “If one kidnaps another person, etc.” Why was this verse necessary? (it has been repeated in detail in Deuteronomy 24,7) If we had only had the verse in Deuteronomy, we would have thought that the penalty would apply only if we had witnesses to the kidnapping. We would not have known that witnesses to both the kidnapping and the subsequent selling of the victim were required in order for the death penalty to apply. Another thing these two laws have in common is that the death penalty is to be carried out by strangulation.
+ונמצא בידו, “and he has been found in his possession;” another way of saying that the crime had been carried out in the presence of witnesses, or that there was so much circumstantial evidence as if it had been witnessed by living witnesses. [One cannot help thinking of coloured photographic evidence even showing the parties in motion. Ed.]
+מות יומת, “the kidnapper is to be executed.” The reason is that having sold his victim it is almost certain that the victim will be so abused that he will die prematurely. As to the question where was the prohibition written before the penalty was recorded in the Torah, the reader is directed to the eight of the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20,13: לא תגנוב, “Do not steal!”
+
+Verse 17
+
+ומקלל אביו, “and if someone curses his father;” from what is written here we only know that it is forbidden to curse one’s father while he is alive; how do we know that the same law applies to people cursing their fathers posthumously? The word: ומקלל formulated in the present tense, in the widest possible formulation includes cursing him anywhere anytime. Where is the commandment not to curse one’s father stated explicitly independent of the punishment in store for those who violate it? The reader is directed to Exodus 22,27: אלוהים לא תקלל ונשיא בעמך לא תאור, “Do not curse a judge and do not curse an elected political leader within your people.” לא תקלל חרש, “do not curse a deaf person!” The common denominator in these three prohibitions is that they are part of your people, and that your father and mother are similarly not only your relatives and have begotten you, but they are part of your nation, a holy nation. The reason why the Torah interrupts this sequence with verse 16, which deals with kidnapping, is that most people who are kidnapped are minors, who were unable to defend themselves against their abductor. As a result of having been kidnapped and sold to a foreign nation they will grow up in a country where they do not even know their parents, and when they get involved in an argument they will likely curse their fate and the father who had not protected them. Therefore this insertion is not a deviation from the theme the Torah deals with here. Verses 16 17 18 have a common denominator, as the Torah hints that in practice the occurrence of these sins are interrelated through the negative experiences in life by the parties who become guilty of them. [We must never lose sight of the fact that the Torah does not address itself to wicked people, as this would be a waste of time. What wicked person would take any notice of it? Ed.] What the Torah did here was listing sins which originate in quarrels between people some of which result in violent action, others in violent language. The honour due to father and mother is based on the honour due to the Creator himself, seeing that father and mother represent two thirds of begetting each one of us, G-d being the remaining third, who had helped father and mother to produce progeny. Therefore, cursing parents or cursing G-d are part of the same phenomenon, the result of frustration of the guilty party. Moreover, in the case of G-d releasing one’s anger by striking out physically is obviously impossible. Therefore all three are treated in a similar manner when it comes to how such release of one’s anger is treated by the Torah. Some commentators approach our whole paragraph as reflecting what our sages call it “not only this but also this.” For example: not only a person who has been so angry that in striking his fellow he has actually killed him, deserves to lose his life as a result of such lack of restraint, but even people who killed without intention actually deserve the same fate seeing that they had been criminally negligent, but the Torah stops short of this by protecting their lives if they succeeded to reach a city of refuge before an angry relative had a chance to avenge his relative’s needless death. This approach is supported by the Torah stating that if such a killer had acted intentionally, and had sought immunity next to the altar, [a symbol for a location where violence is absolutely forbidden, Ed] by taking refuge in the precincts of the Temple, this will not protect him against being brought to court by force and tried. Having stated this, the Torah extends this to people who in their anger only struck a parent also deserve the death penalty. If their act leaves a mark, injury, on the body of either parent they will be treated as having committed a capital offense. Finally, even if the son or daughter did not raise their hands against either parent and cursed them instead, they are also dealt with as having hurt them bodily.
+
+Verse 18
+
+וכי יריבון אנשים, “if two men engage in an argument that has become physical;” from this wording I might think that the legislation which follows applies only to males, how do we know that it applies equally to females? Rabbi Eliezer says that seeing that when the Torah discusses the subject of compensations for damages caused is written in general terms not mentioning men or women separately and mentions genders only a single time (in verse 29, i.e. that the victim is either man or woman) it is clear that the entire subject applies equally to both sexes.
+או באגרוף, “or with a certain type of stone,” (according to the Targum) The same expression is used by Torat Kohanim when explaining Leviticus 14,40 where the treatment of an eruptive like plague on the walls of a house is discussed. The usual translation of אגרוף, is: ”fist,” possibly not acceptable to the sages, as it is not a lethal tool, and the death of the victim within 24 hours, which according to Torah law would be equivalent to murder, seems unduly harsh.
+
+Verse 19
+
+אם יקום והתהלך בחוץ, “if he (the person who had been knocked to the ground) gets up and walks outside the house unaided;” if that person takes to his bed and does not even partially recover, so that he dies before having been able to walk, the party that knocked him down will be tried for murder (and executed if he had been duly warned by witnessing observing the fight).
+על משענתו, “supporting himself on his walking cane;” the word משענת is used in the Bible in this sense in Kings II 4,29: וקח משענתי בידך, ”and take my walking cane in your hand;” [Elisha speaking to his servant Geychazi)
+שבתו, “compensation for income lost through being bedridden;” Compare use of this expression in Ruth 2,7: זה שבתה הבית מעט, “she has rested but a little.”
+יתן, he (the one who inflicted the wound) has to “give,” even if the wounded person recovered without having sustained permanent damage.
+
+Verse 20
+
+וכי יכה איש, “and if a man strikes, etc.;” how do we know that the verse also addresses women? Rabbi Yishmael says what we already attributed to Rabbi Eliezer as an answer to this question on verse 18.
+בשבט, “with a rod;” the Torah chooses as an illustration instruments with which the average master disciplines his slaves. This is why the first letter ב in this word is “open,” as if the Torah had written: בהשבט. If the master had struck that slave with a sword or other instrument used to inflict death, he will be treated as an intentional murderer even if his victim survived for a day or two, seeing that this was not the way one disciplines a person.
+ומת מחת ידו, “and he dies as a result of this beating;” seeing that he had used permissible means of disciplining, the death of the victim is attributed to something like an accident, the master not having intended to deprive himself of the services of this slave. An alternate interpretation of the expression: תחת ידו; “while still being beaten;” this is no longer “disciplining,” but killing with one’s own hands.
+
+Verse 21
+
+יום או יומים, “a day or two days.” The reference is to one day that is equivalent to two days. The verse could not be referring to actual days, as if even one day’s survival is sufficient to absolve the killer from the charge of murder, survival for two days would not need to be mentioned. According to the plain meaning of the text, in consonance with the practice of the Torah, we can simply translate this as “he does not even have to survive two days for the master not to be accused of murder, even a survival of 24 hours is sufficient.” We find a parallel construction in Deuteronomy 17,6: על פי שנים עדים או שלשה עדים, “on the basis of the testimony of two witnesses or three witnesses.”
+כי כספו הוא, “for he is as if his own money.” He has full control of the servant including beating him, but only in order to discipline him. (Rash’bam)
+
+Verse 22
+
+וכי ינצו אנשים, “if men fight,” why was there a need for this verse? Seeing that from verse 14 where we were told only that deliberate killing of one’s enemy is punishable by death, we would not have known that when one kills one’s friend instead of one’s enemy in a fight, he would not be considered as a murderer, we are told now that when the objective of an altercation was to kill one’s adversary, it does not matter that one had killed the wrong target by mistake. There are some commentators who do not understand this verse as prescribing the death penalty for the killer, but that he is only liable for monetary compensation to be assessed by the court. (Rabbi Yitzchok in Mechilta Mishpatim chapter 8) He interprets our verse along the following lines: as long as we had only heard Leviticus 24,17: if someone deliberately smites a human being (so that he dies) the killer must be executed, even if that human being had been born after a pregnancy of only eight months, (which according to the Talmud is not considered a baby with a regular life expectancy). The Torah here describes the premature birth of such a baby as a result of the mother having been struck as having given birth to a נפש אדם a human being in the full sense of the word. The wording in our verse makes it clear that only if the mother had been struck in the region of her body to which her fetus is sensitive, does the attacker deserve the penalty prescribed, not when she was hit on the head or other parts of her body not related to her pregnancy. An alternate explanation: even if only one of her fetuses was killed. [The wording in the verse speaks about fetuses, plural. Ed.]
+אשה הרה, “a pregnant woman; we would have known this as soon as we read the balance of the verse in which we are told that she lost her fetuses when the Torah speaks about her losing her fetuses prematurely; how could she have done so unless she had been pregnant?The reason that the Torah had to first inform us that she had been pregnant was to teach us that the attacker’s penalty is related to the fact that she had been pregnant and he should therefore have been especially careful, as well as to tell us that if the loss of her fetus could be attributed to the fact that she had been hit in the region of her womb, the penalty of which the Torah writes does not apply.
+ענוש יענש, “he will be severely punished.” Rashi explains here that the financial penalty is the difference in value that the husband would receive on the slave market for offering a pregnant woman and one who is not pregnant (Bava Kamma 49a). The buyer would offer more money for the pregnant women because he would receive her as well as the babies. If you were to ask why the attacker is not subject to the death penalty for murder, the answer is that there is no certainty that they would have been born after nine months as healthy babies. If this is a relevant consideration why is it not applied to fully grown human beings who might have been terminally ill had they lived to die naturally? The answer is that we base ourselves on the majority of such cases where the victim would prove not to have been terminally ill. To the question why we do not apply the same logic to the fetuses? If we were to do this the attacker would also have to be guilty for hitting the woman who is the mother of these fetuses. We have to derive from the wording of the various verses dealing with violent encounters between people that as long as the fetus has not seen the light of day, it has no market value, as decided in the Talmud tractate Erchin folio 7, where it is stated that unborn fetuses have no claim to the estate of their fathers.
+כאשר ישית עליו בעל האשה, In accordance with the conditions imposed upon him by the husband of the woman; in the event that the men who were fighting had decided to settle their dispute out of court. If they cannot agree on the amount of compensation, ונתן בפלילים, he will have to abide by the court’s decision about damages. We find a similar construction in Leviticus 7,10: בלולה בשמן וחרבה, “mixed with oil, or dry.”
+
+Verse 23
+
+
+
+Verse 24
+
+
+
+Verse 25
+
+
+
+Verse 26
+
+לחפשי ישלחנו, “he has to discharge him to freedom.” The Torah’s point here is that the slave does not have the option of accepting a financial settlement for the loss of his limb by his owner. The reason is that such a settlement would be useless to him, seeing that as long as he remains a slave all that he owns belongs to his master. Even a person who has sold himself into slavery with the express condition that his master cannot control his possessions, the master remains in a position that enables him by harassing his slave force him to hand over his belongings to him. The only way this can be avoided is by setting his slave free.
+
+Verse 27
+
+ישלחנו, he will release him. The expression שילוח, is similar to the when we read in Deuteronomy 24,3: ושלחה מביתו, “he sends her away from his house;” the reason that the word: חנם, “without any compensation is absent here is the reason why the word: חנם “without compensation,” is absent here in our chapter, [as opposed to verse 11 in our chapter, where automatic release of slaves after 6 years service is discussed Ed.], is to teach us that the release must be accompanied by a document just as the document of divorce to a wife.
+תחת שינו, “on account of his tooth.” The Torah teaches us that even though the master owns the slave bodily, this does not mean that each body part of that slave is his to do with as he likes. G-d did not consent to slaves being owned in order for their masters to be able to mutilate them when they are angry at them. The Torah singling out the word: his “tooth” (sing), teaches that even if the slave lost only one tooth through his being beaten this suffices to his master having to free him unconditionally. In the event that the master had caused the slave to lose an eye, and before releasing him he caused him to also lose a tooth, he will have to compensate him financially for the loss of the tooth, as by that time, halachically, he did not own that slave’s body anymore, even though he was still under his physical control. According to our author, the rule that a gentile slave receives his freedom in return for losing a limb, is arrived at by simple logic. If he gains his freedom at the hands of heaven when he becomes unable through disease to perform his duties, how much more does he qualify for his freedom when he has been abused by a human being owning him. [Rabbi Chavell in his glossaries, cites a statement from the Talmud B’rachot 5 according to which the logic is precisely the reverse, i.e. “if a gentile slave receives his freedom in return for having lost a limb as a result of punishment by his master, how much more so must G-d forgive sinners whose entire bodies have been punished by Him with painful sickness and disease!” This is whatDavid asked for when he said in Psalms 118,18: 'יסור יסרני קה ולמות לא נתנני, “the Lord punished me severely but did not hand me over to the angel of death.” Surely, if someone had to endure man’s inhumanity to man, he would be entitled to his release in exchange.]
+
+Verse 28
+
+וכי יגח שור את איש, “when an ox gores a man, etc. up until this point the Torah had listed a number of situations when a human being had inflicted pain or loss of life; now it turns to damages caused by animals under the control of human beings, or property owned by human beings and not secured against causing damage to his peers.
+וכי יגח שור את איש, the expression: נגיחה is used when an ox gores a human being, whereas the expression: נגיפה is used when said ox gores another animal. The reason is that the fate of a human being is influenced by his mazzal, the astrological constellation of the stars when he has been born, and as a rule animals fear human beings (Genesis 9,2) so that even when they gore they take care not to inflict death. Animals do not enjoy this advantage and therefore when one animal is being gored by another animal this is generally fatal. (Compare Rashi on Talmud Baba Kamma folio 2)
+סקול יסקל השור, “the offending ox is to be stoned to death. If you were to ask that if even an ox that did not have a history of goring people is subject to stoning, why did the Torah have to tell us that an ox with a history of goring has to be stoned? (verse 29) Answer: this is faulty logic; the reason why a hitherto tame ox is stoned is because no penalty of compensating the victim is imposed on the owner;I could think that seeing that the owner of an aggressive ox that has killed a human being would not have to be stoned. To make sure that we do not think so, the Torah added that the guilty ox has to be stoned in all such situations. You might also ask that how can it happen that an ox will gore people twice or even three times, i.e. become labeled: “an aggressive ox” מועד, if he had been stoned to death already after the first time he killed a human being? Answer: either such an ox had escaped after it gored the first time, or, that whereas we know the ox but did not know who its owner was so that we could have accused him of deliberate negligence.
+ולא יאכל את בשרו, “and its flesh may not be eaten.” Is it not clear from the fact that this animal had to die through stoning that its flesh would be forbidden, seeing that only animals that have been killed by ritual slaughter may be eaten? The expression יאכל in the passive mode, always means that it is not only forbidden to be eaten by Jews but may neither be fed to dogs or sold to gentiles.
+ובעל השור נקי, and the owner of that ox remained free of guilt as long as his ox had not displayed signs of being aggressive. (Rash’bam)
+
+Verse 29
+
+וגם בעליו יומת, “and also its owner is guilty of the death penalty by execution.” According to the plain meaning of the text he should be executed in practice, seeing that he was aware of allowing a dangerous animal to be on the loose, and he took no precautions.
+
+Verse 30
+
+אם כופר יושת עליו, in the event that the heirs of the person who had been gored to death are willing to accept a financial settlement for their father having been killed;
+ככל אשר יושת עליו, “the owner must pay whatever is imposed upon him.” The reason that the Torah does not apply the principle that we do not accept financial compensation for killing human beings, is that that this rule applies only if the human being in question has personally committed such an act. [The reason that this verse begins with the word: “if”, is that most people would spurn such an offer by the party who was responsible for their father’s death.”
+The word אם, “if” here, does not belong to the list that the author had made when this word is not an option. (Compare Exodus 20,22)
+
+Verse 31
+
+אם בן יגח או בת, “if it gores a son or a daughter;” it is most unusual for the Torah to spell out separately that the victims are either man or woman, or son or daughter; (Compare verse 28). Why did it do so here? The reason is that the owner of the ox could have argued that if the father or mother of the child who had been killed had taken care of their son or daughter these would not have been where the animal could have attacked them with impunity. The Torah had to inform us that such an excuse by the owner of the ox which had killed is absolutely irrelevant. A different explanation: when the Torah speaks of free people, the status of minors and adults is exactly the same. (Talmud Baba kamma folio 43) when the victim of this ox was a slave, the owner of the ox is liable only if the victim was an adult.
+
+Verse 32
+
+אם עבד יגח השור, “if the ox had gored a slave, either a male of a female slave, (which had already been legally labeled as an aggressive ox) this latter point is clear without having to be spelled out, otherwise killing a slave would be rated as a more serious offense than killing a free man.
+כסף שלשים שקלים, the compensation payable by the ox’s owner to the owner of the slave is to be 30 shekels. This corresponds to the value of a free woman between the ages of 20-60 years of age as stated in Leviticus 27,4.
+והשור יסקל, “and the offending ox is to be stoned to death.” This is the only way we can be sure that it will not at some time in the future also gore a free man. Seeing that it is customary for the slaves to be looking after the master’s livestock, feed them, etc., it is not a rarity that sometimes an animal turns on its keeper. This will lead to arguments between the owner of ox and the master of the slave as to how much the dead slave was worth. In order to forestall such arguments, the Torah spelled out a fixed amount for all such situations. Seeing that the chances that a free man becomes the victim of such an ox are statistically quite insignificant, the Torah uses a different yardstick in evaluating the damage.
+
+Verse 33
+
+וכי יפתח איש בור, If a man opens the lid over a pit (which had been placed there to protect pedestrians); the Torah refers to a pit which had remain fully covered for a long time, or even if that person had a dug pit which had never been in that place, and he had not bothered to cover it because he intended to dig deeper on the following day;
+ולא יכסנו, “and he fails to cover it.” If he had covered it, he is free from further responsibility, provided that he covered it securely. The term “securely” is applied to a cover strong enough to prevent a wagon loaded with stones from collapsing the cover. (Jerusalem Talmud Baba Kamma 5,7) One is not permitted to dig a hole underneath the public streets unless wagons loaded with stones can cross above it without concern.
+ונפל שמה שור, “and an ox falls into it.” Human beings, seeing that they have been given a brain by G-d, are expected to look where they are going, and if they come to harm due to not looking out for themselves, the person causing the obstacle is not held responsible. [How different from our time when people try to sue the city for potholes on the sidewalk! Ed.] The Torah adds here the word: או חמור, “or a donkey,” to tell us that if people‘s belongings fall into that hole, the person who dug it is also not responsible as these belongings must have been guarded by a human being who did not do his job properly. (Talmud Baba Kamma, folio 53) An alternate explanation: Oxen and donkeys are mentioned here as they are the most likely animals to fall into such a hole. What applies to them applies to all other animals also.
+
+Verse 34
+
+בעל הבור, “the one responsible for that hole;” this cannot refer literally to the owner of the land on which the hole has been dug, but must refer to the one who created the hazard on it. The owner of the land, if not the same, is completely free from responsibility.
+והמת יהיה לו, “and the carcass will belong to the person who caused the damage,” as seeing he has paid full damages this is only fair. (This is the plain meaning of the verse, not necessarily the Talmud’s, there being a debate about who is the subject of the word: לו, “his”)
+
+Verse 35
+
+ומכרו את השור החי, “and they sell the surviving ox.” What the Torah writes here applies only when the damage was caused through the ox being used on land that was not owned (or leased) by the owner of the ox. If it had been on property owned or leased by the ox’s owner, the party causing the damage is free from responsibility as the party that caused the damage can say to the owner: “what business did your ox have on my property?”
+וחצו את כספו וגם את המת, “they will share equally the price they realized for the surviving ox as well as that they salvaged for the carcass of the animal that was killed.” Seeing that the animal that gored did not have a history of being aggressive, its owner had no reason to take special precautions by tying it up. Fate played an equal role for both in causing them to suffer a financial loss.
+
+Verse 36
+
+., “and he had not secured it;” actually we could have learned this by simple logic. If an owner of an ox that had gored must bear half the cost of the loss of its victim if the offending animal had had a reputation for aggressiveness and its master had not secured it, he surely must be liable for the whole damage! Why do we need the words: “and he had not secured it?” Therefore we learn that this word speaks another type of guarding that ox; he has to also muzzle such an ox so that it cannot become guilty of causing damage with its mouth, by either biting, or grazing in other people’s fields. An alternate explanation why the words: ולא ישמרנו are needed; logic does not suffice to impose penalties. Perhaps someone could come up with another aspect nullifying our logic. Therefore penalties have to be spelled out. Still another interpretation: the penalty applies even if the offending ox had been looked after on behalf of its owner by someone who did not charge the owner a fee for this.
+
+Verse 37
+
+כי יגנוב איש, “if a man steals etc,” the legislation applying to the stolen goods having either been slaughtered and consumed or disposed of commercially, and the thief has been found, i.e. אם ימצא הגנב, applies also to the slaughterer and the seller (if they are not the thief himself). They are all penalised with 4 or five times the value of the objects they were trying to dispose of before they could be found. (Rash’bam)
+וטבחו או מכרו, and the thief had either slaughtered it or sold it; here we could also say that logic would have told us this. If the slaughterer is guilty of this penalty, surely the one who had sold it is also guilty of it? Had the Torah not written this example we would have reasoned that this is proof that penalties can be imposed by the court by the judges simply using their logic.
+וטבחו או מכרו, why did the Torah choose these two examples of how a thief wishes to eliminate suspicion from himself? Just as slaughtering and subsequently eating the ox is an irreversible act, so selling him and transferring ownership is a similarly irreversible act.
+חמשה בקר וגו' וארבע צאן, “five times the value of cattle, etc. or four times its value if he stole a sheep or goat.” The reason why the thief faces a relatively smaller penalty if the object he stole was a sheep or goat, is that he had to demean himself by carrying the animal from where he stole it. He did not use such tactics when stealing a large animal such as an ox. Also the loss of an ox to its owner is more serious as it deprives him of an animal that works for him while in his possession. This is not the case with sheep or goats. A different explanation for the penalties imposed for hiding evidence. Stealing a large animal such as an ox is evidence that the thief had experience in how to steal successfully. Stealing a lamb successfully is no evidence that the thief had become a professional thief.
+תחת השור.... תחת השה, “in exchange for the ox, in exchange for the lamb. The reason that the Torah repeats this legislation for each animal separately, is that by doing so it teaches that this particular legislation applies only in the event that either of these categories had been stolen and sold, etc. It does not apply if the stolen animal had been a camel or donkey, for instance.
+
+Chapter 22
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+אם במחתרת ימצא הגנב, “if the thief was discovered while tunneling” (acting so as not to be discovered); according to Rashi he had left behind evidence of forcible entry into the victim’s house;
+אין לו דמים, “the owner is not guilty of having shed the blood of that thief.” The thief had made it plain that he was afraid of a potentially fatal confrontation with the owner of that house who would physically protect his belongings.
+
+Verse 2
+
+אם זרחה השמש עליו, “if the thief had remained in full view of his potential victim;” (and the owner had killed him)
+דמים לו, “he is guilty of bloodshed;” the intended victim of the thief, the owner of the house. If it had been clear to that owner that the intruder did not mean to kill but only to steal, and he overreacted by killing him, then he must make restitution. Unless he felt immediately threatened by the intruder and had reason to be so, killing him is a form of manslaughter. He (the thief) has to pay fourfold or five fold its value as the case may be seeing he has disposed of it. If the thief cannot repay the value of the stolen items plus the penalty imposed upon him, he will be sold in order that the owner can be compensated.
+שלם ישלם The thief will be required to pay four or five times the value of the animal stolen.
+
+Verse 3
+
+חיים שנים ישלם, if the animal in question is still alive and well, he will pay twice its value. (including the live animal)
+
+Verse 4
+
+כי יבער איש שדה או חרם, “when a man lets his livestock loose to graze in someone else’s field or vineyard;” the expression בער always describes destruction of something, as in Deuteronomy 21,9: ואתה תבער דם הנקי, “you must out eliminate innocently spilled blood;” [we are more familiar with the expression from getting rid of our chametz on the eve of Passover. The author quotes two more examples, which I omitted. Ed.]
+מיטב שדהו, “from the best quality of his own field;” Rashi explains that this verse teaches that whenever damages are paid in kind instead of in cash, the quality of the compensation is to be of the best that the offending party possesses. The reason for this is that most people always treasure what is personally their own to its equivalent in twice that in someone else’s possession. [The origin of that proverb is Talmud Baba Metziah folio 38. Ed.] Furthermore, what is his own he is familiar with and therefore prefers it to something he is not familiar with. Furthermore, in order to make a sure that people do not cause damage with their livestock in other people’s property this penalty is meant primarily to ensure that they make sure their animals do not stray to other people‘s property. When it comes to compensating a creditor for a borrower defaulting on a loan, another type of damage, the Torah allows the borrower to pay in kind by giving him the lowest quality of his land. The reason that the Torah applies a different yardstick there is to insure that owners of livestock have to pay such heavy fines so that no one will be scared to take out a loan as the chances of having to pay 4 or 5 times the amount owed is too daunting. The sages agreed therefore that the amount of land in lieu of cash repayment would taken from the medium quality of land owned by the person defaulting. In the case of a divorcee or a widow being paid out her ketuvah, financial settlement the husband or heirs may use the lowest grade land they own. After all, the woman in question had not sustained any loss as a result of which this payment had become due.
+מיטב שדהו, “from the best grade of soil that he owns;” here we speak of the land owned by the party that had caused the loss, i.e. the party who has to pay damages must do so during the harvest season when the value of the field is at its highest value. [This is the plain meaning of the text, whereas Rashi, above had not explained according to the plain meaning but had switched subjects in the verse. Ed.] The injured party, after all had lost the harvest from the area that the offender’ ox had grazed instead.
+
+Verse 5
+
+
+
+Verse 6
+
+כסף או כלים לשמור, “money or chattels for safekeeping.” Rashi here states that in this verse the Torah speaks of a shomer chinom, of a friend or relative who undertook this task without charging a fee. The logic is that when you undertake to look after such things as money or inert chattels, no additional labour or expense is involved by the party under whose care this service is performed. He simply stores these items in the same place where he stores his own valuables. This is why, if they were stolen or lost, the keeper is not held responsible as he had given them the same attention as he had given to his own valuables.
+וגנב מבית האיש, “and it has been stolen from the house of the man;” the reason for this verse is to tell us that what follows applies only if these goods had been stolen from the original keeper, not if in the meantime they had been stolen again from the thief. ישלם שנים, “the second party will not only have to make restitution but will have to pay double as if he had stolen it in the first place. The reason is that this so called “safekeeper,” had explained the object’s disappearance by claiming that it had been stolen from him. His penalty is the same as if he personally had stolen it.
+ישלם שנים לרעהו. He is to pay twice its value to his fellowman, i.e. the one who had entrusted the object to him. This appears to contradict another verse in Leviticus 5,24 where we have been told that when someone had sworn a false oath concerning illegally misappropriated property, that he had to pay a penalty of only one fifth of the value of said property. How do we reconcile these two verses?When someone had admitted his fault after first having denied it on oath, he repays the value of said object and adds one fifth [of the value plus a penalty of 25%, actually, so that of the combined value the portion that is penalty represents one fifth. Ed.] whereas if he had denied it and was found guilty through witnesses testifying against him, he has to pay twice the value of the stolen object as penalty including the original value of the misappropriated object. (Mechilta Mishpatim, 15)
+
+Verse 7
+
+ונקרב בעל הבית, “the owner has to come to court for the purpose of confirming his claim by an oath;” This rule is applicable if he had claimed not to have misappropriated said object or objects which had disappeared. If he had claimed that the object or animal had become the victim of wild beasts, etc. he is only asked to produce evidence supporting his claim before a court.
+במלאכת רעהו, a somewhat strange sounding expression; it means: “something belonging to his fellowman;” we find a similar construction in Genesis 33,14: לרגל המלאכה, Yaakov referring to his livestock.
+
+Verse 8
+
+
+
+Verse 9
+
+חמור או שור או שה, “a donkey, an ox or a lamb;” this paragraph speaks of guarding a neighbour’s belongings in return for payment. This obligates the guardian to accept additional responsibility for keeping it safe. The animals mentioned need to be fed by its keeper, so that it is normal for him to charge a fee for this. If the purpose of his accepting this assignment is to protect these animals against marauding wild beasts such as wolves, he is expected to prevent this.
+ומת, “and it died {from natural causes;”
+או נשבר, or it was seriously injured by marauding beasts;
+או נשבה, “or it was kidnapped by force;”all these examples are listed as categories of force majeure, an act of G-d, against which the keeper of these animals had been powerless. If the keeper is willing to swear before a court that he had not been negligent and thereby contributed to the loss, he is considered as having exonerated himself. If he had not been paid for his “safekeeping,” all he had to do was to claim it had been stolen, and he would not have had to render an oath.
+אין רואה, “there had not been a witness,” (to substantiate the keeper’s claim). These words apply only to the claim of the animals having been kidnapped by armed robbers. The reason these words were not used in verse 6 is that the expression “stealing,” is only used when the act had not been witnessed.
+
+Verse 10
+
+שבועת ה' תהיה בין שניהם, “the oath of the Lord shall be between the two of them;” that death occurred accidentally and not through negligence by the keeper. If the death had occurred in a place where there are people, the keeper would have to pay as his oath is not accepted in such circumstances. Had he told the truth, witnesses would have come forward to support his claim of innocence.
+בין שניהם, “in order to release the keeper from responsibility.”
+אם לא שלח ידו, “if he (the keeper) had not done something inappropriate, but that death had occurred by accident.
+
+Verse 11
+
+ואם גונב יגנב מעמו ישלם, “but if that animal had (only) been stolen from him (the keeper)” [and no violence or threat of violence had been involved] he has to compensate the owner.
+
+Verse 12
+
+אם טרוף יטרף יביאהו עד, “if it had sustained fatal injuries, he must produce the torn animal as proof (in order to be exonerated) The “proof” referred to are the remains of the animal or animals in question. The condition of these remains will speak for themselves. This is what the shepherds do when having to account for animals missing from the flocks under their care. We have proof of this from Amos 3,12, 'כאשר יציל הארי מפי הדוב שתי כרעים או בדל אוזן וגו, “as the shepherd saves from the mouth of the bear, or a leg or part of the ear, etc.” If this was not what is meant, why would the prophet mention such small parts of an animal?
+
+Verse 13
+
+וכי ישאל איש וגו, “and if someone borrows, and it is injured or dies, ”while its owner is not present.
+שלם ישלם, the borrower has to pay the lender for the value of that animal. The reason for this all encompassing responsibility of the borrower is that he had the complete use of the animal while it was under his care. The lender could claim that the death or harm occurred while the borrower had overworked that animal.
+
+Verse 14
+
+אם בעליו , “if its owner” was present at the time his animal died (and was aware that it had not been overworked) the borrower is free from paying any compensation.
+אם שכיר הוא, “if said borrower had paid for the use of the animal while under his care,” the plain meaning of the text is that the subject of the word: שכיר, is that the party who had lent the animal was himself not the owner but had rented it. Our sages, however, understand the meaning to be that the borrower had paid a fee to the owner for using the animal. The Torah decrees that the liability for death or disabling harm is that of the owner must bear the burden of the loss as he had received compensation for letting the borrower use it. He had used his animal for his own purposes by lending it out.
+
+Verse 15
+
+.כי יפתה איש, “if a man seduces, etc.” having concluded dealing with the subject of stealing animals or chattel, the Torah turns next to the subject of “stealing someone’s heart;” such a thief is called: .מפתה
+אשר לא אורשה, “who had not been betrothed.” If the girl had been betrothed the penalty would be death by stoning.
+מהור ימהרנו לו, “he must make her his wife by paying the accepted price for brides. The reason for this is in order to restore her dignity in the eyes of her peers, so that she will not be married by another man at bargain basement prices reducing her status permanently, and being permanently reminded of her inferiority. Since she had not reached the age of 12 and a half, she had been too young to realise the consequences of being seduced. After having gone through the formalities, her husband can divorce her, seeing he had not raped her but she had consented.
+
+Verse 16
+
+אם מאן ימאן אביה לתתה לו – I might think that only the father has the right to refuse but our sages indicate that the repetition of מאן ימאן means that the girl also has the right to refuse the marriage. (See Ketuvot 39b) If the father or the girl refuse the marriage, if her father steadfastly refuses to let her be married to her seducer, her seducer must nonetheless pay the price paid for virgins who become married for the first time. That price is 50 shekel, and this is the reason why the word: ישקל “he must weigh it,” is used here. This is also the amount of compensation paid for having raped a virgin. (Ketuvot 38b) and the amount that is required to be written in the marriage contract for a virgin (Ketuvot 10a) [We are familiar with this expression from when Avraham weighed the silver pieces to Efron in Genesis 23,16 in order to acquire Sarah’s burial plot, the cave and field of Machpelah. Ed.]
+
+Verse 17
+
+מכשפה לא תחיה, “You must not allow asorceress to remain alive.” The reason why this apparently unrelated subject follows on the heels of how to deal with seducers is that people who seek ways and means to gratify their illegal sexual urges, turn to sorceresses to help them do so.
+לא תחיה, an unusual way of describing the death penalty, has to be understood as translated by Onkelos, i.e. instead of only violating a positive commandment when allowing a sorceress not to be executed, any court failing to execute her is also guilty of transgressing a negative commandment, a much greater sin. If someone reads this word as tichyeh, with the vowel chink, [when the line would mean “she shall not live,”] he errs. We must be active in preventing her from living, i.e. the court must execute her. The death penalty of stoning is applied. The Torah compliments anyone who takes the first step in bringing about the legal execution of a sorceress. The longer she is allowed to remain alive, the longer she can practice her nefarious trade.
+
+Verse 18
+
+כל שוכב עם בהמה מות יומת, “anyone indulging in carnal relations with an animal must be executed legally.”After dealing with a minor girl who had been too young to understand what she had been guilty of, the Torah turns to animals which have no mouth with which to protest being raped.
+מות יומת, that person will be executed by stoning. In Leviticus 20,16 the Torah elaborates further by decreeing that both parties involved in such an activity will be killed. The Torah there spells out that both the human being and the animal are perceived as having forfeited their lives, i.e. דמיהם בם.
+
+Verse 19
+
+זובח לאלוהים; according to the plain meaning of the text, the Torah does not speak of an Israelite, as the Israelites had all been warned repeatedly against offering sacrifices to deities. Exodus 20,3, had made this abundantly clear. The Torah refers here to a convert to Judaism who is mentioned subsequently in verse 20 in a different context. Concerning such a person the legislation against having carnal relations with animals applies also. It was necessary to spell this out as it was a common practice among Arameans. (Syrians)
+בלתי ה' לבדו, offerings may only be offered to the Lord, (His attribute of the fourlettered ineffable name). This teaches that if one were to serve both Hashem and another deity as did the people who converted having been transplanted after the destruction of the kingdom of the Ten Tribes by the Assyrians (Sancheriv), [conversion inspired by fear of the Jewish G-d, did so without abandoning their former deities. They are referred to in the Talmud as Kutim, or geyre arayot, converts afraid of lions which ravaged the region to which they had been transplanted. Ed.] (Compare Kings II 17,33) The Torah decrees that anyone following such a practice is to be treated as a fully fledged idolater, and punished accordingly. This is why the Torah stresses the word: לבדו, “Him exclusively.”
+
+Verse 20
+
+וגר לו תונה, “and you must not oppress a convert;” the reason why this verse follows that about converts serving both Hashem and their previous deities, is that G-d wishes to go on record that although He finds serving another deity as something repulsive, He does love converts and appreciates that they distanced themselves from their former religion.
+לא תלחצנו, “do not abuse him.” We must not abuse the converts by using them to perform menial labour. Seeing that by definition they are unfamiliar with the ways of the Israelites, our culture, etc., it would be too easy to take advantage of their ignorance by assigning to them degrading work.
+
+Verse 21
+
+כל אלמנה ויתום לא תענון, “Do not oppress any widow or orphan.” The word כל in this verse has to be understood as in Exodus 20,10: לא תעשה כל מלאכה, not as meaning: ”do not do all the work,” but as: “do not do any work.” [Compare also Exodus 20,4: תמונה, “do not make for yourself any likeness;” it does not mean that you are only forbidden to make for yourselves a likeness of all that is on heaven or earth.”] The Torah mentions the proselyte as he has no family in Israel and therefore no one who can advise him or protect him. He belongs to the weakest members of society. Next the Torah mentions widows and orphans, who though natural born Israelites either have lost their protectors or had never had any.
+לא תענון, the reason why the Torah used the plural mode when exhorting us not to exploit this group of people, while in the rest of this chapter it used the singular mode, is because so many people are in the habit of doing just that when they face weak people. The Torah includes in this prohibition therefore all the people who witness such exploitation and do not protest it. This is why also the penalty for people guilty of this has been written in the plural mode. וחרה אפי והרגתי אתכם, “My anger will flare up and I will kill you;” (verse 23)
+
+Verse 22
+
+אם ענה תענה אותו, “if you nonetheless oppress him, etc;” Rashi points out that at this point the penalty for such behaviour has not been spelled out, but it is spelled out when the victim complains to G-d about the treatment that he had to endure. The next verse does mention: “your wives will become widows, etc.”
+כי אם צעוק יצעק, “but if you do mistreat them;” this is a reference to the orphan, as he, being a minor does not even have a concept of what such discrimination means and he does not know how to show people what he feels, as opposed to the widow who had not always been mistreated while her husband had been alive.
+שמוע אשמע צעקתו, “I will most certainly respond to his outcry;” for people guilty of oppressing him should have been punished by the court; the Torah proceeds to describe that G-d will apply penalties which reflect the sin of the sinner so that he will know why he has been punished. (Rash’bam)
+
+Verse 23
+
+“Your wives will become widows and your sons, orphans” – the punishment you receive will fit your deeds.
+
+Verse 24
+
+אם כסף, the reason why the law to extend loans to the needy has been written here is that the three categories of people mentioned previously, i.e. the proselyte, the orphan and the widow are the ones most in need of borrowing money.
+לא תהיה לו כנושה, “do not treat him (the borrower who is tardy in repaying same) like a creditor;” some commentators understand the expression נשה as “forgetting,” as when Joseph said in Genesis 41,51: כי נשני אלוקים, “for G-d has enabled me to forget, etc.;” the meaning of our verse then would be that you are not allowed to “forget” the loan for a long time and then pressure the borrower to pay interest payments for the overdue period.
+לא תשימון עליו נשך, “you must not impose interest payment on him (the borrower). The reason that here the Torah again uses the plural mode, is that loans always involve several people, the lender, the borrower, and the witnesses to the transaction. All of these are guilty of the transgression to charge or pay interest for loans from Israelites to other Israelites if they are silent parties to it.
+
+Verse 25
+
+אם חבול תחבול, “if you have taken as a pledge,” (security for overdue loan) the pawn had been collected by the court’s messenger with the court’s permission. This is clear from Deuteronomy 24,11, where the Torah commands the creditor to remain outside the borrower’s house when collecting or returning it. This is an example of what has been discussed in verse 24: “do not treat him like a creditor.”
+תשיבנו לו, “you have to restore it to him;” you may argue that if this is the procedure to be followed then the borrower can drag out repayment until the day he dies? We therefore have to understand this verse as follows: the agent of the court did not secure this pledge until after the loan had already become overdue, and he had handed it to the lender. The rule of restoring such a pledge for immediate use by the borrower is valid only for thirty days. This is the period that the court intervenes in the matter. When the thirty days have elapsed and the loan has not been repaid, the lender is entitled to sell this pledge.
+The words: תשיבנו לו, “restore it to him,” the subject is the pledge, seeing that the word חבול is masculine.
+
+Verse 26
+
+כי היא כסותה לבדה “for it is her only blanket to cover herself with (at night).” The same is the case if she has only one garment to wear during the daytime. If she possesses more than one of each of those items, the lender need not return the pledge every evening and morning for exchanging one against the other.
+והיה כי יצעק אלי, “it will be that if the borrower will cry out to Me in prayer,” (accusing you of inhuman conduct) if the borrower had died from frost during the night because you had not given him or her back her only blanket then I will pay the lender back for such harshness. An alternate explanation of the line כי חנון אני: even though it cannot be expected that the lender, who had demonstrated empathy by lending the poor borrower his money in the first place, should now be expected to restore the security deposit to the borrower who had not repaid him,I will pay heed to his prayer because I am compassionate; you, on the other hand, instead of emulating My attributes, have acted brutally. The Torah had not used this statement of G-d reminding the reader of His being compassionate in connection with the treatment of orphans and widows, as their mistreatment had been forbidden by law, not merely by an appeal to the people’s good nature.
+
+Verse 27
+
+
+אלוקים לא תקלל, “Do not curse G-d or a judge;” the reason why this verse has been inserted here is because maybe the lender transgressed the law to restore a pledge under the circumstances defined in the Torah, and in his frustration, the borrower curses the judge who had permitted him to take that pledge as security for the loan, even though the judge had acted according to the law.
+ונשיא בעמך לא תאור, “neither shall you put a curse on legitimately installed authorities in your land.” Usually only wealthy people rise to the position of chieftain, and usually such people are prepared to extend loans to the needy. It stands to reason that the legislation about pledges is directed at them therefore. The borrower is warned not to forget that he has been a beneficiary of that rich man’s possessions when he obtained the loan. It would be the reverse of gratitude if he were now to curse that chieftain.
+
+Verse 28
+
+מלאתך, “your fullness;” a difficult word to translate; our sages understand it as “the first tithe, t’rumah for the priest, to be lifted from your harvest.” The word also occurs in Deuteronomy 22,9: פן תקדש המלאה הזרע אשר תזרע, “lest the seed you have sown will not be allowed for your use.” (grain harvest) ודמעך, “and the corresponding t’rumah of the harvest of your liquid crop (grapes and olives) will be denied you for use.” The word דמע, literally meaning: “tear,” is applicable to olives and grapes as they release their insides in drops, like tears, when being squeezed in the vat. We also find the expression תירוש used for grain products in Numbers 18,12, כל חלב יצהר וכל חלב תירוש ודגן, “all the best of the new oil, wine and grain’” where the Torah instead of speaking of grapes and olives, lumps them all together under one heading, the heading being: something liquid. [Whisky and other alcoholic גrinks are made from grain. Ed.] When the offering of firstling fruits is discussed, seeing that these fruit are offered “as is,” in their original state, any expression hinting at liquids would be inappropriate.
+לא תאחר, “Do not put off;” to give Me My share. The Torah speaks of giving G-d the respective firstling offerings which are due Him seeing that He treats the Jewish people as His firstborn son. They are: ראשית אדמתך, the first ripened parts of produce grown from the earth (23,19), the first produce of your kneading bowls, (bread or cake, Numbers 15,20). An alternate explanation of this phrase: “do not be late in offering Me what is legally Mine, even if you are still poor;” this is why the commandment of “giving” G-d the first born son and the firstborn males of his ritually pure livestock, followed immediately, as they represent the first results of his virility. (compare Deuteronomy Numbers 21,17).
+בכור בניך תתן לי, “you are to give Me the firstborns of your sons.” The emphasis is here on the word: “your firstborn,” as opposed to one of the sons born later. The same principle that applies to the first of your harvests applies to the first products (male) of your virility. The Torah repeats that the same applies to the firstborn of your domestic animals, i.e. cattle and sheep. At the same time, you must not be in such a rush that you slaughter these animals during the first seven days of their lives, as during those days they have not yet shed the ritual impurity status that applies to any creature that has undergone the traumatic experience of having to leave its mother’s womb. Prematurely born animals do not qualify for the purposes of this legislation as they are treated as if blemished. (B’chor shor)
+
+Verse 29
+
+
+
+Verse 30
+
+ובשר בשדה טרפה, “flesh from animals that were found in the field torn,” you must not eat; eating such flesh is an even greater sin than eating the flesh of animals that died of natural causes but had not undergone ritual slaughter. The probable reason is that such torn carcasses may have become infected by harmful bacteria transmitted by the marauding beast that had caused their death. It is therefore to be left untouched on the field where found. Animals that died a natural death may be sold by you to human beings, as opposed to the dogs to which you may feed the remains of animals which had died a violent death. By selling the carcass of an animal which died from natural causes to human beings blessed with a brain, you do not expose such a human being to potential poisoning. The reason why the Torah inserted this verse here is because it had previously been speaking of animals which are fit for you to eat.
+לכלב תשליכון אותו, “you may throw the remains of such torn animals to the dogs.” The first letter ל in the word לכלב has the vowel patach, indicating that the Torah does not speak of just “any dog.” It speaks of dogs which guard your flocks and which therefore have earned this privilege. This is the plain meaning of the verse. The word: אותו, refers to the flesh of said animal, seeing that it is in the masculine singular mode.
+
+Chapter 23
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+לא תשא שמע שוא, “do not spread false rumours;” the expression תשא from the root נשא, ”to carry,” is used here as “carrying by mouth;” another example of the same expression being used in a similar context is found in Psalms 16,4: ובל אשא את שמותם על שפתי, “so that their names will not pass my lips.” In other words: “let me not utter a lie.”
+אל תשת ידך עם רשע, “do not join hands with a wicked person.” It follows automatically that you must not join him in giving false testimony.
+
+Verse 2
+
+ולא תענה על ריב, “and do not ignore the majority view seeing you consider yourself as smarter than your colleagues, when this would result in perverting justice;”
+אחרי רבים להטות, “but make certain that the verdict is based on a majority of the judges’ opinions.”
+
+Verse 3
+
+ודל לא תהדר, “and do not favour the poor (because he is poor). This verse follows closely on the heels of not testifying falsely, in order that you do not think that it is your duty to assist a poor man in his dispute with a rich man.
+
+Verse 4
+
+השב תשיבנו לו, “make sure to restore it to him;” the Torah repeats this instruction to remind you that it may require that you perform this act for your enemy’s ox even repeatedly. (Compare Talmud, Baba Metzia folio 32.)
+
+Verse 5
+
+וחדלת מעזוב לו, “and you feel like refraining from raising it;” you are warned not to remain inactive when faced with the animal’s distress, even if its owner is your enemy. This is also the way the Onkelos understands the word לו, seeing that he describes the Torah’s reflecting the first reaction of the finder here being that he is not called upon to do for his enemy’s property what he himself has failed to do, but that he at least has to assist him. This interpretation is also hinted at in Rashi’s commentary on Deuteronomy 13,9, where he emphasizes that one’s enemy is exempt from the commandment: “to love your fellow man as yourself.” He quotes Sifrey as his source for his interpretation of the words; .לא תאבה לו
+תעזוב עמו, these words have been interpreted in the Talmud Baba Metzia folio 32 as meaning that the Torah does not instruct the owner of that donkey to sit down while you alone attend to his donkey’s problem, but that you are called upon only not to abandon the animal but to assist the owner in relieving his donkey’s discomfort. If his owner has abandoned his beast, the enemy of his owner need not do the work by himself. [Torah legislation addresses human beings, not angels. Ed.]
+עמו, “with him;” it is impossible for one person alone to unload the burden carried by this animal while it is in a state of collapse. Two men have to work, one on each side of the animal.
+
+Verse 6
+
+לא תטה משפט אביונך בריבו; “do not subvert the rights of your destitute people in their disputes.” The Torah means not to rule in his favour when in fact he is in the wrong. This warning of the Torah is addressed to the judge or judges of the court dealing with his dispute, even though the Torah did not spell this out specifically. We find another example of such implied meanings in Deuteronomy 15,20, where the Torah writes: לפני ה' אלוקיך תאכלנו “you are to eat it in the presence of the Lord your G-d,” (i.e. on the sacred precincts of the Temple compound) an instruction that can only be fulfilled by a firstborn who is also a priest at the same time, seeing that non priests are forbidden in that compound. The Torah has warned earlier in verse 3 of our chapter that the judges must not rule in favour of the poor out of sympathy for them. Here it warns that the judges must also not rule against the poor (for fear of angering the rich).
+
+Verse 7
+
+ונקי וצדיק, “and the ones free from sin, and the “just,” i.e. the ones who have been acquitted by the court;” according to the translation it is hard to see the difference between the נקי and the צדיק in this commandment. Our author understands the word נקי as applying to someone who had been free from sin, as opposed to the צדיק, someone who had committed the sin but could not be convicted through lack of witnesses acceptable by the Torah, or who had not been legally warned before committing the sin he had been accused of.
+
+Verse 8
+
+ושחד לא תקח, “and you must not accept a bribe;” the reason why this has been repeated here is that even if the judge would accept a bribe in order to rule justly, he must not accept such a bribe. His decisions must not be influenced by a bribe. Although judges in Jewish jurisprudence did not receive salaries in order to make them independent, they were allowed to accept from the two disputants payment for the wages lost while sitting in court, each according to his respective vocation. [Three judges might receive three vastly different amounts of compensation according to the salary scale payable of people of his profession. Ed.] The reason why this subject came up here again is that the wealthy litigants are likely to bribe the judges to rule in their favour.
+ויסלף דברי צדיקים, “for bribes even blind the righteous judges.” changing their decision from innocent to guilty.
+
+Verse 9
+
+וגר לא תלחץ, “and do not oppress the stranger.” Here too the Torah speaks about the treatment strangers may have to endure at court. In the earlier reference to the stranger, (22,2), the Torah referred to how we are not to treat the stranger in every day life, not when he is involved in litigation. It is repeated here as he is also one of the sections of society that is likely to be taken advantage of as they have no one to stand up on their behalf. It is easy to get away with taking advantage of them.
+
+Verse 10
+
+ושש שנים, “and for six consecutive years, etc.” the reason why this legislation is repeated here is because the Torah allocates the produce of the seventh year to the poor, the underprivileged (verse 11).
+
+Verse 11
+
+ונטשתה, “you are to let it lie fallow;” in practice this means that you are not to collect the grain that has grown during that season in your field for your own use.
+ואכלו אביוני עמך, “whereas the destitute people of your nation shall consume it.” In another verse the Torah writes in Leviticus 25,6: לך, ולעבדך ולאמתך ולשכירך ולתושבך, “for you, your male servant, your female servant, your hired hands and your residents.” How do we reconcile this? Answer: when there is an abundance of grain, etc., everyone is entitled to eat from it (so that it does not go to waste); when there is a scarcity only you and your household (servants male and female) (Mechilta on this verse.) An alternate interpretation: as long as the time for finally disposing of that crop has not arrived, both the poor and the rich may avail themselves of it. Once that time has expired, only the poor are allowed to avail themselves of it.
+
+Verse 12
+
+ששת ימים תעשה מעשיך, “during six days you may pursue your usual pursuits, etc.;” why is this verse inserted at this juncture? It is because of the commandment to allow also the son of your maidservant and the stranger to rest on the Sabbath, seeing that generally they are poor people.
+וביום השביעי תשבת “and on the seventh day you shall rest” – since work is prohibited in the Sabbatical Year I might have thought that no additional weekly rest day is necessary – therefore the Torah commands to rest on the seventh day.
+
+Verse 13
+
+ובכל אשר אמרתי אליכם, “concerning all that I have told you.” All the regulations pertaining to the Sabbath days in normal years also apply in the seventh year.”An alternate explanation: “I am not warning you only concerning that your servants and domestic beasts have to observe a rest on the Sabbath, but these are only examples; all the other rules concerning work prohibitions on the Sabbath apply, regardless of the fact that you do not work the field a whole week during the seventh year. Your vessels, stoves, vats, etc., have to observe rest on the Sabbath.”A third explanation: All the details that I have commanded you ever since the revelation at Mount Sinai concerning the observance of the Sabbath remain in force indefinitely without interruption. The verse is a repetition of warnings the Torah had issued on previous occasions. We have other examples of this type in Deuteronomy 27,26: ארור אשר לא יקים את דברי התורה הזאת לעשות אותם, “cursed be he who fails to observe the words of this Torah;”Yet another explanation of our verse: this is a warning concerning the meticulous observance of all the positive commandments. According to Rashi, this was necessary as the vast majority of the Sabbath regulations concern what is forbidden, and do not require us to actually perform an activity, only to desist from performing it. The verse also is a hint at the rule that when a positive and a negative commandment appear to be in conflict, the performance of the positive commandment takes precedence. (Talmud Yevamot folio 3.) The logic behind this is that by performing the positive commandment one automatically fulfils the negative commandment attached to it. A different interpretation: the verse applies only to negative commandments as the grammar in the verse, i.e. the word: תשמורו, warns against violating something by a contrary activity. This is what the Rabbis had in mind when they said in Eyruvin 96: “wherever the expression השמר פן, or אל appears, it is always a warning not to do something that the Torah had forbidden. These expressions only occur when a negative commandment had already been the subject of discussion.
+ושם אלוהים אחרים לא תזכירו, “and you must not (even) mention the name of other deities.” The reason why this warning appears next to the previous laws is to remind us that G-d had already warned us about this also. In other words, “you are to remember all the other commandments except this one which is in essence something that must not be remembered.”
+
+Verse 14
+
+שלש רגלים, “three times (a year);” you need not exert yourself by coming to Jerusalem and the Temple more than three times a year, i.e. to have to “lose” valuable time from your agricultural activities by having to travel long distances, etc; other religions are far more demanding of their worshippers.
+תחוג לי, “you will celebrate for Me.” You will mention My name in connection with your joyful celebration. On Passover you will celebrate the anniversary of your redemption from Egypt; on Pentecost you will celebrate the giving of the Torah on Mount Sinai; and on the festival of huts you will celebrate in thanks for a bountiful harvest.
+
+Verse 15
+
+את חג המצות, “The festival of the unleavened bread.” to remind you of your release from slavery and your leaving Egypt as a free people.
+שבעת ימים תאכל מצות, “you will eat unleavened bread for seven days.” This line refers back to the words: חודש האביב, “the month of spring;” the reason for this is to remind you that regardless of the fact that the festival commences on the fifteenth day of the month of Nissan you must make sure that this date occurs after the spring equinox, i.e. that in certain years you will have to add an extra month of Adar to ensure that this will occur. If you were not to do that the firstling offering of the new barley harvest on the 16th of that month would not be acceptable as such. You would then have to appear before the Lord ריקם, “emptyhanded,” without fulfilling the specific commandment connected to that date.
+ולא יראו פני ריקם, “they shall not appear before Me emptyhanded;” the “they,” are the males who have been commanded to make these three annual pilgrimages. They and their sons are viewed by Me as “My children.”
+
+Verse 16
+
+וחג הקציר, “and the festival of the harvest. (Wheat harvest around Shavuot)” The Torah spelled this festival out as especially intended as one of being joyful, (compare also Isaiah 9,2: כאשר יגילו בחלקם שלל, “as they exult when dividing spoil.”)
+אשר תזרע, “which you will sow;” you are perceived by the Torah as sowing in G-d’s field; this is why He commanded you to donate the first ripe produce to Him, as a sort of tax.
+וחג האסיף, and the festival of ingathering (all the fruit of the orchards and vineyards)". When a person gathers in all his fruits, it makes him happy. When this happiness is directed toward My commandments, the entire festival becomes dedicated to My Name.
+בצאת השנה, “at the conclusion of the year, which is the beginning of the following year.”
+
+Verse 17
+
+שלש פעמים בשנה, “three times during the year;” the reason this is repeated as it is part of the commandment for the males to make three pilgrimages to the Temple annually.
+
+Verse 18
+
+ולא ילין חלב חגי; “and the fat of My festival offering must not be allowed to be left lying until the morning.” This is applicable only to the Passover offering, the fat of which was destined for the altar.
+עד בקר, “until morning;” it has the same rule as the meat of the Paschal lamb, concerning the edible parts of which, the Torah had already written in Exodus 12,10 that none must be left over until morning, and if for some reason some was left over it must be burned.
+חגי, “My festival;” another word for “My offering,” the offering tendered to Me. This expression is not unique; we find it also in Psalms 118,27: אסרו חג בעבותים, “bind the festival offerings to the horns of the altar;” In chapter 12 the Torah had decreed this as applicable to the original Paschal lamb in Egypt. (Not allowing any to remain by morning) Here the Torah repeats the instruction as applicable to the annual Passover offering serving as a reminder of the original one.
+
+Verse 19
+
+ראשית בכורי אדמתך, “the first choice fruits of your soil, etc.;” why did this verse have to be written? Seeing that in Deuteronomy 26,2, the Torah had written: ולקחת מראשית כל פרי האדמה, “you are to take from the first fruit of the soil, etc.,” I might have thought that the word פרי refers only to the actual fruit; how would I know that the commandment also applies to the liquids squeezed from the fruit? The word: תביא, “you are to bring,” is the clue. What is the difference between the fruit itself and its liquids? When bringing the fruit itself the passage written in the paragraph referred to from Deuteronomy is to be recited by the farmer, whereas when presenting only their liquids this passage does not have to be recited. This legislation has been written after the Torah had written in verse 18 that the Passover sacrifice must not be offered when it is still permissible to eat leavened matters, to tell us that the earliest possible time for offering such first ripened fruit is after the Passover, i.e. the day after when the first of the barley harvest is offered. (Compare Leviticus 23,914).
+לא תבשל גדי בחלב אמו, “Do not boil a kid in its mother’s milk.” The reason this verse has been inserted here is that generally speaking during the pilgrimage festivals a great amount of meat is consumed, the Torah reminds us that this law is not to be ignored. [It has been written on two other occasions also. Ed.],
+
+Verse 20
+
+הנה אנכי שולח מלאך לפניך, “I am about to send an angel ahead of you, etc.” This is a departure from what had been the case up until now. G-d announces that as long as all the Israelites remain loyal to Him, He personally will lead them on their journey to the Holy Land; when they are guilty of trespassing, instead of leading them personally, He will assign that task to an angel. An alternate explanation of this verse: The “angel” referred to is Joshua, who after the Israelites’ 40 year stay in the desert and Moses’ death will, take over from him. In other words, G-d does not continue with a celestial creature after Moses’ death, but with a human one. [It is a hint that the period of the Israelites’ lives being guided by supernatural forces only, to wit the manna from heaven, will come to an end at that time. Ed.] Actually, G-d had not spoken of sending an angel until after the episode with the golden calf. (Exodus 33,2) Moses, i.e. the people were not content with this even then. (Exodus 33,12)
+
+Verse 21
+
+כי לא ישא לפשעכם כי שמי בקרבו, “for he has no authority to forgive your deliberate sins, as My Name is within him.” G-d means that even though he (that angel) is a celestial creature, and therefore Divine, He cannot “forgive” any trespass against Him. Another place in the Bible where we encounter a similar thought is Psalms 25,11, למען שמך וסלחת לעוני כי רב הוא, “as befits Your name, o Lord, pardon my iniquity.” Other examples of “irregularities” in treatment, are Genesis 48,14, where Yaakov insisted in giving preferential treatment to Ephrayim although Menashe was the firstborn. Another example is found in Psalms 74,20-21: הבט לברית כי מלאו מחשכי ארץ נאום חמס וגו', “Look to the covenant, for the dark places of the land are full of the haunts of lawlessness. Let not the downtrodden turn away disappointed, let the poor and needy praise Your name.” [Here the people ask to be promoted instead of being demoted. Ed.]
+כי שמי בקרבו, seeing that My name is within him, he has the right to speak of himself by proclaiming: “'אני ה,” “I am the Lord,” meaning I am His general manager of the universe, known in kabbalistic parlance as Mattatron. That name can be understood as “chief of the angels,” or “G-d in miniature.” (Compare a book by Rabbi Reuben Margolies, in which all the names of the angels and their functions are listed, pages 73-108.)
+
+Verse 22
+
+כי אם שמוע תשמע, “for if you will carefully obey his instructions, I will be the enemy of your enemies, etc.” A king expects that his subjects will treat his representative as if he himself were present.
+ואיבתי את אויבך, “I will be an enemy to your enemies;” G-d does not refer here to the Canaanite tribes of whom He says He will annihilate them, as He will give their land to the Israelites, but He speaks of enemies upon whom the Israelites have no designs at all. Elsewhere, the Torah has instructed the Israelites not to leave a single soul alive in the Canaanite cities of the seven tribes mentioned. (Deuteronomy 20,16).
+
+Verse 23
+
+כי ילך, for he will walk, etc.’”
+והאביאך אל האמורי ואל החתי וגו, “and He will bring you to the Emorite, the Hittite, etc.;” the Torah did not bother to include the smallest of these tribes i.e. the Girgashite.
+
+Verse 24
+
+לא תשתחוה, “Do not prostrate yourself, etc.” in Exodus 20,5 the Torah had warned the Israelites not to prostrate themselves to their own deities, whereas now it warns them not to do so to the deities of these other nations.
+
+Verse 25
+
+וברך את לחמך ואת מימך, “He will bless your bread and your water.” A blessing of a general nature; the term לחם is a synonym for food of any kind, and the term מים for any drinkable liquids. Compare the use of these words in Hoseah 2,7: לחצי ומימי, “my food and drink.” In the same book in chapter 2,11, the prophet speaks of G-d retaliating by taking away from the sinful Israelites: ולקחתי בעתו את דגני ואת תירושי במועדי, “I will deprive them at the appropriate time of My grain (harvest) and My grape (harvest).” If only water had been meant, the prophet should have quoted G-d as saying: “My water.”
+והסירותי מחלה מקרבך, “I will remove sickness from your midst.” In other words, “you will be healthy;” for what good is food to a sick person who cannot enjoy it?”
+
+Verse 26
+
+את מספר ימיך אמלא, “I will let you enjoy the full number of days of your lives.” You will die at a ripe old age, ready to do so as was described at the death of Avraham and Yitzchok [Genesis 25,8 and Genesis 35,29. Ed.] Concerning the lifetime of the wicked, Solomon quotes G-d as saying: ושנות רשעים תקצורנה, “but the years of the wicked will be shortened;” (Proverbs 10,27).
+
+Verse 27
+
+את אימתי, “the fear of Me;” this is G-d’s reply to Moses’ request in Exodus 15,16: תפול עליהם אימתה ופחד, “may fear and terror befall them!”כל העם אשר תבא בהם, “any nation that you will come upon;” even those nations that are not part of the seven Canaanite tribes. The end of this paragraph proves that this is the correct meaning, when the Torah writes about the nations other than the Canaanites (verse 33) “they must not live on your land lest they lead you into sin so that you would worship their deities”, while about the seven Canaanite tribes it writes “you shall not permit any person to live (Deuteronomy 20.16).”
+
+Verse 28
+
+ ושלחתי את הצרעה, “I will dispatch the hornets, etc.; according to Rashi, this is a category of stinging wasp which never crossed the river Jordan. Concerning what is written in the Talmud Sotah folio 36, that we read here that G-d will drive out the hornets from the land of the Chivi and the Canaanite, who lives on the West bank of the Jordan, so that they must first have been there or how else could be driven out from there?, The Talmud suggests two different solutions to this apparent contradiction; one that there were two different types of hornets, one in Moses’ time, another in Joshua’s time; (Joshua 24,12). one scholar in the Talmud claims that when the Israelites were on the east bank of the river Jordan ready to cross, the Lord caused the hornets on the other side to become frightened and to leave. Alternately, the entire verse is a simile telling the Jewish people that they will not have to expel the local inhabitants by fighting them with the sword, but that G-d will see to it that they need not worry about sustaining casualties when trying to conquer these lands.
+
+Verse 29
+
+
+
+Verse 30
+
+
+
+Verse 31
+
+ושתי את גבולך מים סוף ועד ים פלשתים, “I will set your boundaries from the Sea of Reeds until the Sea of thePhilistines.” The “Sea of Reeds” is the eastern boundary and the “Sea of the Philistines, is the western boundary. This has also been expressed differently in Isaiah 9,11: as ארם מקדם ופלשתים מאחור “Aram in the front and the Philistines in the rear.”
+וממדבר, “and from the desert;” this refers to the desert in the south which the Israelites were crossing for 40 years.
+ועד הנהר, and as far north as the river Euphrates. Some commentators say that what is written from verse 10 in our chapter i.e. שש שנים תזרע until verse 33 כי יהיה לך למוקש, “for it will become a snare for you,” has been added after Moses had returned from the Mountain the third time when G-d had forgiven the Jewish people for the sin of the golden calf, whereas what has been written in Parshat Ki Tissa: “here My angel will walk ahead of you,” all the way until verse 26,in chapter 34: “do not boil a kid in its mother’s milk” had been written at the end of Moses’ stay on Mount Sinai during the first 40 days. Whereas what has been written here is because Moses wished to conclude the subject with the legislation of the sh’mittah year and the pilgrimage festivals, followed by the injunction not to boil a kid in its mother’s milk, followed by the passage about the angel and the arrival in the Holy land. This is parallel to what he had done at the end of the first 40 days. From here on the paragraphs follow a haphazard pattern.
+
+Verse 32
+
+
+
+Verse 33
+
+
+
+Chapter 24
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+ואל משה אמר, “and He had said to Moses:” this paragraph up to and including verse 4: 'את כל דברי ה, “all the words of the Lord,” were said to him on the fourth day of Sivan, [two days before the revelation, Ed.] as I have explained at the time. (19,15) According to the plain meaning of the text, an angel had said this to Moses at this time; the text is abbreviated, and is one of many such verses in the Torah.
+
+Verse 2
+
+
+
+Verse 3
+
+ויבא משה, “Moses arrived, etc;” in the camp of the Israelites, after descending from the Mountain. He proceeded to tell the people all that G-d had told him, commencing with the words: (19,4) אתם ראיתם up to this verse.” There follows: (24,4) וישכם בבקר until ויאכלו וישתו, “they ate and they drank” (verse 11) something that occurred on the fifth day of Sivan as I have explained on the relevant verse in Parshat Yitro. (19,15)
+
+Verse 4
+
+ושתים עשרה מצבה, “and 12 stone pillars;” this refers to G-d’s commandment to mark off the area at the bottom of Mount Sinai beyond which none of the people were allowed to approach. (19,12) 3 pillars in the east for the three tribes encamped there, three pillars in the south, the west and the north, as they were encamped also while in the desert. Some commentators say that Moses placed 12 stone pillars on the east on the altar as a symbol that all twelve tribes were completely content with maintaining the covenant with Hashem. We find a parallel to this in what the prophet Elijah did on Mount Carmel: ויקחו שתים עשרה אבנים למספר בני ישראל, “they took twelve stones to symbolize the twelve tribes of Israel.” (Kings I 18,31.)
+
+Verse 5
+
+נערי בני ישראל, “young men of the Children of Israel.” They were young lads on the threshold of becoming of age when they would be eligible to observe the commandments. According to a different view, these were all firstborns of their respective families.
+ויעלו עולות, “they presented burntofferings.” They meant to fulfill what G-d had told Moses at the burning bush that the Israelites would in due course worship him at that Mountain. (Exodus 3,12)
+
+Verse 6
+
+וישם באגנות, “he placed it in basins.” Rashi explains that we learn from this verse that it requires three steps to convert to Judaism fully: circumcision, immersion in a ritual bath, and the sprinkling of blood. And when the Talmud in tractate Yevamot folio 46 stated that our forefathers were circumcised but did not immerse themselves in a ritual bath, we must say that this refers to our forefathers Avraham, Yitzchok, and Yaakov. [How could they have done so since the Torah had not been given in their time as yet? Ed.]
+זרק על המזבח, “he sprinkled on the altar.” He did so before reading out the declaration for the people to recite after him. After having read out the declaration he sprinkled the other half of the sacrificial blood on the people.
+
+Verse 7
+
+ויקח ספר הברית, “He took hold of the Book of the Covenant;” It is well known that the Torah was not written in chronological sequential order. The Mechilta of Rabbi Yishmael, on the 19th chapter of the Book of Exodus, has proven this beyond any question. Among other proofs the author has cited is Leviticus 25,2, where the Torah wrote: ושבתה הארץ, that the soil of the land of Israel is to observe a year of lying fallow, (immediately after the Israelites entering that land) and the Torah proceeds to lists the laws pertaining to the sh’mittah cycles followed by the Jubilee cycles, concluding with 26,46: “these are the statutes and social laws that G-d has given as applying to the Jewish people all of which He had revealed to Moses at Mount Sinai.” The Jewish people heard and accepted all the laws including the blessings and curses applying to those who observed them and those who would disobey them, after which Moses took the remainder of the blood and sprinkled it upon them, as the seal of the covenant. He told the people to listen to detailed instructions of these laws starting on the day following. [In other words, the Jews had already bound themselves to be obedient to the Torah’s laws even though they had not yet been written down. There is considerable discussion about the term ספר הברית, here whether what was already written in there at the time Moses read from it was subsequently written in the Torah out of context or not. According to our author’s interpretation of the Mechilta when the Israelites said their famous: נעשה ונשמע generally understood as their giving G-d a blank cheque, this was not so, they simply expressed the wish to learn the details of what Moses had already read out to them. Ed.]
+
+Verse 8
+
+הנה דם הברית, “here is the blood, the symbol of the covenant;”The blood of the covenant is divided into two halves, as always when a covenant is made between two parties. We know this already from the first covenant made between G-d and Avraham in Genesis chapter 15, when Avraham divided all the slaughtered animals except for the bird.[Nowadays when two parties conclude an agreement each receives a copy of the text, and each signs both copies. Ed.] The prophet Jeremiah, in Jeremiah 34,18, refers to העגל אשר כרתו לשנים ויעברו בין בתריו, “the calf which they cut in two so as to pass between the halves.” The reason why in Genesis15,17, G-d is not described as passing between the pieces Avraham had cut, was His way of indicating to Avraham that there would be a price to pay in blood for violating this covenant. This idea has also been referred to again in Leviticus 26,25 in the tochachah, the chapter of dire warnings, where G-d describes His reaction to when the Jewish people become guilty of violating this covenant.
+
+Verse 9
+
+
+
+Verse 10
+
+ויראו את אלוקי ישראל, “they saw a vision of the Lord, G-d of Israel.” This was a prophetic vision.
+כמעשה לבנת ספיר, “like a brick make of sapphire.” There are two kinds of sapphire, the white kind and the black kind. The “white, (bright)” kind is similar in colour to azureblue; seeing that the majority of people have never seen a sapphire in their lives, the Torah has to describe it by comparing it to a phenomenon familiar to everyone, i.e. a cloudless sky in which the sun shines brightly. We find such a description also in Job 37,21: ורוח עברה ותטהרם, “until the wind comes and clears the sky from the clouds.”Rabbi Akiva is quoted as referring to when Pharaoh forced the Israelites to deliver twice the normal amount of bricks, by thus interpreting the word תוכן in Exodus 5,18. They had refused to continue to supply the Israelites with the straw that served as reinforcement for mud bricks, so that the Israelites had to forage for them in the fields. They gathered straw full of thorns and thistles and the skins of their feet were pierced by that straw, blood streaming from their wounds, and was mixed with the loam. (The raw material of the bricks.) According to this Midrash, the source of which is not known, a descendant of Metushelach, called Rachel in that Midrash, experienced extreme difficulty and pain while about to give birth, her birthstool, מלבן, a rectangular mouldlike contraption, becoming mired in loam and thistles and she being bloodied all over. When the archangel Michael became aware of this result of the barbaric treatment of the Israelites by the decree of Pharaoh, he took a brick, לבנה, same root in Hebrew, and deposited this brick made of sapphire beneath the throne of G-d to remind Him of how His people were being treated. It remained there until the destruction of the Temple due to the people’s sins when G-d or one of His angels flung it back down to earth, as G-d had no further use for such reminders.[I had debated with myself if to translate and explain the author’s insertion of part of this Midrash, but decided in favour, as it illustrates better than prose how our sages view both the angels, and G-d’s reaction to excessive torture of His people, but also excessive disloyalty by His people to their covenant with G-d. Ed.] (In his commentary on our verse by Rabbi Menachem Kasher of sainted memory, in his Torah shleymah, the interested reader can read up on this under the heading #88. (With the help of this Midrash, the line: ותחת רגליו כמעשה לבנת הספיר וכעצם השמים לטוהר, “and underneath His feet the mould of a brick pure as the finest sapphire, like a cloudless pure sky,” becomes more meaningful.)
+
+Verse 11
+
+לא שלח ידו, “He did not raise His hand;” G-d had reason to punish the people who had been granted this vision because they carried on as if this was nothing extraordinary, by eating and drinking. [According to this interpretation, at this time, immediately before the giving of the Torah, G-d did not wish to spoil the joyous mood of the people. An alternate approach to these lines: all the Torah tells us is that in spite of having been granted such visions, and one could have expected that this would have made them temporarily like angels, like Moses who on Mount Sinai went for 40 days and nights without food or drink, these “nobles” of the people had not attained that level of prophecy. They could continue to eat and drink without thereby harming themselves.
+ויחזו את האלוהים, according to Rabbi Tanchuma, (Vayikra Rabbah 20,10) they had behaved arrogantly craning their necks, etc., acting inappropriately and trying to translate their vision into something terrestrial, such as physically enjoying food and drink.
+ויאכלו וישתו, “they ate and drank,” just as we know from Avraham, Yitzchok and Yaakov, that when they made a pact with human beings, they invariably sealed it by having a festive meal with their partner. (Ibn Ezra) This whole verse was inserted in the Torah in honour of Moses who, when experiencing prophetic visions did not need to sustain his body by food and drink, as he had attained the level of disembodied beings who do not depend on such means to renew energy they had spent.
+ויאכלו, “they ate;” they ate of the peace offerings mentioned in verse 5 of our chapter.
+
+Verse 12
+
+
+
+Verse 13
+
+ויהושע משרתו, “whereas his personal valet, Joshua, etc.;” he remained seated at the bottom of the Mountain until his master would return; in the meantime he was fed daily by a portion of manna.
+
+Verse 14
+
+ואל הזקנים, “and to the elders, the ones who had enjoyed the vision of the Divine,’אמר, “he had already said;” שבו לנו, “remain seated here for us;” the “us” refers to Moses and Joshua. בזה, “inside the camp;” Joshua had been permitted to approach more closely to the bottom of the Mountain than either Aaron, Chur, and the seventy elders. This is why Joshua had been unaware of what had transpired with the golden calf until he returned together with Moses.
+מי בעל דברים, “anyone who wishes to get back money or chattels from his neighbour;” the reason the singular mode is used here when discussing litigation, is that the party in possession of disputed property will always remain silent.
+
+Verse 15
+
+ויכס הענן את ההר, "The cloud covered the Mountain.” It had already been covered on the previous day, the sixth of Sivan.
+
+Verse 16
+
+וישכון כבוד ה, “the glory of the Lord abode;” actually it had already settled on the Mountain, as we know from Exodus 19,20: וירד ה׳ על הר סיני, “the Lord descended onto Mount Sinai;” it had also stated that “Moses had approached the thick cloud which enveloped the higher regions of the Mountain beyond which was G-d’s presence.” (Exodus 20,18).
+
+Verse 17
+
+
+
+Verse 18
+
+ויעל אל ההר, “he ascended towards the Mountain.” He ascended all the way to the top of the Mountain. As soon as he had completed his ascent he was told Parshat B’har, the portion dealing primarily with laws applicable only in the Holy Land. If the people were to hear these laws first, their desire to get to that land would become reinforced. After all, taking possession of that land was the reward for observing the laws of the Torah.
+ארבעים יום וארבעים לילה, “forty days and forty nights.” These days commenced with the morning of the seventh day of Sivan, and ended with the morning of the seventeenth day of Tammuz.
+
+Chapter 25
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+
+
+Verse 2
+
+ויקחו לי תרומה, “they shall take for Me a contribution;” some commentators believe that this paragraph was revealed to Moses during the forty days that he had been on the Mountain immediately following the revelation, and that already at that time, before the sin of the golden calf, he had been instructed to build the Tabernacle, in which the Holy Ark was to be placed that would contain the Tablets.תקחו 
+את תרומתי, “you are to take (accept) My contribution.” Rashi explains that this contribution consisted of 13 different types of materials. They are the following: gold, silver, copper; blue, purple and crimson yarns; fine linen, goat’s hair, ram skins, skins of techashim, acacia wood; oil for incense and oil for lighting; and the princes were to supply the gemstones for the High Priest’s garments.
+
+Verse 3
+
+
+
+Verse 4
+
+ועזים, “and goats’ hair,” according to Rashi. He bases himself on Onkelos who translates: ומעזי, “something derived from goats;” anyone translating the word ועזים, as “and goats,” is in error therefore.
+
+Verse 5
+
+ועצי שטים, “and (boards of) acacia trees.” There were forests in the desert in which these trees grew. This is why the Israelites were described as dwelling at Shittim, (Numbers 25,1) The wood of these trees is light in weight and pleasant to look at. The 48 boards of the Tabernacle, as well as the pillars at the entrance and between the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies were constructed of that wood and transported on the wagons donated by the princes as per Numbers 3,3634 and 4,3132. So were the bolts that were attached to link the boards to one another. They were all transported on these four wagons which were pulled by eight oxen under the supervision of the Levites from the family of Merari. (Numbers 7,8) Seeing that the boards were ten cubits (six meters) long each and one and a half cubits thick, it is extremely likely that the wood from which they were cut was light in weight.
+
+Verse 6
+
+שמן למאור, “oil for lighting;” since it is not customary for a king to enter his palace until the palace is complete and its furnishings are in place, as well as the illumination having been lit, this is mentioned already here. The same oil was also used for anointing all the sacred vessels.
+בשמים, ‘fragrant spices;” these were mixed with the oil for anointing; Kings are in the habit of providing their palaces with aromatic fragrances before they take up residence in them.
+ולקטורת הסמים, “and for the aromatic incense;” this verse has been inverted. We must understand it as if the Torah had written: והסמים לקטורת, “and the spices for the aromatic incense.” It does not mean: “spices needed for the aromatic incense, seeing that the aromatic incense consisted only of these aromatic spices.” Verses 30,34-35 in Exodus make this quite clear.
+
+Verse 7
+
+אבני שוהם, “gemstones called shoham.” These two were affixed to the apronlike garment of the High Priest known as Ephod,” as well as the gemstones to be inserted in the High Priest’s breastplate, choshen, (12 in number).
+
+Verse 8
+
+ועשו לי מקדש, “they will construct a Holy Temple for Me.” A building designated for meetings at appointed times. Compare: בית מועד. (Rash’bam) Compare also Numbers 11,18: התקדשו למחר, “be prepared for tomorrow.” We also have an announcement by G-d in Exodus 29,43: ונועדתי לבני ישראל, “I will keep my appointment with the Children of Israel.”
+
+Verse 9
+
+וכן תעשו, “and this is how you shall do it.” The letter ו at the beginning of the word וכן, is not necessary in this context; some commentators understand it as referring to what follows about the construction of the individual items of furniture for the Temple. The idea of the connective letter ו then would be: ”just as I instructed you first to build the structure, I will now instruct you to construct the furnishings to be housed in that structure.”
+
+Verse 10
+
+ועשו ארון, “they shall construct an ark;” the introductory letter ו in the word ועשו tells us that, of course, the building housing this ark had by that time already been constructed. As long as the building had not been constructed there was no place where to put the ark. We find a similar problem in Deuteronomy 10,1, when Moses recalls that G-d had told him to carve out the tablets on which the Ten Commandments would be inscribed a second time, and he constructed the ark first as he said himself in verse 3 in that chapter where he said: “I made an ark and then I carved out the Tablets.” This was not in accordance in which G-d had instructed him to proceed in verse 9 of our chapter. He had even reminded him that He had shown him an illustration of how to proceed, in that verse. If the Torah nonetheless reports matters in the reverse order, it is because we must remember to put first things first, i.e. that the structure would have been meaningless if not for the furnishings which it was to provide a home for.[Our author does not apparently accept the view of the commentators who claim that Moses had forgotten the right order and that Betzalel had to remind him when he received instructions he did not consider logical. Ed.]
+
+Verse 11
+
+וצפית אותו זהב, “you are to cover it with gold.” The ark was actually designed to be constructed completely of pure gold, but it would have been too heavy to carry, especially since the Torah had commanded the sons of Kehat to carry it on their shoulders. Compare Numbers 7,9. We find that the altar was also hollow and filled with earth, presumably for the same consideration. (Exodus 27,8)
+טהור, “pure;” not containing any foreign particles.
+זר זהב סביב, “surrounded by crown like golden molding.” The purpose of this was to cover the wooden center part at the top completely. The wooden interior was to remain invisible.
+
+Verse 12
+
+ויצקת לו ארבע טבעות זהב, “you shall pour four golden rings for it.” According to the plain meaning these were small rings which were actually an integral part of the outer wall of the ark.
+על ארבע פעמותיו, “on its four sides. There is another explanation which understands the word פעמון, as leg, in the sense of feet taking steps. Compare Song of Songs 7,2: מה יפו פעמיך בנעלים, “how lovely are your feet in sandals?, or Isaiah 26,6: רגלי עני פעמי דלים, “by the feet of the needy, the soles of the poor.” According to this view it would not be appropriate for the Holy Ark to stand directly on the floor. There would be also two large rings as housings for the staves by which the Ark would be carried on the shoulders of the Kehatites while the people were wandering. These were lowered with the small rings permanently attached to the walls of the ark, as G-d did not wish for the carriers of the Ark to come into direct contact with the Ark while inserting the staves through the rings. [Once inserted, the staves were never to be removed from the Ark. Ed.] (verse 15)
+על צלעו האחת, ושתי טבעות על צלעו השנית, “on one of its sides and two rings on its opposite side.” In other words, seeing that there were four sides, on the four corners. The ark was positioned inside the Holy of Holies with its longer side facing north. so that the carriers would walk on its eastern and western side.
+
+Verse 13
+
+
+
+Verse 14
+
+
+
+Verse 15
+
+לא יסורו ממנו, “they shall not be removed from it.” In the Talmud tractate Yuma, folio 72, the question is raised that seeing the Torah had already written: “the staves for carrying the Ark are to be affixed to the Ark,” and it had instructed its craftsmen to insert the staves through these rings, its appears that the purpose was to insert these staves only when the need arose to carry the Ark. This could only be done if they were to be inserted from time to time when the occasion demanded this? The staves in the process of lifting the Ark or lowering it would slip out of the rings! How could the commandment never to remove them be possible to be observed? Answer: The staves were thicker at their respective ends so that they could only just fit through the rings, whereas in the middle they were thinner. [The reader who is interested in the mechanics of this is referred to the commentary by Or Hachayim on this verse, or on my translation of it on pages 775-776. Ed.] This is also how Rashi explains the problem in his commentary on Talmud Yoma 72a. An alternate explanation: both in this instance and again in Exodus 40,18, it was Moses who had to insert the staves through the rings. In the Book of Numbers 4,56 however, we read that Aaron and his sons were to position the ark inside the Tabernacle as well as to position its staves in the proper places. The commandment for the staves not to be moved only came into force at that time. Alternately, although Moses had placed the staves through the rings (without having been instructed to so), G-d wished for this to be done by Aaron and his sons who were priests. It was at that point that the Holy Ark attained the pinnacle of its holiness. The fact is that even during the Israelites march through the desert there were only a few days during which the people were on the march, whereas during more than 99% of the time the people and the Tabernacle remained stationary in a part of the Tabernacle that even the High Priest only entered one single day during the year. (four times during that day). During all this time, there was no need for the staves to be attached to the Ark This is why the Torah wrote with regard to the copper altar (in Exodus 27,7) בשאת אותו, “when it is being carried.” Since this altar was located in the Temple courtyard where people were constantly around, the staves if permanently attached would interfere with the people coming and going. Therefore, for the altar the staves were attached only during the time that they were travelling from one location to the next.
+
+Verse 16
+
+ונתת אל הארון וגו, “you are to deposit inside the Ark, etc;” this verse provides the justification for the words written earlier that the Ark be treated with the utmost reverence. This was because it contained the Tablets upon which the words of the covenant between G-d and the Jewish people had been written by G-d himself.
+The word אל here has been chosen instead of the prefix letter ב, which means “in,” or “into.” This is not a unique construction as we have found it also in Exodus 15,25: וישלך אל המים, “he threw it into the water,” as well as in Numbers 19,6: אל תוך שרפת הפרה, “into the fire consuming the cow;” or Numbers 19,17: מים חיים אל כלי, “fresh water from a well into a vessel.”
+
+Verse 17
+
+ועשית כפרת, “you are to construct a lid;” the Torah did not give measurements for the thickness of this lid, seeing that only the surface of it would be visible. The height of the outer golden wall of the Ark would completely enclose its depth.
+
+Verse 18
+
+שנים כרובים, “two cherubs.” Compare Ezekiel28,14, את כרוב ממשח הסוכך, “like a cherub with outstretched wings;” they are a certain type of bird. Seeing that birds are both clean animals and move in a clean atmosphere most of the time; even though the Torah in the second of the Ten Commandments had expressly forbidden us to make anything that is like creatures on earth or in the sky, the reason why the making of the cherubs is exempt from this was that it was not made to be worshipped, but to remain hidden inside the most inaccessible part of the Temple. We have a parallel of this in Isaiah 6,12 where the prophet described having had a vision of the Lord seated on His throne surrounded by such creatures each having six wings. Even in the Torah we find exceptions to overriding commands, such as “anyone who performs forbidden work on the Sabbath being guilty of legal execution,” (Exodus 35,2) while the priests performed such work in the Temple every Sabbath when offering the daily communal sacrifices. Not only that, even individuals, when becoming fathers of a boy baby born on the Sabbath circumcised him on the following Sabbath. (Leviticus 18,16) The Torah strictly forbade marrying the wife of a brother, but made an exception if said brother had died without children, and encouraged a surviving brother to marry the widow who had been his brother’s wife in order to provide him with issue. Similar exceptions are in place for wearing wool garments with tzitzit, ritual fringes, including wool and linen. There is a positive commandment to this effect (Compare Deuteronomy 22,12)
+
+Verse 19
+
+מן הכפרת תעשו, “you shall make them integral parts of the Ark’s lid.” Incidentally, the cherubs constructed in Solomon’s Temple were not mounted on the Ark’s lid. (Kings I 6, 23-27)
+
+Verse 20
+
+פורשי כנפים, “spreading wings;” to make them look like birds; the reason for this was that birds are viewed as the cleanest creatures (compare what we wrote on verse 18),
+למעלה, “upwards;” above their head; in a posture of modesty and humility. This is matched by the way Isaiah describes his vision of these seraphim covering their bodies with their wings including their faces, (Isaiah 6,2)
+ופניהם איש אל אחיו, “and they are to face one another;” these details all prove that these cherubs were not intended to be deities to be worshipped, else they would have faced their onlookers so that these could prostrate themselves in front of them. How is this proof? Supposing there had been only one cherub on the lid of the Holy Ark, or if the face of one of them (if there were two) had been turned toward the people, one could have perhaps understood the symbolism as meaning that their purpose was to inspire awe of them in their onlookers. Seeing, however, that they faced each other, is clear proof that they had no interest in any onlooker. Furthermore, though their wings were pointing upwards, their faces were looking down at the lid, i.e. the space from which G-d’s words would emanate to Moses, and the area in which the Torah was kept. The most important proof that they were not meant to be worshipped by anyone, is the fact that they were in a place that was inaccessible to the people on pain of death. Their function therefore was merely to be servants of G-d rather than His competitors, just as the cherubs (seraphim) in Isaiah 6,2 were perceived as G-d’s servants standing in attendance before G-d’s throne.
+
+Verse 21
+
+ונתת את הכפרת על הארון מלמעלה, “you are to position the lid on top of the Ark.” This is followed by the instruction to place the Tablets inside the Ark after G-d would give these to Moses. How is this to be understood? As of the previous month of Ellul, when Moses had received the second set of Tablets they had rested in the ark which Moses had constructed prior to ascending the Mountain in order to receive them, as pointed out in Deuteronomy 10,3, when he said: “I made an Ark of shittim wood, and then I proceeded to carve out the two stone Tablets.” On the 25th day of Kislev following, when the construction of the Tabernacle and all its furnishings had been completed, he put the lid on the ark for the first time. This is what the commandment: “place the lid on the Ark,” (in our verse) refers to. The Tablets remained in the ark which Moses had constructed until the first day of Nissan when the Tabernacle together with all its furnishings was anointed. Concerning that Ark, the Torah said that Moses was to place the Tablets inside the Holy Ark. This was the Ark constructed by Betzalel. Of this Ark the Torah wrote: ואל הארון תתן את העדות, “and put the Testimony inside the Ark.”According to the plain meaning of the text (according to Ibn Ezra), Moses had already placed the Tablets inside, and after that he placed the lid on the Ark. Seeing that the lid had been mentioned already several times it states once more that once the lid had been put on the Ark the entire Tabernacle could be considered as having been completed.
+ואל הארון תתן את העדות, “and into the Ark you are to place the Testimony.” At this point this was a commandment. Previously when the Torah wrote: ונתת אל הארון, “you will place into the Ark, etc,” we would do well to understand these words as a prediction, or explanation for the purpose of the lid. According to one opinion it would also be an explanation for why the Ark, i.e. with the staves attached to it, were never to be moved.
+אשר אתן אליך, “which I am going to give you.” This was a reference to the second set of Tablets, seeing that G-d knew that the first set would never get there in one piece. Not only that, but these words were spoken to Moses on the fortieth day of his last stay on the Mountain. (The first set of Tablets had been smashed on the 17th day of Tammuz)
+
+Verse 22
+
+ודברתי אתך מעל הכפרת, “when I speak to you it will be from above the lid;” you may ask that we read in Leviticus that “G-d spoke to Moses from the Tent of Meeting,” not from above the lid of the Ark which was inside the Holy of Holies? We must understand the Torah as follows: whenever Moses was standing outside the Tabernacle, he perceived the voice of G-d as emanating from inside the Tabernacle. When he was being addressed by G-d while he was inside the Tabernacle G-d’s voice emanated from above the lid of the Ark. This is the meaning of (Numbers 7,89) “when Moses had entered the Tent of Meeting he heard the voice speaking to him from above the lid of the Ark.”
+ואת כל אשר אצוה, “and all that I shall command;” in other words: all that G-d plans to command He will communicate to Moses from there.
+
+Verse 23
+
+ועשית שלחן, “you are to construct a table;” it is no more than elementary courtesy that the king’s servants and members of his household should eat at his table.
+
+Verse 24
+
+וצפית אותו זהב, “you are to cover its surface with gold.” The surface of the table was to be covered by a sheet of gold both on top and underneath it. This would still leave the wood of its legs visible. This is why the Torah added: ועשית זר זהב סביב, “you are to construct a golden molding around it.” This would cover all the exposed wooden parts of the table.
+
+Verse 25
+
+ועשית לו מסגרת טפח, “you are to construct for it a rim one handbreadth wide all around.”
+ועשית זר זהב למסגרתו, “you are to make a golden rim as an overlay all the way around the rim.” The first ring the Torah speaks of here was made of wood, just as the table itself. Its golden rim would look like a hollow tube cut open lengthwise, so that the wooden rim would fit inside that golden rim, and its outside would be completely invisible. After completing the instructions no onlooker would be able to see any of the table’s wooden parts. We read in Exodus37,11, that Betzalel made both the wooden rim and a golden molding all around it.
+
+Verse 26
+
+על ארבע הפאות אשר לארבע רגליו, “(to be fastened) to the four corners of its legs.” Seeing that the dimensions of the table were about 1,2 meters in length and 60 centimeters in width there was enough room for the carriers of the table to position themselves, two in front next to one another and two behind them near the rear end do carry it comfortably, just as they did with the Holy Ark, [although the Ark fully loaded weighed over 78000 lbs, which accounts for the fact that the Rabbis say that the Ark had to carry its bearers. This calculation is according to Rabbi Eliyahu ki tov, to the best of this Editor’s memory. Ed.]
+
+Verse 27
+
+לעומת המסגרת תהיינה, “they (the rings) were attached to the rim at the of the table as holders for the staves, i.e. on the outer edges of the table.
+
+Verse 28
+
+
+
+Verse 29
+
+ועשית קערותיו, “you are to make its bowls, etc.;” in which to knead the dough for the showbreads which would be displayed on it (the table).
+כפותיו, “its ladles,” within which to place the frankincense, between the two rows of the showbreads.
+וקשותיו, “and its jars;” in which the water for preparing the dough for the showbreads would be kept. קשוה is a vessel as we know from the Talmud in Sanhedrin folio 81 where the stealing of it is described as so serious a sin that if the thief is caught and killed on the spot by someone incensed at this sin, this is considered as an acceptable punishment, and the person administering it is not considered as having committed murder.
+ומנקיותיו, “and its cleansing tools, bowlshaped used to clean out the oven as well as the surface of the table.”According to Rashi these were multiple shelflike structures on each of which one of the showbreads would be placed in a manner that allowed fresh air to circulate around each and thus prevent it from becoming moldy, as they were on display from one Sabbath to the next. They would also protect these thin breads from break into crumbs due to their weight if each had rested on the one beneath it. All this is discussed in the Talmud in minute detail. (Menachot, folio 94) Our author quotes all these details. As the Torah did not, and alas in our time we do not possess a Temple, I have decided to omit translating this and refer the interested reader to the Talmud.
+אשר יוסך בהן, “wherewith to pour them (the libations).”
+
+Verse 30
+
+לחם פנים, breads to be on display, (showbread(s).) They were called thus as the table was always displaying them. In the Talmud quoted, folio 96, the word פנים is understood as partitions. Another explanation, these are called לחם פנים because they are always before me.
+
+Verse 31
+
+ועשית מנורת זהב טהור, “you are to construct a candlestick of pure gold;” the function of this candlestick was to provide light for what was on the table. This is why the Torah reports in Exodus 40,24 that Moses positioned the menorah opposite the table.
+מקשה תיעשה, “it shall be made of hammered work.” According to Rashi the reason why the word תיעשה here is spelled with an extra letter י in the middle, was in response to difficulties Moses had in understanding how Betzalel would be able to comply with the detailed instructions concerning the candlestick. What puzzled him most of all was that as opposed to all the other furnishings he had not been given a measurement for the height of this candlestick.
+גביעיה, its cups; all these adornments were to be an integral part of the center shaft, so that if any oil spilled from the top it could be absorbed by the decorations each of which was shaped in, the shape of a receptacle. If the highest one of these became full, the excess could be absorbed by the next lower one, etc.
+
+Verse 32
+
+
+
+Verse 33
+
+
+
+Verse 34
+
+
+
+Verse 35
+
+
+
+Verse 36
+
+
+
+Verse 37
+
+ועשית את נרותיה, “and you are to make its lamps etc.;” the reason why the word: ועשית is repeated here is that these lamps were separate vessels, not part of the shaft and its six arms. Proof of this is provided by the wording: כפתוריהם וקנותם ממנה היו, “its knobs and shaft (only) were all of the same chunk (of gold).” In addition, the Torah uses a separate verse in 37,23 to tell us that Betzalel made these seven lamps. This proves that they were separate vessels.
+נרותיה שבעה, “its lamps seven.” This was to symbolise the seven days of the week, as well as the seven zodiac constellations that provide illumination in the universe; the Sun, Venus, Mercury, Moon, Saturn, Jupiter, and Mars.
+והעלה, “he shall light;” [the priest, as no one else was allowed in there. Ed.] את נרותיה, “its lamps.” Seven lamps on the seven arms of the candlestick. והאיר, “it will illuminate,” על ער פניה, “on its front side;” it will give light so that all its shafts/arms will be visible. [The wicks were so arranged that they were directed at the center shaft. Ed.] והאיר, “it will illuminate,”
+
+Verse 38
+
+
+
+Verse 39
+
+ככר זהב, “one talent of gold.“ (3000 holy shekels in weight, i.e. 6000 shekels, according to the weight of ordinary profane shekels.)
+
+Verse 40
+
+.וראה ועשה בתבניתם, “note well, and follow their patterns,” (as have been shown to you while on the Mountain.)
+
+Chapter 26
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+ואת המשכן תעשה עשר יריאות, “and as for theTabernacle itself, make it of ten strips of cloth;” here the Torah speaks of the lower coverings which serves as roof of the structure. They are the ones that are really called משכן, “Tabernacle,” not the skins that were on top and served as protective coverings. These “carpet like” strips of expensive cloth were immediately above the furnishings, the Holy Ark, Menorah, table and golden altar.
+שש משזר, a linen fabric, each yarn contained 6 threads that had been twisted, (according to Rashi) The Talmud in tractate Yuma folio 71 cites proof of this based on Biblical texts.
+מעשה חושב, work of a weaver. The root of the word חושב shows that it requires extreme thought, i.e. skill, not just dexterity with one’s hands, but planning. When the Torah speaks of מעשה רוקם, however, this refers to needlework only, and is something less sophisticated, not requiring the kind of planning ahead that does weaving.
+
+Verse 2
+
+אורך היריעה האחת, “the length of each strip of cloth, etc.;” the letter א at the beginning of the word ,האחת, has the vowel patach, whereas the second time it has the vowel segol, and the third time it occurs it again has the vowel segol. When the Torah speaks of the goats’ skins, we find the same pattern. The rule is that when the letter א in the word אחת had the vowel patach, and is followed by a word with the separating cantillation mark etnachta, the next time the word אחת occurs it has the vowel segol if the cantillation marks are either zakef katan, or sof passuk.
+
+Verse 3
+
+חוברות אשה אל אחותה, “shall be joined to one another.” According to Rashi, the “joining” is done my means of needle and thread (not clasps or loops). It was not practical to make these coverings out of a single piece of cloth.
+
+Verse 4
+
+ועשית לולאות תכלת, you shall make loops of blue wool; G-d commanded that these carpet like coverings be made of two sections in order not to make it too heave and cumbersome to handle. The same method was followed with the carpets made of goats’ hair.
+
+Verse 5
+
+חמשים לולאות, fifty loops. The total amount of space for these 50 loops was three and a half cubits. How is this arrived at? When you allow a half cubit of air space to separate the 49 airspaces needed to separate one loop from the next, this amounts to twenty four and a half cubits. This leaves three and a half cubits for the boards to complete the 28 cubits in length occupied by them when fastened to one another snugly by the bolts we shall hear about still. Seeing that the eleven carpets made of goats’ hair were a total of thirty cubits in length, you were left with five and a half cubits for the loops, as those were thicker than the loops made of a mixture of wool and linen as described for the previous carpets. [There the Torah had specified that the loops were of the same materials as the carpets; seeing that for the goats’ wool carpets the material for the loops is not specified it is logical that these too were made of the same material as the carpets that they were meant to join. Ed.]
+מקבילות הלולאות, “the loops shall be opposite one another;” this is the way Rashi understands it and he is supported by the text of the Torah. The Torah writes in verse 33: ונתת את הפרכת תחת הקרסים, “you are to place (hang) the dividing curtain under the clasps;” if we follow the text of the Baraitha, the position of the dividing curtain was about one cubit beyond (westward) of these clasps. Some commentators explain and answer the difficulty in that Baraitha by saying that the pillars supporting the dividing curtain were attached to the end of the twentieth cubit of the length (interior) of the sanctuary part, as opposed to the Holy of Holies part of the Tabernacle. The dividing curtain hung facing the eastern entrance of the Tabernacle. In this way it was beneath the 50 golden clasps described as connecting the primarily blue woolen carpets. The curtain at the eastern entrance of the Tabernacle called מסך, was similarly suspended in a manner that its thickness completed the twenty cubit long sanctuary part of the Tabernacle. According to the Talmud, Shabbat folio 98, where it is stated that none of the carpets covered the pillars at the eastern end of the Tabernacle, the dividing curtain would have been hung towards the western part of the Sanctuary, or Holy of Holies respectively.
+
+Verse 6
+
+
+
+Verse 7
+
+
+
+Verse 8
+
+
+
+Verse 9
+
+וכפלת את היריעה השישית, “you are to fold over the sixth carpet;” when the word כפל occurs without further adjective, it means: “double.” This is what Rashi meant when he wrote: “half its width was hanging and was folded over the curtain at the eastern entrance.”
+
+Verse 10
+
+
+
+Verse 11
+
+
+
+Verse 12
+
+תסרח על אחורי המשכן, “it will overlap the rear end of the Tabernacle.” Rashi explains that it was necessary because the lowest 2 boards at the Western side of Tabernacle which had been left exposed.” Actually, there were no 2 cubits exposed, as the lowest cubit had been inserted into the silver sockets of the Tabernacle. This is in accordance with the view expressed in the Baraitha. However, according to the opinion we quoted from the Talmud, exposed parts of the boards on the outside of the Western wall of The Tabernacle had been covered by the curtains so that only the sockets had remained exposed and needed to be covered. All the scholars are agreed however, that the carpets made of goats’ hair covered the outside of the Tabernacle all the way to the ground. This was necessary already for the sake of the honour of the Presence of the Lord in the Tabernacle. The sockets of the Tabernacle to the south and the north remained exposed. Rabbi Yishmael, quoted by the Talmud, compared the Tabernacle to an elegant lady, walking in the marketplace and the train of her dress dragging behind her on the ground. If she were truly elegant, she would make sure that that train is either held up by a servant, or somehow tied to her dress so that it will not be dirtied being dragged along a dusty street. It is reasonable to assume that the corners of the curtains were attached to the fabric in a way preventing them from trailing on the ground.
+
+Verse 13
+
+
+
+Verse 14
+
+
+
+Verse 15
+
+עצי שטים עומדים, “made of acacia wood, upright.” The reason why he Torah added the word: “upright,” was to forbid planks that had already fallen off the tree after the branch having been sawed off. This comes to teach you that it is proper to build a building only from wood that came from a tree that did not produce any fruit.
+
+Verse 16
+
+
+
+Verse 17
+
+.שתי ידוה לקרש אחד, “two square pegs, rung like, for each plank.” Each peg was indented from all four sides so that the “lips” of the plank could fit over each side and be level front and back. When Rashi wrote (on Shabbat 98) that the pegs were cut out on three sides, he meant that these cut outs faced front and two sides of the next adjoining plank, the one in the middle not being called a “cut out of the peg,” but “a cut out of the plank.”
+אשה אל אחותה, parallel to one another. Rashi understands this as applying to the thickness of each plank which was one cubit (60 cm. approx). He arrived at this conclusion by basing himself on the two planks at the northwestern end of the Holy of Holies and the southwestern corner. [If his opinion would not be correct, we could not account for the measurements given by the Torah for the overall length and width of the Tabernacle. Ed.]
+
+Verse 18
+
+
+
+Verse 19
+
+שני אדנם תחת הקרש האחד, “two sockets under one (each) plank.” The dimensions of each of these sockets were one cubit in length matching the thickness of each plank and their width was three quarters of a cubit so that two together were the width of each plank, one and a half cubits. Each socket was hollowed out so that it could accommodate the pegs described in detail above. The author proceeds to give further details which in the absence of an illustration are not easy for the reader to follow. [This editor hopes to supply illustrations at the end of the last volume of this Torah commentary. Ed.] There is no unanimity on some of these details, but seeing that regardless of whose opinion is right there will not be another Tabernacle in the future, the dispute will never be resolved satisfactorily.
+
+Verse 20
+
+
+
+Verse 21
+
+
+
+Verse 22
+
+
+
+Verse 23
+
+
+
+Verse 24
+
+ויהיו תואמים מלמטה, “they shall be matching at the bottom” Rashi writes as follows on this phrase; “all the planks shall be flush at the bottom, so that the thickness of the edges of the two sockets should not form a gap to distance them from one another” (the planks). The corner planks of the southwestern part of the Tabernacle as well as the one at the northeastern corner had to be worked in such a way that they did not protrude into the interior space of the Tabernacle. According to our author, the words: “northern and southern,” belong further down in his commentary, and he meant to say that the top of the corner plank in the western row was inserted into the ring. When Rashi wrote that the ring was in the thickness of the plank, he means: in the thickness of the western plank. When you give this some thought, you will realise that that ring was also inserted at the same time into the top of the plank at a ninety degree angle to it.<br>אל הטבעת האחד, “into the one ring.” According to Rashi, every plank was cut away a little at the top along its width, two cuts on its two sides to contain the thickness of a ring.
+
+Verse 25
+
+
+
+Verse 26
+
+ועשית בריחים, “you shall make bolts;” according to Rashi, these bolts were to be attached to the outside of the planks in three rows spread over the height of ten cubits which was their height. Seeing that the Torah had spoken of 5 plus five plus five bolts, Rashi means that they were not each as long as the entire combined length of the planks in each direction, but were inserted through the rings holding the bolts from each end, being 15 cubits long each. There were therefore 4 bolts along the upper half of the long wall, and 4 bolts along the lower part of that wall, and 4 bolts along the western wall (which was 12 cubits wide on the outside.) The bolt in the middle, described as הבריח התיכון, “the bolt running centrally all around was long enough to traverse the holes drilled in each plank so that it could go in at the eastern end of the northern wall and come out at the eastern end of the southern wall, (describing a u shaped path.) Since the latter was about 70 cubits plus long, it was equivalent to three of the other bolts. We have examples of how to fasten sections of parchment to one another in a Torah scroll, where the length of the section from top to bottom is sewn at intervals of approximately one third from the top three times, or when the land of Israel is divided into three parts for the purpose of where to position the cities of refuge for people who had killed unintentionally and were afraid of a family member of the deceased wishing to kill him as an act of retribution. (Compare Talmud, Megillah folio 19, or Makkot 9)
+
+Verse 27
+
+
+
+Verse 28
+
+בתוך הקרשים, within the planks. Seeing that the other bolts were fastened to the golden outside of the planks and therefore were visible to the eye, the centre bolt which was fastened to the wood underneath the golden overlay, and therefore invisible to the naked eye, was described as “inside the planks.”
+
+Verse 29
+
+
+
+Verse 30
+
+
+
+Verse 31
+
+
+
+Verse 32
+
+על ארבעה עמודי שטים, “on four pillars made of acacia wood.” These pillars were freestanding, across the width of the Tabernacle they did not bother anyone seeing that only the High Priest one day of the year, the Day of Atonement would walk past them four times. The five pillars at the eastern entrance of the Tabernacle, however, were positioned differently, two each near the northern and southern side, and the fifth in the centre, so that there was plenty of room to walk on either side of the pillar in the middle, as the priests would enter and leave the Sanctuary frequently. If all these pillars had been spaced at equal distances from one another this would have been inconvenient for the priests. An alternate interpretation, (source unknown) the reason why there were only four pillars supporting the dividing curtain, whereas there were five such pillars supporting the curtain at the entrance of the Tabernacle, is that they were positioned between the planks of the Tabernacle on either side, so that these planks could be used as additional supports for the staves from which the curtain was suspended. These staves rested (also) on top of the plank to the north and south side respectively, so that actually the dividing curtain was supported by six pillars. The curtain at the entrance did not have parts of the planks supporting it. [According to the opinion that the dividing curtain was actually a double curtain so that the High Priest had to walk between it, it would have been much heavier, and therefore in need of stronger support. Ed.] The two outer pillars at the entrance, actually functioned as if an addition to the planks, but not joined to them. Our author prefers the first interpretation. Our author queries that if that interpretation were correct what was the purpose of the pillars that Rashi speaks about? The planks would have been sufficient to support the staves for the curtain.
+
+Verse 33
+
+
+
+Verse 34
+
+
+
+Verse 35
+
+ושמת את השולחן, “you shall place the table, etc.;” in the middle; seeing that the Torah had written that the candlestick should be positioned opposite the table, the golden altar had to be positioned in the centre of the Sanctuary part of the Tabernacle. Both the Candlestick and the table were slightly to the north and south of the centre and at the same time further west, closer to the dividing curtain. Compare Talmud Yuma folio 33.
+ואת המנורה נוכח השולחן, “and the candlestick was facing the table.” This was in order to illuminate the surface of the table. This has been spelled out in Numbers 8,2.
+על צלע המשכן תימנה, “on the southern side of the Tabernacle near the southern wall.” Light always emanates from the south, as does the light of the sun whose orbit proceeds in a southerly direction after it rises in the morning.
+
+Verse 36
+
+
+
+Verse 37
+
+
+
+Chapter 27
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+
+
+Verse 2
+
+
+
+Verse 3
+
+
+
+Verse 4
+
+
+
+Verse 5
+
+כרכוב המזבח, “the ledge of the altar.” Rashi comments that we have learned this from the Talmud in Zevachim, folio 62, where the question is posed: “which was the Carcov?” The answer given is that it was a ledge protruding one cubit from the wall of the altar above the mesh, running from one corner of the altar to the next and that there was a space 1 cubit wide underneath it where the priests would walk. Every corner of the altar was surrounded by this walkway one cubit high and one cubit wide, and these are what are called: “the corners of the altar.” On the other hand, the four corners of the altar on top of its platform were cubes one cubit high. The space between them, according to Rashi, was called Carcov.
+
+Verse 6
+
+
+
+Verse 7
+
+
+
+Verse 8
+
+נבוב לוחות, “make it hollow with boards;” it was to be hollow underneath in order for it to be lighter when carrying it. These hollowed out boards were inside of the mesh on which blood would be sprinkled, occupying the lower half of the altar. When the Israelites were encamped they would fill the hollow space with earth and offer the sacrifices on top of that earth. When they would move again, the accumulated earth would fall between the boards enclosing that hollowed space and the mesh, which looked like a sieve. Each time the came to rest they would fill that hollow space up with earth again.
+
+Verse 9
+
+
+
+Verse 10
+
+ועמודיו עשרים, “and its pillars shall be twenty 20.”Our author wonders why Rashi does not mention howmany pillars there were in the courtyard. [I suppose the author refers to the Torah not mentioning the number of pillars in the eastern section of the courtyard, as the Torah gave us the numbers for the other three sides. Ed.]
+
+Verse 11
+
+וכן לפאת צפון וגו׳, “and likewise on the northern side;” the word: עמדו in this verse is spelled without the customary letter י before the letter ו.
+
+Verse 12
+
+
+
+Verse 13
+
+
+
+Verse 14
+
+
+
+Verse 15
+
+
+
+Verse 16
+
+עמודיהם ארבעה, “the number of their pillars to be four.” In the open space of the entrance to the courtyard in the east, there were only three pillars. However, when speaking of the total number of pillars on the 50 cubits of the eastern side of it there were a total of 11 pillars. When you deduct one pillar each for the north eastern corner or the south eastern corner, whichever you prefer, you are left with ten open spaces for that side, each separated by an open space one cubit wide between each of these pillars. This system continued all the way around the Tabernacle. Eventually, you were left with four empty air spaces and four pillars for the twenty cubits width of the entrance to the courtyard.
+
+Verse 17
+
+כל עמודי החצר סביב מחושקים כסף, “all the pillars of the courtyard were to be banded with silver. Seeing that these pillars had not been plated with silver as the pillars inside the Tabernacle, they had to be fitted with silver bands (as around wooden caskets for beer or whisky) so that their wood would not crack during sandstorms.
+
+Verse 18
+
+ורוחב חמשים בחמשים, “and the width to be fifty cubits throughout;” not literally 50, but 50 cubits from the north to the south, and 49 cubits from the east to the west side of the Tabernacle. The length of the Tabernacle was 30 cubits on the inside, i.e. 32 cubits on the outside. Likewise the width of the Tabernacle which was 10 cubits on the inside, was 12 cubits wide on the outside. The Tabernacle was erected with its length running parallel to the length of the hangings serving as the walls of the courtyard. Seeing that it was positioned in the center of the width of the courtyard and the hangings and their supporting pillars took up at least half a cubic each, there could not have been more than 49 cubits of open airspace for the width left even for the sections not occupied by the Tabernacle itself inside of it. The western section, after deducting the space occupied by the Tabernacle, would not have been more than 19 cubits of open space by 50 cubits, whereas if the space on either side of the Tabernacle was measured from east to west it would have been 100 cubits by 19 cubits of unimpeded space, on either side of the Tabernacle.
+וקומה חמש אמות שש משזר ואדניהם נחושת, “and its height five cubits of fine twisted linen and their sockets to be of copper.” According to the plain meaning of the text, this phrase has to be understood as follows: the height of the walls of cloth of the courtyard, the “dividers” from less sacred ground around it, are to be five cubits high; this is in addition to the height of the copper sockets of the pillars. In other words, the total height of this mechitzah, “hanging divider,” was to be six cubits. This is based on the assumption that sockets were usually one cubit in height. In the Talmud, tractate Zevachim folio 59, we are told about the width of these hangings, that they were 15 cubits high. How do we reconcile these two statements? The Talmud answers that the height of five cubits mentioned in the Torah refers to how much higher these hangings were than the highest point of the altar which was 10 cubits high. This would in agreement of the opinion of Rabbi Yossi, who said that the height of the altar was twice its width. (verse 1 in our chapter.)
+
+Verse 19
+
+וכל יתדותיו, “and all its pegs,” at the time when the Tabernacle had first been erected, the carpets which formed its roof were fastened to the surrounding earth by tentpegs, the other end of which had been fastened to the edges of these carpets. The carpets had to be stretched taut so that they would not fall into the hollow airspace of the Tabernacle due to their weight. Although this has not been spelled out, we may use as support for our assumption what we read in Isaiah 33,20: אהל בל יצען ובל יסע יתדותיו לנצח, “a tent not to be transported whose pegs shall never be pulled up.
+
+Verse 20
+
+.ואתה תצוה “and you are to command;” after G-d had completed giving Moses the instructions about all the work pertaining to the Tabernacle, He informed him how to ensure that it would be illuminated inside, [seeing that it did not have any windows. Ed.] This is similar to how He had proceeded when He created the universe. He created the sun and moon only after the earth had already produced vegetation on the third day. (Compare Genesis 1,111,14.) The commandment mentioned here became effective only in Numbers 8,1. How are we therefore to understand our verse here? G-d instructed Moses that when the time is ripe, after the Tabernacle has been constructed, the people should supply him with the appropriate kind of oil for lighting the lamps on the candlestick. תצוה את בני ישראל, “you are to command the Children of Israel;” we note that G-d used a different word for instructing Moses here as the command would not have to be carried out immediately but only some time in the future, seeing that it was still seven months before the Tabernacle would become operational.
+ויקחו אליך, “they will bring to you;” in order that you will be able to see inside the Tabernacle when you enter it and when you wish to leave it. The point G-d is making is that it is not He for Whom the lamps of the candlestick have to be lit. The best proof for this is that the candlestick stood in the Sanctuary, not in the Holy of Holies from which it was separated by a heavy curtain, the latter being in absolute darkness. Not only that, but at the beginning of the chapters dealing with the Tabernacle, G-d had said: “they shall donate a contribution for Me,” whereas here this contribution was to be for Moses.
+שמן זית כתית, “clear oil of beaten olives.” Seeing that in Exodus 25,2, the Torah had described that oil as simply “for illumination,” without specifying details, this had to be stated now that activities inside the Tabernacle which had no windows are discussed. Rashi adds that this oil was to be completely free from any residues. According to the author, Rashi also discusses the collection of individual grains of olives being permissible for profane use as long as they had not ripened. [My sources claim that they have been unable to find such a Rashi. He also claims that the olives on the top of the tree are the first ones to ripen. Ed.]
+
+Verse 21
+
+אשר על העדות, “which is over the Ark.” The word: על, here cannot be translated as “above, or on,” as we have been told that the candlestick stood on the same floor as the Ark, although it was divided from it by the dividing curtain. This is not the only time that the word על is used as meaning: “beside,” compare Leviticus 24,7, and Exodus 40,3, where there are two more such examples, as well as in Genesis 24,30.
+אהרן ובניו, “Aaron and his sons.” What is meant is: either Aaron or one of his sons.”
+מערב עד בקר, “from evening until morning.” The sages estimated the amount of oil as being half a log, (275 cubic cm). There was no excess, as during the winter months they adjusted this by using coarser wicks. (Rashi did not feel comfortable with excess oil having to be thrown away, that is why he preferred this solution.)
+
+Chapter 28
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+לכהנו לי, “to serve Me as priests;” the letter ו at the end of the word: לכהנו, is superfluous, just as in Psalms 104 11, or in Numbers 24,3, or in Numbers 23,18. (Compare Ibn Ezra’s short commentary)
+
+Verse 2
+
+ועשית בגדי קדש, “you are to make holy garments;” after G-d had taught Moses how to construct the Tabernacle, he now proceeds to teach him about the priestly vestments to be worn when the priests perform their duties in the Tabernacle.
+
+Verse 3
+
+
+
+Verse 4
+
+ואלה הבגדים, “and these are the vestments “ Our author is stymied by the omission in this list of the “golden headband,” ציץ, listed in verse 36 of this chapter.
+חשן ואפוד, “a breastplate attached to an ephod.” At this point, linen trousers are not mentioned, as they were not constructed as a sign of distinction of the individual who wore them. 
+ועשו בגדי קדש, “they (the artisans) shall make holy garments.” Other garments, such as the headband for Aaron and the trousers for his sons, are not mentioned at this stage.
+
+Verse 5
+
+והם, “and they,” the artisans, יקחו את הזהב, “will take the gold; gold which has been discussed elsewhere, i.e. the donations of gold listed in Parshat T’rumah. G-d tells Moses that just as He wishes that Moses should use these donations of gold in the construction of the Tabernacle, so He also wishes that some of it be used for making the priestly vestments. People will not say that Aaron uses this in order to flatter himself, or to enrich himself, as they are aware that it is he who facilitates their obtaining forgiveness for their sins. This will all be spelled out later on.
+
+Verse 6
+
+ועשו את האפוד, “they are to make the ephod.” Apparently only a single ephod was to be made. When we read in Samuel I 23,6: “he brought down an ephod with him,” and in Samuel I 22,18: “he killed eighty five men on that day wearing a linen ephod,” this is no contradiction to what the Torah wrote, as none of these eighty five men also wore a breastplate attached to their ephod. The Jewish High Priests, when consulting G-d, did so only by means of the breastplate which had the urim and tumim folded in the pocket at the back of the breastplate. When in Samuel I 23,9, David told the High Priest Evyatar to bring forth the ephod, he referred to the one attached to the breastplate that was attached to it. The artisans constructed the ephod, according to what is written in the Torah, and as explained by Rashi. There is proof that the ephod was a vestment, as we are told in Samuel II 6,14, that David was girded with an ephod. We also have proof that the daughters of the king would wear such a garment so as to be identified of their rank as princesses. (Compare Samuel II 13,18.)
+
+Verse 7
+
+שתי כתפות, “two epaulettes;” these have been mentioned first in verse 7. They looked like short belts joined to one another, and they would be attached to both the front and the back of the ephod. They would rest both over his right shoulder and over his left shoulder. They bore the name “shoulderpieces,” as they stood upright forming a kind of collar around the High Priest’s neck.
+According to a different opinion, these epaulettes were very wide, hence they were compared to shoulders. According to that opinion, this is why they were described as חוברות, for if they had been narrow like thin belts, they could not have been properly attached to the breastplate which would have been in danger of falling down.
+וחבר, this word from the end of verse 7, means that the shoulder pieces were joined to the ephod by means of pins (like safety pins).
+
+Verse 8
+
+וחשב אפדתו, “and its skillfully woven band;” this was an integral part of the ephod, looking like a belt; this is why it was described in Leviticus 8,7: ויחגור אותו בחשב האפד, “he girded him with the girdle.”
+אשר עליו, “which is upon it;” all around the circumference of the ephod this woven band was visible and protruding as if a single belt looking (its woven pattern) like the cloth parts of the ephod. It looked similar to the workmanship of the robe over which it was worn. In other words: the word עליו, refers to the ephod.
+ממנו יהיה, “it shall be of the same piece.” (verse 8) Compare my explanation on verse 25, this chapter, until the word: ויורדות, “and hanging down slightly on both sides of his neck, facing the front of the ephod. ”You are to make two additional rings which you will attach to the two lower extremities of the breastplate pointing to the inner part of the ephod, underneath in its forepart of, above the skillfully woven band of the ephod, so that they were on a level with the lower edge of the breastplate. כמעשהו ממנו יהיה, “it shall be of one piece with it.” This is a reference to the woven patterns of the ephod. It shall not be woven as a separate piece of cloth. Afterwards it will be attached to the edge of the ephod. The ephod would have two epaulettes at its two extreme edges and these would be joined, (tied). They would be joined by means of a pin or needle (type of safety pin) so that they would be seen to protrude as if standing, this being the reason why the Torah called them כתפות, “shoulder pieces,” prominent like shoulders. According to a different opinion, these epaulettes were very wide, hence they were compared to shoulders. According to that opinion, this is why they were described as חוברות, for if they had been narrow like thin belts, they could not have been properly attached to the breastplate which would have been in danger of falling down.
+
+Verse 9
+
+
+
+Verse 10
+
+
+
+Verse 11
+
+
+
+Verse 12
+
+ושמת את שתי האבנים על כתפות האפוד, “you are to place the two gemstones firmly on the two epaulettes;” this was to be done at the highest point of the High Priest’s shoulders.
+
+Verse 13
+
+ועשית משבצות זהב, “you are to make frames for settings of the gemstones, out of gold;” these were indentations; like miniature frames surrounding a picture which is inset. They would form the place to which the braided chains of which the Torah speaks in verse 14 and 22, could be fastened.
+
+Verse 14
+
+ושתי שרשרות, “and two chains etc.;” the chains mentioned here are to be worn by the High Priest as is explained later in this chapter; the reason why they are mentioned here is that they were fastened also at the epaulettes, as we know from verses 22-25.
+
+Verse 15
+
+
+
+Verse 16
+
+
+
+Verse 17
+
+אדם, a “carnelian;” 
+פתדה, a “chrysolite;” 
+ברקת “emerald;”
+
+Verse 18
+
+נפך, “a turquoise;” 
+ספיר, “a sapphire;”
+יהלם, an “amethyst"
+
+Verse 19
+
+לשם, “a jacinth;” 
+שבו, "an agate;"
+אחלמה, “a crystal;”
+
+Verse 20
+
+תרשיש, "a beryl";
+שהם, "a lapis lazuli"; 
+ישפה, "jasper."
+
+Verse 21
+
+איש על שמו, each jewel symbolised the name of the tribe in whose row it was placed and engraved.. According to Rashi, the order in which these jewels have been named here corresponded to the order in which the names of the twelve tribes had been arranged on the breastplate, in order of their ages. If Rashi were correct, then the jewel leshem should not have been the one symbolising the tribe of Dan, as is clear from Joshua 19,47. We would have to say therefore that the order followed the ages of their respective mothers, i.e. Leah, Bilhah, Zilpah, Rachel. When we accept this then the jewel leshem corresponds to the position of Dan on the breastplate. There is an argument between Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish if the respective letters of the name of the tribe stood out, as for instance the letter ע of the name שמעון, and the letter ל in the name לוי, and no letter would move from its place to be joined to its counterpart, so that the whole name would not appear arranged consecutively, or that each name appeared on its jewel completely spelled out consecutively. [We must remember that according to tradition there were a total of 72 letters but seeing that they did not represent each letter in the alphabet, another verse had to be inscribed on the breastplate. [The significance of the number 72 is that it is the number of letters in the longest version of G-d’s name. Ed.]
+
+Verse 22
+
+ועשית על החשן שרשות, “you shall make chains on the breastplate, etc.;” this is a reference to the two chains that had been mentioned already in verse fourteen.
+
+Verse 23
+
+ועשית על החשן שתי טבעות זהב, ונתת את שתי הטבעות האלה על שני קצות החושן, “you shall attach two rings to the two edges of the breastplate;” to the upper edges of the breastplate.
+
+Verse 24
+
+ונתת את שתי העבותות הזהב, “you shall attach two wreathen chains made of gold;” these are the golden chains of which we said that they were attached to the breastplate as a permanent fixture.
+
+Verse 25
+
+ואת שתי קצות העבותות, “and the other two ends of the wreathen chains, etc.;” this somewhat cumbersome formulation is also found in Exodus 15,16, where we read: עד יעבור עמך ה', עד יעבור עם זו קנית, “until Your people of Hashem has passed, until this people You have acquired has passed;” a similar construction is also found in Psalms 93,3: נשאו נהרות ה' נשאו נהרות קולם, “the ocean raises its voice o Lord, the oceans sound their thunder.” These are just a few examples of this type of construction. The meaning of the verse is as follows: the two ends of the two wreathen chains shall be attached to the two golden frames, משבצות, mentioned in verse 13, between the ephod and spread across the breastplate.
+ונתת, you are to place these two golden frames at the edge of the epaulettes of the ephod which are folded over and hanging down on either side of the High Priest’s neck, slightly protruding forward towards the face of it, i.e. opposite the upper edge which was at his back. It will be partially folded at the front of the High Priests due to the belt and the decorated band which he is tightening with his belt. In the earlier part of this paragraph the construction of these garments was described, whereas here the Torah describes how they were to be worn. [At the end of volume 4, I hope to attach illustrations of all this. Ed.]
+
+Verse 26
+
+ועשית שתי טבעות זהב, “you will construct two golden rings;” additional ones. ושמת אותם על שתי כתפות מלמטה ממול פניו, ”attach them to the two ends of the breastplate at its edge, at its inner edge which faces the ephod”. In other words: these rings were attached to the inside of the breastplate so as to be in contact with the ephod. This is the meaning of the word:.ביתה
+
+Verse 27
+
+ועשית (עוד) שתי טבעות זהב ונתת אותם על שתי כתפות למטה ממול פניו. “You are to make still another two rings and you shall put them on the two epaulettes of the ephod underneath on the front part thereof, close to the coupling thereof. This was at the rear of the High Priest’s back, at the lower end of where it was joined to the decorated band of the ephod. Some commentators claim that the ephod covered both the High Priest’s front and his back, similar to a short skirt known as korshit? They could not imagine that a garment worn beneath one’s loins could be described as “decorative.” We never find such garments except those designed to cover one’s private parts. Furthermore according to Rashi, the yarns used in these garments consisted of 28 threads each, and no one would have worn such heavy underwear. If the High Priest had had to wear such underwear it would have impeded him in carrying out some parts of his priestly duties. When he bent down they would have fallen off his shoulders. Therefore some commentators believe that they could only have covered the upper part of his torso. They would reach up to shoulder height.
+
+Verse 28
+
+וירכסו את החשן מטבעותיו, “They shall bind the breastplate by the rings thereof unto the rings of the ephod with the thread of blue wool so that it will be above the skillfully woven band of the ephod, and so that the breastplate will be prevented from moving around on top of the ephod.” Rashi has explained this in detail in his commentary of Kedoshim (Leviticus 19,16.).
+
+Verse 29
+
+בחשן המשפט, “on the breastplate of judgment;” the term “judgment” here refers to the High Priest being able to receive answers to queries on Jewish law from G-d when these require to be clarified.
+
+Verse 30
+
+ונשא אהרן את משפט בני ישראל, “Aaron will bear the judgment of the Children of Israel on his heart;” i.e. he will inform G-d of the needs of the Jewish people so that he can give them guidance; we have encountered the term משפט in this sense Deuteronomy 18,3, as well as in Kings I 8,59 in Solomon’s blessing of the people after the consecration of the Temple he had built in Jerusalem.
+
+Verse 31
+
+
+
+Verse 32
+
+בתוכו “inside it,” i.e. in its center. Compare to what the Torah wrote in Genesis 2,9, about the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
+מעשה אורג, woven work; the Torah means that it was continuous along the entire neck of the garment. The garment had been woven from the neck down to its hem. At the top it was reinforced so as not to tear easily.
+
+Verse 33
+
+
+
+Verse 34
+
+פעמון זהב ורמון, “with a golden bell and a pomegranate alternating along its lower rim.” The purpose of the pomegranate was to produce sound when the bell hit it while the High Priest was walking.
+
+Verse 35
+
+ונשמע קולו, “its sound would be audible;” [the High Priest did not wear these garments inside the Tabernacle on the Day of Atonement. Ed.] The sound was meant to alert the people that the time for him to perform the service in the Tabernacle had arrived. According to another interpretation, the sound was necessary to warn the other priests not to enter the Holy of Holies. On the Day of Atonement there was no need for it, seeing that only the High Priest performed sacrificial service on that day.
+
+Verse 36
+
+ועשית ציץ, “you are to make a frontlet; (of gold),” a sparkling kind of jewelry. We find that term in such a connection in Ezekiel 1,7: ונוצצים כעין נחשת קלל, “they were sparkling like the luster of burnished copper or in Psalms 132,18: “and his crown will sparkle on him;”ועליו יציץ נזרו.
+
+Verse 37
+
+אל מול פני המצנפת יהיה, “upon the forefront of the mitre (liturgical, pointed headdress) on his forehead it shall be.”
+
+Verse 38
+
+והיה על מצחו תמיד, “it shall always be on his forehead.” Whenever he wears the mitre (turban) on his head he must also wear the crown of holiness, i.e. the Tzitz headband. It had the tetragram engraved on the golden band.
+
+Verse 39
+
+
+
+Verse 40
+
+ועשית להם אבנטים ומגבעות, “you will make for them sashes and turbans.” According to Rashi, the word מגבעות is an alternate for the word מצנפת, “headgear.” When worn by an ordinary priest it is called מגבעת, whereas the headgear worn by the High Priest is called מצנפת. Actually, the headgear of the ordinary priest was not as high as that of the High Priest, in order to allow for space where he could wear his phylacteries between the tzitz and the mitznefet.
+
+Verse 41
+
+וקדשת אותם, “you will sanctify them.” This refers to an oral sanctification. (Ibn Ezra) It is comparable to the oral declaration of someone being declared ritually impure by the priest when with the skin disease tzoraat, in Leviticus 13,44.
+
+Verse 42
+
+. מכנסי בד, “linen trousers;” we know that these were trousers, as their purpose is described as covering their private parts, and the Torah does not add the words: לכבוד ולתפארת, “for splendour and for beauty.”
+
+Verse 43
+
+ולא ישאו עוון ומתו, “so that they do not incur guilt and die.” Rashi comments on this phrase: “from this verse we learn that appearing in the Temple without the appropriate garments is a capital offence.” The Talmud in Sanhedrin folio 83 explains it simply: when a priest wears the priestly garments (in the Temple) he is considered as a priest. When he does not, he is considered as a nonpriest who is forbidden to enter the Temple on pain of death. Even omitting his belt, avnet, is considered as being disrobed. There is a dissenting view which limits the death penalty only to priests appearing without trousers.
+
+Chapter 29
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+וזה הדבר אשר תעשה להם לקדש אותם, “and this is the thing you are to do for them in order to sanctify them;” after all the construction work on the Tabernacle had been completed as well as the vestments for the priests, the Torah now instructs the priests about their laws of ritual purity, and under what conditions they may partake of the sacrificial sacrifices, where and when these may be consumed, and by whom, in the case of household members of the priests. Rules about ritual baths in order to be ritually pure are also discussed.
+תעשה להם, “you shall do for them;” in this instance the plural mode is used as these rules apply to Aaron and his sons. On this day of consecration they were all treated as if of the same rank.
+
+Verse 2
+
+
+
+Verse 3
+
+
+
+Verse 4
+
+
+
+Verse 5
+
+
+
+Verse 6
+
+
+
+Verse 7
+
+ויצקת על ראשו, “you will pour it unto his head; (the oil of anointing);” seeing that Aaron was the High Priest, he was the only one to be anointed. [In verse 19 we will read that when performing sacrificial service the right earlobes and right thumb of Aaron’s sons were also anointed with this oil. Ed.]
+
+Verse 8
+
+
+
+Verse 9
+
+
+
+Verse 10
+
+
+
+Verse 11
+
+
+
+Verse 12
+
+
+
+Verse 13
+
+
+
+Verse 14
+
+ואת בשר הפר, “and the flesh of the bull;” the Torah mentions the flesh separately seeing that the skin of the entire bull had already been removed before the animal was cut up. Afterwards Aaron took all of it outside the camp as it was a sin offering. This is how our sages in the Sifra, interpret the verse in Leviticus 4,12, where the sin offering of the High Priest is discussed, when he has been guilty of sin, of course, not like here.
+תשרוף באש, “you shall burn in fire;” Rashi explains that this is the only externally offered sin offering that needs to be burned outside. (Instead of the priests consuming part of its meat) We do find that the calf Aaron offered up (Leviticus 9,11) as well as the second bull of the Levites (Ezra 6,17) and the bull of which Ezekiel speaks concerning the future in Ezekiel 45,22 which were all external sin offerings and whose flesh, and entrails were burned or will be burned outside the sacred compounds. Some commentators try and explain the reason why these sin offerings’ flesh had to be burned outside the sacred compound as due to the fact that they were Aaron’s personal offerings, and just as Aaron’s personal minchah offerings must be burned up completely, (Leviticus 6,15) the same applies to his other personal offerings. The purpose of these offerings was to sanctify the altar. Compare verse 36 in our chapter. This procedure could be completed only by means of blood. It appears that at the time of the consecration rites of the Tabernacle and the slaughtering of these animals there was not yet a functioning altar, so that these parts all had to be burned outside the camp.
+
+Verse 15
+
+
+
+Verse 16
+
+
+
+Verse 17
+
+
+
+Verse 18
+
+
+
+Verse 19
+
+
+
+Verse 20
+
+
+
+Verse 21
+
+ולקחת מן הדם אשר על המזבח, “you will take from the blood which is on the altar;” we do not find another example of this kind of sprinkling blood when the blood had to be gathered up after first having been deliberately sprinkled, except during these consecration rites for Aaron and his sons when he and his sons were symbolically being united to the altar through each being sprinkled with some of the blood of these sacrifices. And this sprinkling is a testimony and clear sign for all subsequent generations that only they and no strangers (i.e. non-Kohanim) are authorized to offer sacrifices on the altar.
+
+Verse 22
+
+ואת שוק הימין, “and the right thigh,” we do not again find an example of burning up the right thigh together with the entrails on any other occasion. The thigh of the ram of the consecration rights being treated in such a manner occurred only on the first day of the seven days of these rites. On the remaining six days not a single thigh was burned up on the altar. This is what Rashi explains when he writes in this connection that the right thigh was intended to be a portion for the officiating priest to eat, (during the other six days of these consecration rights) the offering being understood as a “peaceoffering” [the very word שלמים being understood as “perfection, according to Rashi. Ed.] ”
+כי איל מלואים הוא, “for this is a ram of ordination or consecration.” Through its being presented on the altar, these men, Aaron and his sons, became consecrated as priests.
+
+Verse 23
+
+
+
+Verse 24
+
+ושמת הכול על כפי אהרן ועל כפי בניו, “you are to place all of it on the palms of Aaron and the palms of his sons.” 
+
+Verse 25
+
+You, Moses, will then accept it from them, like a person who accepts a gift and says: “this I offer as a sacrifice before the king,” whereupon the king’s servant (the altar) accepts it on the king’s behalf.
+
+Verse 26
+
+אשר לאהרן, “which was Aaron’s;” at this point Aaron’s sons are not mentioned, as he was the principal figure. 
+
+Verse 27
+
+The expressions: תנופה and תרומה, are basically the same but the breast is called תנופה, elevation, which had been heaved, and subsequently eaten by Aaron, whereas the thigh was burned up on the altar. Subsequently both would be eaten by the priests.
+
+Verse 28
+
+
+
+Verse 29
+
+
+
+Verse 30
+
+
+
+Verse 31
+
+
+
+Verse 32
+
+
+
+Verse 33
+
+אשר כופר בהם, “wherewith atonement was made for them;” this verse has at least one word missing, and its meaning is as if the Torah had written: אשר כופר להם בהם, “by means of which the sin of the golden calf had been forgiven them.”
+
+Verse 34
+
+
+
+Verse 35
+
+
+
+Verse 36
+
+על הכפרים, “in addition to the other offerings for atonement;” the two rams that were offered for atonement.”
+
+Verse 37
+
+קדש קדשים, “most holy.” Actually, the correct translation would be: “holy just like the other holy things.”
+כל הנוגע במזבח, “whatsoever touches the altar;” anyone wishing to touch the altar must first undergo purification rites. This is also what is written in Exodus 30,20: או בגשתם אל המזבח וגו', “or when they approach the altar, etc.” This is similar to Exodus 19,22: וגם הכהנים הנגשים יתקדשו, “and also the priests who come near have to sanctify themselves;”
+
+Verse 38
+
+וזה אשי תעשה, “and this is what you shall do:” Moses will observe seven days of consecration followed by Aaron and his sons observing their own days of consecration. (Ibn Ezra) This is a pattern for all future generations. [I confess not to understand this, as once priests were born to the priesthood, what purpose would consecration serve, and which ritual do we call consecration of seven days nowadays? Ed.]
+
+Verse 39
+
+
+
+Verse 40
+
+
+
+Verse 41
+
+
+
+Verse 42
+
+עולת תמיד לדורותיכם, a daily recurring communal burnt offering throughout your generations.” This offering would be instituted daily after the Israelites had crossed the Jordan. Even though this has not been spelled out clearly, reason dictates that it was not an offering presented only in the desert or even only at the bottom of Mount Sinai. If it had been a one time offering, how would we understand the line: עולת תמיד העשויה בהר סיני, “the continual burnt offering offered at Mount Sinai?”We also have the statement by the prophet Amos in Amos 5,25: הזבחים ומנחה הגשתם לי במדבר ארבעים שנה בית ישראל, “the meat offerings and gift offering that you offered for Me for the forty years in the desert, house of Israel?” Where would the Israelites in the desert have taken the wine, oil, finely ground wheat flour, and all the four legged animals from while they had been in the desert, until the fortieth year completely apart from the people surrounding them? There were so many communal offerings on the Sabbaths, New Moons, festivals, in addition to the daily offerings! If you were to point to Moses telling Pharaoh that the Israelites were going to take all their livestock with them on their going to the desert for three days to offer sacrifices to their G-d (Exodus 10,9) or when they complained about their livestock being thirsty, this was in the fortieth year after they had conquered the lands of Sichon and Og, and had captured a huge amount of livestock, which prompted Gad and Reuven to request to settle in that region permanently. Where would they have taken all these beasts from during the preceding 38 years? There certainly was no grass in the desert to have fed them!
+
+Verse 43
+
+ ונקדש בכבודי, “and it will be sanctified by My Presence.” This is what Moses had said to the people in Leviticus 9,6: “and the glory of the Lord will appear to you!”
+
+Verse 44
+
+
+
+Verse 45
+
+ושכנתי בתוך בני ישראל, “I shall dwell among the Children of Israel.” The reference is to the time when the flags would be erected, they being equivalent to a dividing fence between the camp of the Israelites and the camp of the Levites, and the camp of the Levites and the compound of the Tabernacle.
+
+Verse 46
+
+וידעו כי אני' ה, “and they will know that I am the Lord.” They will know that the reason I have taken them out of Egypt was for this, that they construct a residence for Me on earth. This was what G-d had meant when he told Moses at the burning bush (Exodus 3,12) תעבדון את האלוקים על ההר הזה, “you will serve G-d on this Mountain.”
+
+Chapter 30
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+ועשית מזבח מקטר קטורת, “you will make an altar for burning incense;”Up until now he had only heard about the altar on which burnt offerings, etc. were to be offered up. The reason was that G-d wished to tell Moses that on that altar unauthorized incense must not be offered, nor any libations or gift offerings. Moses had alluded to this altar after describing making of the candlestick (35,14) when prohibiting the offering of “alien” incense on it, and again in 35,14, when the construction of this altar is discussed. It is mentioned again in verse 8 of our chapter after the time for lighting the lamps on the candlestick has been given. This was necessary as the lamps on the candlestick were also permitted to be lit by an ordinary priest. This is clear from 27,21, which refers to both Aaron and his sons.
+
+Verse 2
+
+
+
+Verse 3
+
+זר זהב סביב, a golden crownlike rim all around it. This was meant to shield the thickness of the gold-covered roof on top of the altar in every direction.
+
+Verse 4
+
+לשאת אותו בהמה, the Levites carrying these furnishings would walk one behind another to carry it on either side of it.
+
+Verse 5
+
+
+
+Verse 6
+
+לפני הפרכת, “in front of the curtain that covers the Ark.” In other words, in the middle of the Sanctuary.
+
+Verse 7
+
+והקטיר עליו אהרן, “and Aaron would burn incense on it;” here Aaron, i.e. the High Priest is meant in his capacity as High Priest. Other priests were also allowed to burn incense on the golden altar; [in fact the honour was highly prized, and was distributed by means of a lottery. Ed.]
+
+Verse 8
+
+קטרת תמיד, “a regular incense offering, at the time when other offerings were also being presented. This is why the Torah adds the words: לדורותיכם, “throughout your generations.”
+
+Verse 9
+
+קטרת זרה, “alien incense;” any incense which is not paid for by the congregation as a whole, even if paid for out of the High Priest’s personal funds, was prohibited. This was one of the sins committed by Nadav and Avihu, Aaron’s sons, each of whom had taken his own personal pan and offered incense paid for out of their own pockets. This is (one of the reasons) why they were so harshly punished. An alternate explanation: “alien incense,” is any incense that does not exactly correspond to the instructions given in the Torah concerning of which spices and how much of each it was to consist.
+
+Verse 10
+
+וכפר אהרן על קרנותיו אחת בשנה, “and Aaron is to perform atonement rites once a year on its horns (corners); this does not mean that no blood is to be sprinkled on the horns of this altar except once a year; after all the Torah wrote (Leviticus 4,7) that if the High priest has committed an inadvertent sin that he must atone for this by means of the blood of a bull, by sprinkling some of it on the horns of this altar, and the same procedure is also decreed to be performed in another instance mentioned in Leviticus 4,18,; but in our verse the Torah refers to the Day of Atonement when the High Priest performs all the rites pertaining to atonement for the entire nation, after having first made sure that his own sins and those of his family had been atoned for. This ritual had to be performed every year on the same day, whereas the other two rituals we cited may not have been called for many years.
+
+Verse 11
+
+
+
+Verse 12
+
+כי תשא, “when you count,” in the second year; this has been spelled out in Numbers 1,1, i.e. בשנה השנית; it says there: שאו את ראש כל עדת בני ישראל, “count the sum total of the entire community of the Children of Israel; The expression of כי תשא, i.e. “when you count,” clearly refers to a point in the future. On the other hand, the command שאו, clearly is a command to be carried out forthwith. This portion was told to Moses on the first day of the month of Adar, i.e. the last month of the first year of the Exodus, in order to inform the people that the money, (shekalim) for the communal offerings in the Tabernacle had become due at that time. The service in the Tabernacle began on the first day of Nissan of the second year, i.e. a month after this command had been issued. It is clear that the work of building the Tabernacle must have been completed already by that time. ונתנו איש כופר נפשו, “they are each to give his personal ransom for his soul;” the communal offerings were meant as atonement for the people, as Rashi has explained on verse 15. The words ונתת אותו על עבודת אהל מועד, “you shall assign it (the proceeds) for the service in the Tent of Meeting,” is clear evidence of what these shekalim were to be used for. ולא יהיה בהם נגף בפקוד אותם, “so that there will not occur a plague among them due to the manner in which they are being counted in the second year.” They had already paid the ransom for their souls. This assurance has been given here, seeing that when David took a census of the Jewish people a plague broke out and 70000 of them died as a result of that plague as punishment for an unauthorized census. (Compare Samuel II 116) Furthermore, our sages (Baba Metzia folio 42), state that blessings never accompany matters which are subject to counting, measuring or weighing. In light of this, the Torah here assures us that this census will not have any negative fallout, seeing that the atonement which accompanies this census neutralises any negative fallout accompanied with taking a census. You will not become victimized before your enemies, בפקוד אותם “when you count them prior to going into battle.”
+
+Verse 13
+
+כל העובר על הפקודים, “everyone that passes as recorded in the census, etc.;” at the time when the census took place, the individuals being counted had to pass through a door leading outside. (Bechor shor)
+מחצית השקל, the “half” shekel provided atonement for the sin they committed by dancing around the golden calf at midday. (Daat Zekeynim)
+
+Verse 14
+
+מבן עשרים שנה ומעלה, “from twenty years and up;” anyone under that ages is not subject to punishment at the hands of heaven, though on earth he is punishable from the age of 13, or 12 in the case of girls. Therefore the people younger than twenty did not need to obtain their forgiveness by means of this ransom payment. The total amount raised by this census amounted to one talent of silver. How do we arrive at that amount? Most people do not live for more than seventy years. The first twenty years they do not need atonement as their sins have not been registered in the celestial ledger. This leaves 50 years during which they may need atonement by means of the holy half shekel which is equivalent to a secular shekel. When you multiply this by 600000, the number of able bodied soldiers amongst the Israelites you get 300000 holy shekels per year, or 100 talents of silver per year. (1 talent is equal to 3000 holy shekels. Seeing that the wicked Haman was familiar with this, he offered the king ten thousand talents of silver to compensate for the king’s loss of taxes from the Jews. 600000 Jews giving 1/2 holy shekels for 50 years would amount to 100000 talents of silver.)
+
+Verse 15
+
+העשיר לא ירבה, “a wealthy person must not contribute in excess of this,” for if the Torah were to allow the wealthy to contribute more and the poor to contribute less than a half holy shekel each, how would the total number of those counted in the census be known and furthermore how could each of them attain the same level of atonement?
+לכפר על נפשותיכם, “to obtain atonement for yours sins.” The sin being that they had made it necessary for G-d to take a census of them as a result of the sin of the golden calf, [and in order to count the victims as absentees. Moreover, how would we know the total number of shekels that had been raised by these contributions, and how could we have been sure there were enough to construct the sockets of the Tabernacle from them? Ed.] From the wording of the Torah it is clear that atonement was even more important than the actual census.
+
+Verse 16
+
+את כסף הכפירים, “the money for the atonement;” it is now called “money of atonement,” as the Torah had introduced it as becoming such in verses 12 and 15. The reason why the paragraph of the census appears here is because the Torah had spoken of the once a year atonement in connection with Aaron’s offering blood for atonement once a year on the horns of the golden altar. (30,10) This money for atonement is only collected once a year. The Torah now continues with the instructions for the laver and its supporting stand, from which the priests and Levites will have to wash their hands and feet as required on different occasions, as well as the paragraphs about the ingredients making up the oil for anointing and the spices for the daily incense offering. The chief architect supervising a team of skilled people was Betzalel, and his second in command, Oholiov. The Torah repeats that the work prohibitions of the Sabbath override the need to complete the Tabernacle as soon as possible. This is followed by Moses’ prayer on behalf of the people when informed by G-d that they had become guilty of idolatry during his absence. The Torah had to briefly relate to us what had occurred during Moses stay on the Mountain, else how did Moses know what to pray for and why? Moses experienced glory when G-d spoke to him “face to face,” although this is not to be understood literally, of course, seeing that G-d went out of His way to explain to him that mortal beings cannot experience a visual revelation. He was given an opportunity to supply G-d with a second set of Tablets upon which to engrave the Ten Commandments which G-d had engraved on the first set of Tablets which consisted of celestial raw material. Moses’ return to the people was crowned by the fact that his face radiated so much holiness that he had to cover his forehead with a cloth so as not to frighten the people away.
+לבני ישראל לזכרון, “as a reminder for the Children of Israel.” Seeing that every Israelite has contributed to the making of the Tabernacle, it follows that every time I remember the Tabernacle, I will remember them.
+לכפר על נפשותיכם, “to atone for your souls.” Some commentators claim that as long as the silver from this contribution remained in existence, there was no need to make another such contribution when a census would be taken. This is why no mention is made of a further contribution when the Israelites were counted once more in the 40th year after the debacle at Shittim, and Pinchas’ slaying the prince of Shimon, Zimri. (Numbers 25,13) By the time another census was taken some 400 years later in the time of David, this silver even if it still existed, could no longer be identified and therefore the soldiers who had been counted in that census were punished by a plague.
+
+Verse 17
+
+
+
+Verse 18
+
+ועשית כיור, “you are to make a laver;” the reason why this vessel has not been mentioned earlier when the furnishings of the Tabernacle have been listed, is that the function of the laver was only as something preparatory for the performance of a commandment, not a commandment itself.
+The copper laver and its stand were not equipped with staves by means of which to carry them, but they were transported on the wagons as were the planks of the Tabernacle.
+בין אהל מועד ובין המזבח, “between the Tent of Meeting and between the altar, outside the Sanctuary, so that the priests could enter after having purified themselves.
+
+Verse 19
+
+ורחצו ממנו, they are to wash themselves from its waters, while standing at the outside of the laver, not within it (like in a mikveh).
+
+Verse 20
+
+ירחצו מים, “they shall wash with water;” this has been repeated as they had to wash themselves both before going in or even when approaching the golden altar to offer incense.
+
+Verse 21
+
+ורחצו ידיהם, ‘they are to wash their hands;” this has also been repeated to stress that this was a law for all future generations.
+
+Verse 22
+
+
+
+Verse 23
+
+בשמים ראש, “choice spices;” the expression ראש, usually translated as “head,” is linguistically related to חשבון, an account, itself related to חשוב, important, significant. It has been used at the beginning of our portion i.e. כי תשא את ראש בני ישראל, “when you count, i.e. elevate the sum total of the Children of Israel.” Each person counted individually, attains a higher social rank merely by his name being recorded. Seeing that previously the Torah had only summarised the oil for anointing in chapters 28 and 29 without informing us of the ingredients making up this oil, it now gives us the relevant details including the quantities to be used of each in the mixture.
+בשמים, “spices,” these are fragrances growing on trees, or roots, as we know from Song of Songs 4,16: הפיחי גני יזלו בשמיו, “that its perfume may spread throughout my garden.” סמים, by contrast, are a kind of resin, as opposed to roots, which drip from the trunks of the trees.
+
+Verse 24
+
+
+
+Verse 25
+
+מעשה רקח, “compounded by a perfumer;” a concoction recognisable immediately as being the work of an expert in his field, something impossible to have been manufactured by a layman.
+
+Verse 26
+
+
+
+Verse 27
+
+
+
+Verse 28
+
+
+
+Verse 29
+
+וקדשת אותם, “you shall sanctify them;” by means of anointing them with these fragrances.
+והיו קדש קדשים, “so that they will be most holy.” They will be just as holy as the furnishings inside the Sanctuary.”
+כל הנוגע בהם יקדש, “any fit person or object coming into direct contact with them will become ‘holy,’ (in the sense of out of bounds, no longer may be used for secular purposes.)”If such a person wished to touch these vessels, provided he was basically permitted to be in the compound where they stood, he would first have to sanctify himself by washing himself with the waters from the laver. We have a similar expression in Exodus 19,22: 'הכהנים הנגשים אל היתקדשו, “the priests who wished to come closer to Hashem shall first sanctify themselves.”
+
+Verse 30
+
+
+
+Verse 31
+
+יהיה זה לי, “this shall be for Me;” this is why I have said: ‘“he shall sanctify himself before coming into direct contact with it.”
+
+Verse 32
+
+לא ייסך, “it shall not be poured;” an unusual formulation, meaning the same as if it had been spelled לא יוסך. We encounter a similar pattern in Genesis 50,26 in connection with Joseph’s temporary burial in Egypt, where the Torah reports that his remains were preserved in a casket, by writing: ויישם בארון במצרים, “he was placed in a casket in Egypt,” instead of writing: ויושם.
+
+Verse 33
+
+
+
+Verse 34
+
+קח לך סמים, “take for yourself a variety of resins;” (alternate translation: sweet incense, presumably because how can one beat sticky resin?)” the latter varieties were not included in this list. [There are contradictory opinions regarding the list given here and that in verses 22-24, and their uses. Seeing we have no eyewitnesses of what was used when, I will not detail them except to point out that the group in verses 22-24 were described as בשמים, and the group mentioned here were all summed up under the heading סמים. Ed.]
+בד בבד, “each kind was to be of equal weight to its counterpart.” It would undergo individual treatment by the perfumer and afterwards they would be mixed together.
+
+Verse 35
+
+ממולח, “seasoned with salt;” compare Ezekiel 16,4: והמלח לא הומלחת, “and you had not been rubbed with salt.” Compare also Ezra 4,14: די מלח היכלא מלחנא, “seeing that we have eaten from the salt of the palace, etc.” [i.e. the king has fed us generously. Ed.]
+
+Verse 36
+
+ושחקת ממנו הדק, “you shall beat some of it into powder;” this was necessary in order to fulfill what is written about the incense offering on the Day of Atonement in Leviticus 16,12: קטורת סמים דקה, “incense consisting of sweet incense beaten small;”
+
+Verse 37
+
+
+
+Verse 38
+
+
+
+Chapter 31
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+
+
+Verse 2
+
+בצלאל בו אורי בן חור, “Betzalel, son of Uri, son of Chur;” Betzalel’s ancestry is given for 3 generations, whereas that of his assistant Oholiov is only traced to his father. The reason is that Betzalel’s grandfather had become a martyr during the episode of the golden calf, when he tried to prevent the people from dancing around the golden calf. Seeing that the building of the Tabernacle was primarily in order to facilitate atonement for the sin of the golden calf, it is appropriate that the Torah mentions Chur’s name in this connection.
+
+Verse 3
+
+
+
+Verse 4
+
+
+
+Verse 5
+
+
+
+Verse 6
+
+
+
+Verse 7
+
+
+
+Verse 8
+
+ואת המנורה הטהורה, “and the candlestick, the pure one;” none of the other furnishings of the Tabernacle have had the adjective; “the pure one” added to it, except the candlestick and the table in Leviticus 24,6. The reason is that neither the table nor the candlestick ever had blood sprinkled on them.
+
+Verse 9
+
+
+
+Verse 10
+
+ואת בגדי השרד, “and the service vestments.” The word שרד is reminiscent of פליט ושריד in Jeremiah 44,14, where it refers to remnants of escapees after the destruction of the Temple. Here too, the expression is referring to excess materials used for weaving of the carpets forming the inner ceiling of the Tabernacle, and the priestly garments, as well as the curtain at the entrance of the Tabernacle and the dividing curtain between the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies. From these remnants the covers for the furnishings of the Tabernacle while it was in transit were constructed. These covers were alluded to by the same expression in Exodus 39,41.
+
+Verse 11
+
+ואת קטורת הסמים לקדש, “and the incense of sweet spices for the holy place;” i.e. for use in the holy places.
+
+Verse 12
+
+
+
+Verse 13
+
+אך את שבתותי תשמורו , “but you must observe My Sabbath days;” the reason why the Torah repeats this instruction was to tell us that this applies not only during the period when the Tabernacle was being constructed, but for all future generations. This is the origin of which type of work is forbidden to be performed on the Sabbath. Any type of work which was performed during the construction of the Tabernacle, i.e. was required to be performed in the construction of the Tabernacle or service in the Tabernacle, was henceforth forbidden to be performed on the Sabbath.
+כי אות היא ביני וביניכם, “for it is a sign between you and Me for generations.” By the use of the word: וביניכם, the Torah emphasizes that it is only between G-d and the Jewish people that such a relationship exists. It is only the Jews who use the Sabbath to rest on it as G-d rested on it after having completed creating the universe. When you rest on the Sabbath like I did, then all the world will know that you are My people.
+
+Verse 14
+
+ושמרתם את השבת, “you must observe the Sabbath;” the reason that this has been repeated is to warn that anyone desecrating the Sabbath purposely and publicly, will be executed. If he does so secretly, he will be cut off from membership in the Jewish people and its eternal future by an act of G-d. Seeing that the penalty has already been spelled out, the warning not to become guilty of this sin and its penalty has to be spelled out also; hence the Torah writes not only: מחלליה מות יומת, but also: כל העושה בו מלאכה מות יומת, “anyone performing forbidden activities on it will be executed.” It does not matter whether such forbidden activity is carried out by day or by night. This is made clear by the repetition of ויום השביעי קודש, “the entire seventh day is holy.”
+
+Verse 15
+
+ששת ימים יעשה מלאכה, “during six days work may be performed.” This verse refers to work being performed if you so desire; another verse says ששת ימים תעבוד, “during six days you are to perform the kind of work which is normally felt as something burdensome.” (Exodus 35,2) The reason why the Torah writes both formulations is to tell us that when we observe the Torah, others may perform this kind of labour on our behalf; if we do not observe the Torah, such as “benefiting” by an extra day of work, we will experience all seven days as days when we have to perform demeaning work. The repetition of the instruction was necessary on account of the penalty of מות ימות, “he will be executed,” having been written twice.
+
+Verse 16
+
+ושמרו בני ישראל, “The Children of Israel shall observe, etc,;” they shall have in mind the next Sabbath during the six working days, looking forward to it, and to prepare for it in order not to need to desecrate it when it comes. This expression was mentioned earlier in v. 14; it is repeated here on account of it having to match the expression ברית עולם, “an everlasting covenant.”
+
+Verse 17
+
+
+
+Verse 18
+
+ככלותו לדבר אתו, “when He had concluded speaking with him;” just before dawn on the seventeenth.
+לוחות אבן, “Tablets of stone.” This word is used as meaning that the raw material that these Tablets were made of was indestructible, i.e. not subject to disintegration by natural wear and tear. An alternate interpretation: the word was used as a hint that most capital offences when committed deliberately are subject to the penalty of death by stoning.”[Seeing that the Tablets had been made in the celestial regions, the word “stone” had to be used as we are not familiar with the raw material used, and since Moses smashed them, no one even ever saw the Tablets. Ed.]
+
+Chapter 32
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+
+ויקהל העם, “the people assembled;” whenever the expression ויקהל appears and is followed by the word: על, it means: “against,” i.e. it is the Torah’s way of condemning such an assembly. On the other hand, if the word following the word ויקהל, either in the singular or the plural mode is followed by the word אל, this signifies a positive development. Compare Kings I 8,2 where the people assembled around King Solomon to watch the Holy Ark being transported to the newly erected Temple. ויאמרו אליו קום עשה לנו אלוהים, “they said to him (Aaron) arise and make a visual image of G-d!” According to the plain meaning of the text there can be no question that Aaron had no intention to allow the people to revert to idolatry, G-d forbid, or somehow to replace Hashem or His prophet. Moses, while on earth, had frequently been referred to as elohim, either when compared to the creature issuing commands in the name of Hashem to Pharaoh, or as communicating G-d’s law to the people. If Aaron had intended to make an idol, Moses would have had to execute him as a false prophet! Not only that, but how could that “false” prophet subsequently have been appointed as the foremost instrument of securing Israel’s atonement?! Moreover, how could he have become the first priest and all his male offspring became the priests of the whole people? Not only that; We did not find that the Torah charged Aaron with any sin until the events at מי מריבה where Aaron did not stop Moses from striking the rock to produce water. There is not a single sage that ever suggested that G-d would appoint as a prophet someone who would eventually revert to idolatry. There can therefore be no question that what the people demanded of Aaron was not a return to idolatry. The problem had been that Moses had not announced by what date he would return from the Mountain. The reason that he did not do so was simply that he himself had not known when he would return. G-d had told him that He would give him the Tablets, but had not said when. When the people noticed that Moses took an inordinately long time, far longer than a normal person can go without food or drink, they worried that he might have died, in fact they were convinced that he had. They therefore requested from Aaron that he make for them a replacement whose function would be similar to what had been Moses’ function vis a vis Pharaoh, i.e. elohim. The Torah even spelled out what the assembled people had in mind, i.e. כי זה משה האיש אשר העלנו מארץ מצרים לא ידענו מה היה לו, “for this man Moses, who took us out of Egypt, we do not know what has happened to him.” In other words: they wanted to replace the Moses the man, not the deity, or semideity. When David in Psalms 106,20 is quoted as having referred to that episode with the words: וימירו את כבודם בתבנית שור אוכל עשב, “they traded their glory for the image of a bull that feeds on grass,” the people had referred to Moses, not to G-d. G-d had performed so many miracles which had been orchestrated by Moses, that they had been quite prepared to prostrate themselves before such a leader. An alternate interpretation: the people asked for a creature that Hashem would use to imbue with His glory, [similar to how He spoke from between the cherubs on the lid of the Holy Ark, the cherubs and their faces of innocent children not being so much different from the golden calf, the principal difference being that no one ever got to see them. Ed.]
+אשר ילכו לפנינו, “who shall go before us;” in using the plural mode they mistakenly made Aaron a partner of G-d, assuming that he was as experienced in performing miracles as had been Moses, and remembering that Aaron had actually orchestrated a number of the miracles involving the ten plagues.
+כי זה משה האיש, “for Moses, this man, etc.;” from the manner in which they referred to Moses with the pronoun “this,” although “HE” was not present, we can form an idea of the urgency haste and confused thinking that dominated the people’s mind at that time. We find the word זה used in inappropriate situations on numerous occasions, such as in Kohelet, 7,27, where the author refers to something intangible when he says: ראה זה מצאתי, “see this is what I found, etc.”
+
+Verse 2
+
+פרקו נזמי זהב, “take off the golden rings, etc.” it is clear from the fact that Aaron asked the men to take the jewelry of their wives, that his intentions were perfectly pure. He thought that if he were to suggest anyone of the leaders of the people to take the place of Moses, such a person would not be willing to give up his promotion on the following day when Moses would return and this would result in dissension and possible civil war amongst the people. On the other hand, if he were not to appear to comply with the people’s wishes by doing nothing, they would choose someone, which would lead to immediate dissension among the people. If he were to suggest that he himself would take over Moses’ position, Moses would find this difficult to accept on his return. He therefore decided to play for time, so that no action would be taken pending Moses’ return on the next day, which is what he expected. The problem would therefore resolve itself without any revolutionary changes having been taken. By suggesting that these people bring him the jewelry of their wives, he thought he would gain enough time, as suggested by Rashi. (Rashi suggested that he was sure the women would not be willing to part with their jewelry for such a purpose as making an inanimate object a replacement for Moses.)
+
+Verse 3
+
+
+
+Verse 4
+
+ויצר אותו, “he shaped it,” the expression יצר, used by the Torah here to describe what Aaron did with the golden jewelry he had received, is based on the word: צרר, “to make a bundle of something, to treat it indiscriminately, or to compress it.” The author uses Proverbs 7,20 and Kings II 5,23 as parallels and bases himself on the commentary of Rash’bam.
+ויעשהו, “he made it into the shape of a calf.” He did not select a different creature, seeing that the mixed multitude that had joined the Jewish bandwagon at the Exodus had been the first to gang up on him, demanding a replacement for Moses. They had heard Moses sing after the splitting of the sea: זה אלי ואנוהו, “this is My G-d and I will enshrine Him!” They had only seen the feet of the angels surrounding G-d’s throne, feet which looked like the feet of a calf. They had mistakenly assumed that what they had seen were the footprints of G-d which had the appearance of calves’ feet. This is also why the psalmist in Psalms 77,20 writes: “Your way was through the sea, Your path through the mighty waters; Your tracks could be seen.” They had mistaken the footprints of the angels for the footprints of G-d Himself.
+ויאמרו אלה אלוהיך ישראל, they said: “these are your gods o Israel;” is it conceivable that these fellow travelers were so foolish as to credit a newly cast golden calf as having orchestrated the Exodus which had occurred 3 months before that calf had been cast in gold? The sorcerers among the mixed multitude were able to create the illusion that some deity is speaking from their mouth. They now created the illusion that this calf had addressed them from its mouth, and that it was far superior to any Egyptian deity as it was made of pure gold, so that what came forth from such a mouth must be sacred. The fact that they did not say: “these are our gods who have taken us out of Egypt, is evidence that the Israelites had never become guilty of worshipping the calf with words such as these. Nonetheless, the whole people at this point were being tested by G-d as to their sincere belief in a G-d Who is and remains unseen and devoid of tangible dimensions. In the Book of Deuteronomy, 40 years later, Moses still warns the people of such tests by G-d when he refers to prophets who try to legitimize themselves by working miracles and predicting matters which will come true though no one else had even dreamt of such things. (Deut. 13,26)
+
+Verse 5
+
+וירא אהרן, “Aaron saw;” Aaron now realised the error the people had made and became afraid that as soon as they would realise that this golden calf could never be of any help to them, so that they would insist on appointing one of their midst as Moses’ successor; this spelled potential disaster. Therefore he proceeded to build an altar, ostensibly before that calf, in order to make the people believe that he was taking steps to worship the golden calf.
+חג לה' מחר, “there will be a feast for Hashem tomorrow!” He meant that on the following day they would celebrate the new leader that G-d had given them. In the meantime, he stalled the people with words.
+
+Verse 6
+
+וישכימו ממחרת, “They arose prematurely early on the following day;” the date was the seventeenth of Tammuz.
+ויעלו עולות, “they offered burnt offerings.” These burnt offerings were offered quite innocently in honour of Hashem. [We find something similar in Samuel I 11,15, on the occasion of the first Jewish King, King Shaul being crowned at Gilgal, though at that time the offerings were meat offerings most of which could be eaten by the people present at the celebration. Ed.]
+
+Verse 7
+
+אשר העלית, “whom you (Moses, not G-d) have brought out of Egypt.” The vowel pattern of this word is slightly different from the vowel pattern of the same word in 33,1, so that the reading is slightly different too. The author does not offer a reason for the difference;[perhaps he means to suggest that the העם referred to in 33,1 are the true Israelites for whom the Exodus was a moral ethical elevation, whereas the העם that Moses had taken out of Egypt without consulting G-d had become a spiritual burden, instead. Ed.]
+
+Verse 8
+
+סרו מהר, “they deviated quickly, etc.” they already elected a new leader for themselves instead of you whom I had appointed to be their leader. Not only that, but they also made a molten calf for themselves, contravening My command not to make themselves any cast images. My commandment included the prohibition to make such a cast image even if it was intended to symbolize Me. Although they had no idolatrous intention with what they did, they contravened My commandment.
+
+Verse 9
+
+
+
+Verse 10
+
+הניחה לי, “Let Me be;” Hashem used this mild form of rebuke, out of respect for Moses. He meant that the fact that the people had chosen an unfit replacement instead of Moses, this alone was enough to punish them severely.
+
+Verse 11
+
+ויחל משה, “Moses began to pacify;” according to some commentators the prayer alluded to here is the one spelled out in greater in Deuteronomy 9,25, where Moses adds that he threw himself on the ground in prayer for forty days, etc.; this actually happened after he had already descended from the Mountain, smashed the Tablets, made gold dust out of the golden calf, had the Levites execute the ones who actively worshipped the calf and danced around it, and had purified the people by making them drink water containing ash of the golden calf. These commentators consider it unbelievable that Moses had the nerve to ask for forgiveness of the people before the latter had done their part in making penance for their grievous error. Those were the forty days during which G-d had told Moses that He would not be the One leading them up to the Promised Land. (verses 3133). When hearing this, Moses had responded with reminding G-d of His promise, commencing with Deuteronomy 33,12. According to our author, Moses did not ascend the Mountain during these 40 days, for how could he have done so without first having obtained permission to do so? At the end of those intermediate 40 days, when G-d had indicated that he had reconciled Himself to the people, He said to him: “carve yourself a second set of Tablets, etc.” and had asked him to ascend the Mountain again. (Exodus 34,1) When Moses ascended again (34,4) he remained on the Mountain and did not descend until the tenth day of Tishrey.
+למה ה׳ יחרה אפך בעמך, “What for, o Lord, are You becoming angry, etc.?” Moses’ reasoning was that it did not seem reasonable after all the time and effort G-d had invested in bringing this people to the spiritual level they had achieved at the time of the revelation, that all this should be wiped out in one moment, as if it were completely irretrievable? He added, that the Egyptians would have the last laugh after all, when they would hear of the annihilation of G-d’s people. He also asked what would become of G-d’s oath to the patriarchs.
+
+Verse 12
+
+
+
+Verse 13
+
+
+
+Verse 14
+
+
+
+Verse 15
+
+ויפן וירד משה וגו, “Moses turned around and descended, etc.;” all this occurred in order, on the 17th day of Tammuz up until verse 29: לתת עליכם היום ברכה, “to bestow a blessing upon you this day.”
+ושני לוחות העדות בידו, “with the two Tablets of testimony in his hand.” Even though Moses already planned to smash these Tablets, he carried them all the way down from the Mountain so that G-d should not have to look at His handiwork having been smashed by Moses seeing that its inscription commenced with: “I am the Lord your G-d Who has taken you out of Egypt, followed by the commandment not to have alien deities, etc.” This would have been too upsetting a reminder of the people’s disloyalty.
+משני עבריהם, “the letters were hollowed out from one side to the other, thus making the Tablets easier to smash.” (This is why this detail is added at this particular point.)
+
+Verse 16
+
+והלוחות מעשה אלוקים המה, “the raw material that the Tablets consisted of was of Divine manufacture.” This is pointed out here in order to impress the reader of the magnitude of losing such a gift made by G-d’s own hands.
+
+Verse 17
+
+
+
+Verse 18
+
+
+
+Verse 19
+
+ומחולות , “and the dancing;” we know this word as meaning: “dancing,” from Psalms 150,4: הללוהו בתוף ומחול, “praise Him with the drum and dance.”
+וישלך מידיו, “he hurled from his hands;” Moses’ physical strength left him when he saw with his own eyes the golden calf, and he was no longer able to hold on to the Tablets, and threw them a short distance from where he stood, just far enough so that they would not hurt his feet by falling on them.
+וישבר אותם תחת ההר, “he shattered them at the foot of the Mountain.” He did so because the letter ט of the Hebrew alphabet did not appear on them even once. The reward for honouring father and mother, i.e. למען ייטב לך, “in order that you may fare well,” appears only on the second set of Tablets (Deuteronomy 5,16). Through the inclusion of these extra words, all of the letters of the Hebrew alphabet were represented on the second set of tablets.
+
+Verse 20
+
+וישרוף באש, “he burned it by fire.” There are materials, which when added to gold, immediately, also burn the gold, i.e. blacken it. Such gold never regains its original colour.
+וישק את בני ישראל, “he made the Children of Israel drink (from this mixture)”. According to the plain meaning of the text, Moses did not intend to make the people drink, but to scatter the gold so that it would cease to exist. When the people drank from the water that the gold had been scattered into, an onlooker would gain the impression that he had seen someone drinking gold. Proof that this is the correct interpretation is found in Deuteronomy 9,21: ואכות אותו טחון, “I broke it to bits and ground it until it was fine as dust;” at that point Moses does not mention a word about making the Israelites drink it.
+
+Verse 21
+
+
+
+Verse 22
+
+כי ברע הוא, “that they are bent on evil;” they have evil intentions; if I had not had made the calf for them they would have crowned a king for themselves and the final result would have been bitter for them. (Baaley Tossaphot)
+
+Verse 23
+
+
+
+Verse 24
+
+ויצא העגל הזה, “this calf emerged;” it came out complete. We find a similar wording in Proverbs 25,4: ויצא לצורף כסף, “and it emerged for the silversmith as a silver vessel.” Aaron threw into the crucible assorted pieces of golden jewelry, and what emerged from the crucible was a fully formed golden calf.
+
+Verse 25
+
+כי פרוע הוא, “that the people were completely out of control;” they had completely abandoned their Creator’s commandments. The root פרע here is used in a similar sense as when Pharaoh accused Moses and Aaron as making the people completely unruly by promising them a holiday from hard labour for three days. ?למה תפריעו את העם ממעשיו (Exodus 5,4)
+
+Verse 26
+
+ויאספו אליו כל בני לוי, “all the members of the tribe of Levi rallied around him.” According to the plain meaning of the text, the relatives of Moses, members of his tribe would not allow someone from another tribe to usurp Moses’ authority.
+
+Verse 27
+
+כה אמר, “thus has said the Lord, etc.;” where is G-d recorded as having said this? In Exodus 22,19: זובח לאלוהים יחרם, “whoever sacrifices to a god shall be proscribed.”
+
+Verse 28
+
+כשלשת אלפי איש, “approximately three thousand men.” According to the plain meaning of the text, these three thousand men intended that their conduct should be viewed as idolatrous. This is why they had to be executed, just as the inhabitants of the idolatrous town in Deuteronomy chapter 14 have to be executed and their belongings have to be burned. (Based on Daat Baaley Tossaphot)
+
+Verse 29
+
+מלאו ידכם היום, “dedicate yourselves today, etc.;” Moses tells these people that they had already proved their absolute loyalty to Hashem, as they had not hesitated to kill members of their own family if those had been amongst the three thousand men mentioned in the last verse. This is also how our author understands Targum Onkelos on our verse. The point is not to understand Moses as using the expression: מלאו ידכם, as being in the future tense.
+ולתת עליכם היום ברכה, “and thereby bring G-d’s blessing upon yourselves this day.” This verse is the reason why, in his parting address to the Jewish people in Deuteronomy 33,811, Moses singles out the tribe of Levi for a blessing although Yaakov, prior to his death had not done so. The reason that the tribe of Reuven received a blessing from Moses at that time, although that tribe too had not received a blessing from Yaakov, was that they had volunteered to be the vanguard of the army in the forthcoming battle with the Canaanites, having vowed not to rejoin their families on the east bank of the Jordan until all the other tribes had settled on their allotted territory. The tribe of Shimon, however, had neither received a blessing from Yaakov nor from Moses, due to their prince having cohabited provocatively with a Midianite princess, and because of the original Shimon’s part in the killing of all the males of the town of Sh’chem. An alternate explanation: “and to bestow a blessing on you this day!|” Moses says here what he referred to in Deuteronomy 10,8 when he said: בעת ההיא הבדיל ה׳ את שבטעד היום הזה הלוי לשאת את ארון ברית ה׳, “at that time Hashemseparated the tribe of Levi to become the bearers of the HolyArk......until this day.” The new task of the Levites becameoperational after the Tabernacle had been built and the Holy Ark had been transferred to there. From amongst the Levites, Aaron and his sons and their descendants were selected as replacing the duties which prior to the golden calf episode had been performed by the firstborn, who were the priests in each family where the firstborn was a son. They too became disqualified by having participated at the time at least passively in the dancing around the golden calf. According to tradition, they had even offered sacrifices on the altar Aaron had built. Part of Korach’s complaint was also that he should be qualified to offer sacrifices as he too was firstborn. (Our author has more to say about this in his commentary on Numbers 16,2.)
+
+Verse 30
+
+ויהי ממחרת, “it was on the following day, etc.” on the 18th day of Tammuz;
+
+Verse 31
+
+וישב משה אל ה׳, “Moses returned to the Presence of G-d;” on that very day, on the 18th of Tammuz.
+
+Verse 32
+
+מחני נא מספרך, “please erase my name from Your book;” this is not a reference to the Torah which had not yet been committed to writing. Moses refers to the “Book of life” in which every human being is inscribed on Rosh Hashanah if he was found deserving on the basis of his past record. This is based on the Talmud in tractate Rosh Hashanah folio 16, where the “book” is referred to as “the book of life,” in which the righteous are inscribed.
+
+Verse 33
+
+מי אשר חטא לי אמחנו מספרי, “I erase those that have sinned against me from My book;” This is the way I operate. However, I forego My right to erase your name from this book.”
+
+Verse 34
+
+ועתה לך נחה את העם , “and now, go and lead the people!” G-d is telling Moses to resume his vocation as the leader of his people.
+הנה מלאכי ילך לפניך, “My angel will walk ahead of you;” G-d refers to what he had told Moses already in Exodus 23,20: 'הנה אנכי שולח מלאך וגו, “here I am going to send an angel, etc.”
+וביום פקדי ופקדתי, “but when the day comes that I make an accounting, I will make an accounting;” G-d promises Moses that as long as the Israelites will not accumulate more sins He will not take any further action in respect of the sin of the golden calf. However if that day comes, He will add additional punishment for punishment so far withheld.
+
+Verse 35
+
+
+
+Chapter 33
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+לך עלה מזה, “go and set out from this place!” the reference in the word זה is the place where the sin of the golden calf had been committed. G-d is implying that at a different place He may be in a better position to exercise His right of forgiveness. The choice of the expression: עלה, “ascend,” indicated that anyone proceeding from the south in a northerly direction is automatically ascending.
+
+Verse 2
+
+
+
+Verse 3
+
+
+
+Verse 4
+
+ולא שתו איש עדיו עליו, “they did not adorn themselves with the jewelry and costly garments that they had taken with them from Egypt.”
+
+Verse 5
+
+הורד עדיך מעליך, “remove your jewelry from your persons!” this sounds strange as the Torah had already reported that the people had not put on their jewelry. They were told not to wear it, as it is more embarrassing to be denied the right to wear jewelry than to simply abstain from doing so from their own free will. In other words, by obeying G-d’s command to abstain or even remove the jewelry they had taken another small step in their moral rehabilitation.
+
+Verse 6
+
+
+
+Verse 7
+
+ומשה יקח, “Moses had taken, etc;” this has been written in the future tense as it relates to what he had done after bringing the second set of Tablets down from the Mountain.
+
+Verse 8
+
+והיה כצאת משה, “it would be that whenever Moses came out, etc.;” this describes Moses leaving the camp of the Israelites in order to return to his private residence (tent).'
+יקומו כל העם ונצבו, “all the people would rise and remain standing at attention, on account of the Presence of G-d’s shechinah, which they knew would descend to above Moses’ tent when he would arrive there.
+
+Verse 9
+
+
+
+Verse 10
+
+וקם כל העם וישתחוו, “and the entire nation would rise and prostrated themselves;” this describes what has been written in verse 8; seeing that these two verses were very long, the Torah decided to make sure the reader would not lose track of the subject. We find that the Torah used a similar method in Genesis 15,2, when it quotes Avraham asking G-d what possible enduring gift he could give him seeing that he had no biological heir. Avraham comes back to that subject in Genesis 15,3, “reminding” Him that he has no issue. We also find such a “reminder” when Yaakov and Lavan discuss his remuneration for looking after Lavan’s flocks in Genesis 30,27. There are numerous more examples of this type in the Bible.
+
+Verse 11
+
+פנים אל פנים, “literally: “face to face,” an obviously incorrect translation, seeing that G-d does not possess physical attributes; Our author takes it for granted that the reader is aware of this, and does not spell it out. He does, however, indulge in presenting the reader with another insoluble problem, that of that either G-d or Moses must have changed position in order to speak to one another as if on the same level. He therefore tells us, his readers, that he does not know if the expression means that G-d had raised Moses closer to His level, or vice versa, i.e. that G-d had descended to Moses’ level. He had done so in Exodus 34,5, after the third forty days after the revelation at the Mountain had expired, i.e. on the Day of Atonement.
+ושב אל המחנה, “and he would return to the camp.” In Exodus 18,13, on the words: ויהי ממחרת, Rashi comments that the first set of Tablets were smashed on the 17th of Tammuz, that on the 18th i.e. the day following he burned the calf and punished those who had worshipped it, and that on the 19th he ascended the Mountain again. The problem is that both in Deut. 9,18 and in Exodus 18,13 he says that Moses ascended again on the eighteenth. Different super commentaries on Rashi attempt, each one in his own way, to resolve this apparent contradiction.
+
+Verse 12
+
+ראה אתה אומר אלי, “See, You say to me:” the reason why we always read this section (33.12-34.26) on the Sabbath of the intermediate days of the festival of Passover and Sukkot, is because in this section the Sabbath is mentioned in the midst of the three pilgrimage festivals. And the passage (by mentioning that we must observe the seven days of the festival) also hints that work is prohibited on the Intermediate Days of the festivals. (Compare Talmud Chagigah folio 18a)
+
+ואתה לא הודעתני, “and You have not informed me, etc.;” in verse 5 G-d had said: “and I will know what I can do for you.” In the meantime G-d had not revealed to Moses how He would punish the surviving members of Jewish people for their share in the episode of the golden calf. More specifically, He had not revealed if He was going to send an angel to lead them, or if He were to do this Himself, personally.
+
+Verse 13
+
+הודיעני נא את דרכיך, “please instruct me in Your ways.” Moses wished G-d to instruct Him of His attributes. Once he had been instructed in those, he would be able to determine if he wished for the Jewish people to be led by one or more of G-d’ attributes or by is essence. (B’chor Shor)
+ואדעך, “so that I will know You more intimately and be able to cleave to You more closely;” As result, I will be able to find favour in Your eyes.
+וראה כי עמך הגוי הזה, “and consider that this nation is Your people.” And choose for them what is good for them.
+
+Verse 14
+
+והניחותי לך, “and I will give you rest.” I will go with you until the conquest and give you rest from all your enemies.” Moses had quoted G-d to this effect when discussing the commandment to wipe out Amalek utterly In Deuteronomy 25,19. (Rash’bam)
+
+Verse 15
+
+ויאמר אם אין פניך הולכים, “he said (Moses to G-d) unless Your essence will go etc;” This is a completion of verse 12.
+
+Verse 16
+
+
+
+Verse 17
+
+גם את ה��בר אשר דברת אעשה, “also the request you have made (now) I will fulfill;” “you have requested to take you into My confidence concerning My attributes, I will reveal them to you.” G-d did so by revealing the 13 attributes.
+
+Verse 18
+
+הראני נא את כבודך, “please give me visual access to Your Glory.” Moses asked for a visual appearance of G-d’s essence;
+
+Verse 19
+
+ויאמר אני אעביר את כל טובי על פניך, “I will let all My goodness pass before you (your eyes) [and identify each attribute of Mine. Ed.] This also is the completion of a subject G-d had already touched upon when He had said, (without specifying) in verse 17: (“I will also grant this wish of yours”). Concerning Moses’ plea to be granted a visual revelation of G-d’s essence, however, He told him that this wish could not be fulfilled as long as his soul was attached to a body; in other words, he would have to wait until after his death. When Moses first heard G-d say that He would not be able to make out G-d’s features, he thought that perhaps G-d thought that he was not sufficiently alert to different features. In order to make clear to Moses that this was not the issue, He immediately told him what He would show him, i.e. from a safe distance when what he would see could not harm him physically; He told him that there was a “place” not far from where His essence was from which he could safely watch if not G-d’s “face” but His “back,” i.e. the result of His having visited that place. G-d’s attributes are recognisable by means of His manifest intervention in His universe and the changes that this intervention will result in. [Some of these words are mine. Editor.] Some scholars interpret this verse differently; they do not understand Moses as having asked to actually “see” G-d with his physical eyes, and they remind us that this same Moses at the burning bush had reacted to a vision of the Divine by hiding his face in fear. (Exodus 3,6) They therefore understand Moses as asking for a visual symbol that his request had been granted. This would serve as a covenant between G-d and himself. As a result, these sages understand Moses’ request as follows: “please show me Your glory by means of concluding a covenant with me, confirming what I requested and Your willingness to grant that request.” G-d consented to doing this, as we know from His saying: “I will let all My goodness pass before your eyes;” this was followed by G-d saying in Exodus 34,10: הנה אנכי כורת ברית נגד כל עמך אעשה נפלאות וגו', “Here I am concluding a covenant with you by displaying miracles in the presence of all of your people, etc. (Rash’bam) אעביר, “I shall proclaim;” We find this root in a similar context in Exodus 36,6, ויעבירו קול במחנה, “they proclaimed loudly throughout the camp, etc.;”
+כל טובי, “all My goodness;” G-d refers to the fact that He will treat not only the righteous with a positive attribute, but even the wicked, [by rewarding them for any good they have done in this life before they die. Ed.] וקראתי בשם ה' לפניך, “I shall proclaim the name of the Tetragram in your presence;” Rashi explains this as follows: I will teach you in which order to formulate your prayers for appealing to My attribute of Mercy even if by that time the merit of the patriarchs may have been exhausted; the order in which you and your people will appeal to Me will be patterned on the order in which I am about to reveal to you, after wrapping Myself in My tallit, [to prevent you from having to endure a visual revelation of My essence Ed.] I will call out to you the 13 attributes which follow in 23,57. This “tallit ”of Hashem, is referred to again in 34,5, as well as in Job 38,9: בשומי ענן לבושו וערפל חתלתו, “when I clothed it in clouds, swaddled it in dense clouds.”
+וחנותי את אשר אחון, “I shall grant grace to those Whom I deem it fit to do so.” [G-d does not write a blank cheque for Moses, but reserves for Himself the right, when He deems it appropriate to answer negatively to a prayer, or to answer positively to the prayer of those whom His creatures consider as undeserving of His mercy. Ed.] According to our author, this phrase, sounding almost like a postscript, is to be understood as referring to Moses having said in verse 16: ונפלינו אני ועמך מכל העם, “so that we are distinguished, I and Your people when compared to any other nation.”
+
+Verse 20
+
+כי לא יראני האדם וחי, “for as long as a human being is alive, he cannot experience My essence visually.” According to Rabbi Shimon the Yemenite,” the definition of a human being is that he is alive. But even celestial creatures named חיות are named thus to remind us that though they “live” forever, they too are not able to have a visual experience of G-d’s essence (Torah Shleymah 131 on our verse.) If you were to counter that Isaiah 6,2 claimed to have experienced such a visual revelation when he said: ואראה את ה׳אדוני יושב על כסא, “I have seen G-d seated on a throne,” this did not describe what is known as a clear vision, but as something at best like a reflection from a mirror; he had been screened by a partition at the time.
+
+Verse 21
+
+ונצבת, “you shall stand;” the meaning of the word is to remain stationary, not advancing or planning to advance.
+על הצור, “on the rock;” another way of sayings: “on the top of the mountain.” This has been spelled out in Exodus 34,2.
+
+Verse 22
+
+
+
+Verse 23
+
+וראית את אחורי, “you will see My back;” you will see an aura of light which will linger after My essence has passed. The light which precedes Me and which is too dazzling, you will not see.
+
+Chapter 34
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+ויאמר ה' אל משה פסל לך, “Hashem said to Moses: “carve out for yourself, etc.;” This was said to Moses on the night of the 29th day of Av.
+
+Verse 2
+
+
+
+Verse 3
+
+ואיש לא יעלה עמך, “and no one is to ascend with you.” On the first occasion after the revelation on Mount Sinai G-d’s instructions had been that before ascending the Mountain, Aaron Nadav and Avihu and the seventy elders were to accompany him part of the way. (Exodus 24,1) On this occasion the elders were too ashamed and kept their distance, on account of the people still being in a state of disgrace.
+
+Verse 4
+
+וישכם משה בבקר, Moses arose early on the morning of the 29th of Av.
+
+Verse 5
+
+ויקרא בשם ה, “He called to him, using His name the tetragram.” G-d informed Moses regarding which of His attributes would accompany him. A different interpretation: G-d called to him what is written subsequently, i.e. the list of 13 of His attributes relevant to prayers that were primarily appeals for forgiveness. Our author likes this explanation, citing the fact that the words 'ה and על פניו, have been separated by a p’sik, vertical line.
+
+Verse 6
+
+ה', ה, according to Rashi, the repetition is to describe G-d‘s approachability before one has sinned with His approachability after one has sinned and repented. This is important seeing that sins such as idolatry, if not repented are treated as two sins, i.e. from the moment one contemplated to commit idolatry it is already considered sinful and punishable separately as soon as one had carried out that intention. This is based on Ezekiel 14,5 as interpreted in the Talmud tractate Kidushin, folio 40, למען תפוש את בית ישראל בלבם, “I will hold the house of Israel accountable for their thoughts.”When the sin of the spies was committed, the people were not held responsible for having had sinful thoughts previously, as they had not meant to reject the Hoy land until after they had been misled by the majority of the spies. This is what David refers to in Psalms 66,18: און אם ראיתי בלבי לא ישמע אדוני, “if I had an evil thought in my mind, the Lord would not have listened to it.” In that verse G-d’s name appears only once, in order to make that point.
+אל, the attribute of Justice, as for instance in Exodus 22,8: עד האלוהים יבא דבר שניהם, “the dispute of both parties has to be dealt with by a judge or a court.”
+רחום, “merciful;” He displays mercy for the poor and saves them from being taken advantage of.
+וחנון, “and gracious;” this attribute is also applied to the wealthy, as we know from Psalms 37,21: וצדיק תוע ונותן, “the righteous is generous and keeps giving.” The same expression in the same meaning also occurs in Genesis 43,29: אלקים יחנך בני, “may G-d grant you grace my son (Joseph to Binyamin).” Compare also Numbers 6,25 on the word ויחנך in the priestly blessing, which is understood by commentators as a blessing in which the priest promises the recipient the G-d in whose name he recites the blessing is the One Who provides all living creatures with their daily needs. (B’chor Shor)
+ארך אפים, “slow to anger,” (Whose patience with man’s foibles) is long lasting. Our author quotes Daniel 7,12 as explaining the meaning of this term, saying that G-d grants an extension of life to those who have already forfeited it, waiting for the sinner to repent and change his way. Or, it may mean that by letting the sinner die without granting such an extension of life on earth to him, this is in order to ensure that this sinner does not lose his chance to have an afterlife by sinning further. A different interpretation: seeing that G-d is eternal He has great patience, seeing that He will always be able to exact judgment from the sinner, as opposed to a human being, who, because he is mortal, cannot always afford such patience.
+ורב חסד, “abounding in kindness;” He is on record as remembering good deeds of the patriarchs and their descendants for up to 1000 generations whereas sins are not remembered for more than 3 or 4 generations. (Compare Talmud Sotah, folio 11)
+ואמת, “and faithful;” He keeps what He promises.
+
+Verse 7
+
+נושא עון ופשע, “He welcomes the penitent, even those who sinned deliberately or out of obstinacy.”
+ונקה לא ינקה, “but He does not let the sinner go completely free of retribution.” If they will repent of their bad deeds.
+פוקד עון אבות, “Who remembers the sins of the fathers;” [G-d explains why punishment is not meted out to the first generation of sinners, as if it were, mankind would soon be exterminated, there being no one free from sin. Ed.] When two people carry a burden it seems lighter than if one alone has to carry it. The same is true for three people carrying a load together. On the other hand, how long can G-d be perceived as ignoring our sins without inviting us to believe that He does not care or cannot exact penalties? He therefore imposes partial punishment, delaying the balance if the sinner does not repent, or forgiving the penitent sinner by delaying the unexpired guilt indefinitely. He therefore exacts that part from the third or fourth generation of the original sinner. [This is not unfair, as if the original sinner had received his entire punishment, the grandson would never have seen the light of day. Ed.] This is the thirteenth of the “visibly” beneficial attributes of G-d. If you were to counter that the Torah has written: לא יומתו אבות על בנים, “children must not be executed for the sins of the fathers,” (Deut. 24,16) this applied to the human tribunal, not to the celestial tribunal.
+
+Verse 8
+
+וימהר משה “Moses hastened;” Moses was afraid that G-d would continue mentioning even later generations than the fourth generation, he hastened to express his gratitude for what had been revealed to him at this stage. Another interpretation: Moses’ haste at this point was because he had the feeling that G-d was about to depart and he wanted to be able to offer his prayer before He departed and became hidden behind a cloud. This is also what our sages meant when they said: “when is the best time for a human being to ask for his needs? When G-d is manifestly present.” (Talmud tractate Avodah Zarah folio 7)
+
+Verse 9
+
+אם נא מצאתי חן בעיניך ה' ילך נא ה׳ בקרבנו, “if I have indeed found favour in Your eyes o G-d, may the Lord walk among us, please.” The attribute Moses addresses in this verse is both times the attribute of His name spelled Adonai.” כי עם קשי עורף הוא, “although it is a stiffnecked people.” Moses concurred with G-d Who had described this people as “stiffnecked” in Exodus 33,3. G-d had used it as an excuse for not walking amongst that people. Moses uses this very fact as justifying his request that G-d remain present among them. What better restraining influence against the evil urge is there than the very presence of G-d, the Creator, being in its midst?An alternate explanation of this argument: “Even though they are a stiffnecked people.” We find the same logic in Psalms 25,11: וסלחת לעוני כי רב הוא, “forgive my sin even though it be great.” Why do I plead that You walk amongst us? Because the angel has no authority to forgive any trespasses against You, as You, Yourself have pointed out. It is therefore better that seeing that they are a stiff necked people, You should be there to forgive one sin of the people at a time, instead of letting them accumulate sins which, collectively, will prove too difficult to forgive.
+ונחלתנו, “and consider us as Your inheritance.” Moses means: “and thus make certain that we will inherit the land which You have promised on oath.”We find a similar construction in Numbers 34,17: אלה ראשי האבות אשר ינחלו את בני ישראל, “these are the names of the men through whom the land shall be apportioned to you.” The word ינחלו is to be understood as if in the causative mode, i.e. ינחילו.
+
+Verse 10
+
+הנה אנכי כורת ברית, “I hereby make a covenant, etc.” G-d promises to walk with the Children of Israel. He adds: “concerning your question (33,16) ‘how will it be known that both I and Your people are distinguished?’” The answer is: נגד כל עמך אעשה נפלאות, “I will perform miracles in full view of your whole people the like of which I have never performed on earth.”An alternate explanation: the covenant G-d speaks of here is the one spelled out in detail in verse 27: where it is made clear that a new covenant was necessary as the people had broken the original covenant as stated there: כי על פי הדברים האלה כרתי אתך ברית ואת ישראל, “for according to these commandments (words) I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.” The commandments referred to are the observance of the three pilgrimage festivals that have been listed already in Exodus 23,16: Passover, Pentecost and the festival of huts. They are repeated here as a reminder, as all three are related directly to the Exodus from Egypt. Seeing that the subject of the Exodus from Egypt came up, the law concerning sanctification of the firstborn males of humans and pure animals, as well as the donkeys, which also mention the Exodus are brought here again.
+כי נורא הוא, “for it is awesome;” this is a reference to Moses having returned from the Mountain while his face was radiating light so strong that the people were scared of him. (34,30)
+
+Verse 11
+
+שמר לך את אשר אנכי מצוך היום, “Observe that which I command you this day!” G-d warns that whereas He had pardoned the people for the sins committed in the past, that from now on they have to be on guard not to sin again.
+
+Verse 12
+
+
+
+Verse 13
+
+
+
+Verse 14
+
+
+
+Verse 15
+
+
+
+Verse 16
+
+
+
+Verse 17
+
+אלהי מסכה לא תעשה לך, “you must not make yourself a molten image!” This is a reminder of the golden calf. What applies to molten images also applies in equal measure to all kinds of idolatry. The reason why this prohibition has been repeated here is that Aaron had thrown pieces of gold into a crucible and nonetheless a fully formed golden calf had emerged.
+
+Verse 18
+
+את חג המצות, the festival of matzot, etc.; all the commandments listed in this paragraph up to and including verse 26, are symbols of the fact that you have become servants of Hashem and that on the festivals named, the servants present their master with a gift expressing their fondness of |Him as well as their subservience.
+
+Verse 19
+
+כל פטר רחם לי, “the first fruit of the womb belongs to Me.” Earlier, this expression had included every domestic animal, now each species of animal has been named separately to show to which species this law applies.
+
+Verse 20
+
+ ופטר חמור תפדה, “and the firstborn male donkey you shall redeem;” why is this repeated? It is not fit as a sacrifice.
+ולא יראו פני ריקם, “the firstborn males and their children who make the pilgrimage must not appear before Me emptyhanded as they belong to Me. They must offer sacrifices to Me.”
+ולא יראו פני ריקם, according to Rashi, quoting a baraitha in the Midrash, this phrase is superfluous and has been written primarily to enable us to learn a g’zeyrah shavveh. This means that we are taught that the value of the gift that must be given to a slave who has completed six years of service must be equal to five Sela’im-worth of each of the items mentioned in Deuteronomy 15:14 - namely, sheep, threshing floor, and vinepress. This amount is equivalent to the ransom required for the firstborn, which is also five Sela’im. He also uses the word: ריקם “emptyhanded,” which appears in both legislations [and appears to derive that rule as it is otherwise unnecessary, Ed.]
+
+Verse 21
+
+ששת ימים תעבוד, “during six day you are to perform labour;” perhaps the reason why this is repeated once more is because of the Torah links it to agricultural work during the growing season, i.e. בחריש ובקציר, plowing and harvesting.
+
+Verse 22
+
+וחג שבעות, “and the festival of weeks.” This is the season of the early wheat harvest and the first fruit from the orchards.
+וחג האסיף, “and the festival of ingathering;” the end of the harvesting season around the time of the equinox in the autumn.
+
+Verse 23
+
+שלש פעמים, “three times;” the Torah repeats this again because of what follows in verse 24, i.e. that no one will steal your land while you make a pilgrimage to the Temple to thank the Lord for His bounty.
+
+Verse 24
+
+כי אוריש גוים מפניך והרחבתי את גבולך, “When I will drive out nations on your account and expand your boundaries;” seeing that the season when you make the pilgrimages is one in which G-d is especially well disposed toward you, I shall expand your boundaries beyond what I had promised Avraham. The reference is to the lands of Sichon and Og which are on the East bank of the Jordan and had not been included in G-d’s original promise. There had been a fear that seeing these lands had not been promised to Avraham, the survivors of these lands would attempt to reclaim it. G-d reassures the people that their temporary absence during pilgrimages to the Temple would not be exploited by their neighbours. <br>[I do not understand this, a) as these lands were conquered before the Israelites had made a single pilgrimage in the West bank to the Temple, and they were still eating manna, not having had what to harvest. b) Moreover, at the covenant between the pieces in Genesis 15,18 G-d had promised that the north eastern borders of these lands would be at the river Euphrates, far from the boundaries of the lands of Sichon and Og, even. Ed.]
+
+Verse 25
+
+לא תשחט על חמץ דם זבחי, “Do not slaughter (offer) the blood of My sacrifice with leavened bread;” Rashi explains that this verse is a warning addressed to him who slaughters the Passover lamb, as well as to him who sprinkles its blood or to any of the people invited to eat from that lamb. Compare the baraitha in Pessachim 63. It is stated there that this prohibition is one of the negative commandments. When is that commandment applicable? As long as either the person slaughtering the lamb, sprinkling its blood, or a guest invited to partake of it, still has leavened products in his possession on Passover eve. It had to be inserted here as previously, in 23,18, this had not been spelled out. Here it is called: “the meat offering of the Passover festival.”
+ולא ילין לבקר “and none of it must be left over until morning.” In 23,18, the Torah had referred only to the entrails, etc., not the edible parts of the meat. Here it refers specifically to the edible parts of the sacrifice.
+
+Verse 26
+
+ראשית בכורי אדמת, “the choice first fruits of your soil, etc.” this has been repeated here because when this legislation was first mentioned in verse 23.19, it had not mentioned that this law was limited to the lands formerly occupied by the seven Canaanite tribes. In this chapter in verse 11, these details have been supplied (as opposed to 23,19.)
+לא תבשל גדי בחלב אמו, “do not boil a kid in the milk of its mother.” This is a warning not to wait with offering such a kid as an offering until it has been fully weaned, but once it has grown beyond the first seven days of its life it is fit for the altar.
+
+Verse 27
+
+על פי הדברים האלה, “in accordance with these words, etc.;” “these words,” are the warnings to refrain from anything remotely resembling idolatry. This includes a prohibition of concluding a political agreement with neighbouring countries is considered something akin to idolatry, in view of the fact that it may lead to intermarriage between Jews and gentiles. It also includes the obligation for you to observe the pilgrimage festivals during which you confirm your loyalty to Torah by presenting yourselves to the G-d Who had given you His Torah. כרתי אתך ברית, “the covenant I concluded with you was conditional on your observing these words.”
+
+Verse 28
+
+ויהי שם עם ה, “he remained there with the Lord, etc.” this was the third time that Moses spent 40 days on the Mountain. He ascended at dawn on the twenty ninth day of Av, and remained there until dawn of the tenth day of Tishrey, better known as Yom Hakippurim. If you were to ask how Moses could tell day and night from each other, seeing that in the celestial regions day and night are all the same, seeing that we have a verse in Daniel 2,22 ונהורא עמיה שריה, “and light dwells with Him?” We also a verse in Psalms,גם חשך לא יחשיך ממך ולילה כיום יאיר כחשכת אורך :139,12“darkness is not dark for You; night is as light as day.”We need to answer that when G-d taught Moses the written Torah, he knew that it was daytime down on earth. When He taught him the oral Torah, he knew that it was night on earth at that time. Furthermore, when he observed the moon and the stars bowing down to the Lord, he knew that it must be daytime on earth, as these celestial bodies had to perform their duties on earth at night. When he observed the sun paying its respect to G-d, he knew that it was night on earth, as during the daylight hours the sun had to perform its duties on earth.
+ויכתוב על הלוחות, ”He wrote on the Tablets;” G-d did the writing, as confirmed in Deuteronomy 10,2: “I shall write on the Tablets,” and in Deuteronomy 10,4 Moses confirms; “He wrote on the Tablets exactly as He had done on the first set of Tablets.”
+
+Verse 29
+
+ויהי ברדת משה, “it happened that when Moses was descending, etc.” This was on a Tuesday the tenth day of Tishrey, after Moses having been on the Mountain for the third time for forty days;
+ושני לוחות העדות, “and the two Tablets of the Testimony in his hand, etc.;” what is missing here is a reference to the ark within which these Tablets were to be placed. This has been included in Moses’ report in Deuteronomy 10,3. Moses had constructed an ark for the Tablets in which they were kept from the tenth day of Tishrey until the first day of Nissan, when the Tabernacle was erected and the Tablets were transferred to the Holy Ark that had been constructed by Betzalel, and the Ark and the Tablets were placed in the Holy of Holies, in the westernmost section of the Tabernacle.
+ומשה לא ידע כי קרן עור פניו, Moses was not aware that the skin of his face radiated light. When G-d had placed His hand on his face to shield him when His glory passed and he stood in the opening of a cave in the rock (compare 33,22), he merited this reminder of that encounter. The reason that he merited this reminder which he had not merited when he carried the first set of Tablets, was that the first set of Tablets had been given publicly for everyone to see, whereas at the introduction to his ascent to receive the second set the Torah had expressly warned that that no one was to accompany him even at the bottom of the Mountain (verse 3). Seeing that the giving of the firsts set of Tablets was accompanied by so much publicity, if there had been no visible evidence that Moses had received a second set some people might have thought that he himself had written on the Tablets seeing that the raw material had been taken up on the Mountain with him, also. An alternate explanation: Seeing that prior to Moses’ return with the first set of Tablets the people had been prepared to accept another leader in Moses’ place, his emitting rays of light on his descent from the Mountain this time made a repetition of such an attempt quite unlikely.
+
+Verse 30
+
+וייראו מגשת אליו, “they were afraid to approach him.” According to the plain meaning of the verse when they beheld him, they thought that they were looking at an angel. (Compare Torah shleymah by Rabbi Menachem Kasher item 241 on this verse)
+
+Verse 31
+
+ויקרא אליהם משה, “Moses called out to them.” When the people heard his voice they realised that he was not an angel.
+וישובו אליו “they turned back to face him.” From this verse it is clear that initially they had turned their back on him out of fear.
+וידבר משה אליהם, Moses spoke to them. They noticed that no harm had come to them from his speaking to them.
+
+Verse 32
+
+את כל אשר דבר ה' אתו בהר סיני, “all the commandments that G-d had spoken to him about while he had been on Mount Sinai on his first and third stay on the Mountain, as well as all the commandments that He had communicated to him from Nissan when they had left Egypt until the twentieth of Iyar in the second year when they broke camp around the Mountain. However, according to the Talmud in tractate Gittin folio 60, the written Torah, i.e. in scroll form, he wrote down personally, one parchment at a time. When Moses made ready to leave this earth, he arranged these parchments in the order in which we read them nowadays according to the order he considered appropriate.
+
+Verse 33
+
+ויכל משה מדבר אתם, “When Moses had finished speaking with them, etc,”
+
+Verse 34
+
+ובבא משה לפני ה, “whenever Moses went in (the Tabernacle) to face Hashem etc.; either when the communication had been initiated by Hashem, or when Moses had occasion to speak to the people, he did not wear the veil on his face; the reason was, as we learned from Isaiah 30,20: והיו עיניך רואות את מוריך, “your eyes shall be able to see your teacher.” The word: מוריך in that verse refers to G-d Who is your teacher. What G-d was to Moses, Moses was to the people. Just as Moses had not worn a veil when facing G-d and being taught the Torah, so it was not appropriate for him to wear a veil when teaching Torah to the people. When the Torah wrote: והשיב משה את המסוה, “Moses put the veil back on his face,” he did so in order that the people did not have to look at how his forehead emitted the rays of light as it would lose its character of being something holy. Seeing that it was a reflection of the Presence of G-d in miniature, the people were not to relate to it as something that they could feast their eyes on. [Compare Exodus 24 1011 from which it is clear that such an attitude was sinful. Ed.]
+The expression מסוה, is based on the word סותה, (compare Genesis 49,11, ובדם ענבים סותה, “his robe in blood of grapes”)
+
+Verse 35
+
+
+
+Chapter 35
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+ויקהל משה את כל עדת בני ישראל, “Moses assembled the entire congregation of the Children of Israel;” he did so as soon as he had descended from the Mountain with the second set of Tablets.
+אלה הדברים, “these are the words;” he wished to tell them that he had authorization to proceed with the building of the Tabernacle in which G-d would have his residence on earth. [He warned them that in spite of what appears to be a task of the highest priority, even that task must not interfere with the regular observance of the Sabbaths and the restrictions to perform creative activity on that day. The rationale of this was to teach the people that just as the Tabernacle is G-d’s, so the Sabbath is G-d’s, i.e. it is the holiest day in the universe, and that is why on occasion the Day of Atonement is called שבת שבתון, “the Sabbath in its ultimate degree.” The Torah applies that same definition to the Sabbath here. Work on the Tabernacle cannot override the sanctity of the Sabbath.]
+
+Verse 2
+
+ששת ימים, “during six days, etc;” the Torah repeats itself so as to make clear that this rule applies also to the work on the Tabernacle.
+
+Verse 3
+
+לא תבערו אש, “do not kindle a fire;” some of our Rabbis claim that the reason that of all the work prohibitions on the Sabbath, only the act of kindling a fire has been singled out by name, is to teach us that lighting a fire is the only one of these prohibitions which, instead of being punishable by death when performed knowingly, is punishable only by 39 lashes, as are other negative commandments when violated on purpose. This is the view of Rabbi Yossi in the Talmud, tractate Shabbat folio 70. Rabbi Nathan, on the other hand, holds that the reason why this mode of activity has been singled out by name is: לחלק, i.e. to give us a definition of the nature of the activities that are prohibited on the Sabbath. It was singled out as a basic activity. Just as this activity is prohibited on the Sabbath on pain of death, so are all the other activities which were indispensable for building a Tabernacle equally forbidden to be performed on any Sabbath for any purpose. Any activity required to be performed for building or functioning of the Tabernacle is considered a basic activity, or אב מלאכה, in Hebrew, and is punishable separately even if performed as part of a number of activities. We have a rule in the Talmud, that if something had at one time been part of a number of items under the same heading, and had subsequently been singled out, it was singled out as an example in order to teach that what applies to it now, also applies to the other items that it had been part of under the same heading, i.e. been under the same “umbrella.” In our situation it means that the other 38 types of basic activities connected with the construction of the Tabernacle or its functions must also not be performed on the Sabbath, each such on pain of death. This is the way in which Rashi explains the verse in general terms. The reason why just the activity of kindling light was chosen by the Torah as the example in question, is that lighting a fire is something that for the onlooker hardly seems like an activity at all, involving neither skill, nor physical strain. If you were to say that granted that actually lighting a fire on the Sabbath is forbidden, but activities preparatory to lighting a fire after the Sabbath are permitted, this too is prohibited. The Sabbath is not a day to be used as a preparation for the activities on the six weekdays. A different interpretation: the reason that the legislation about work prohibition is repeated here is in order that people would not say that just as in Parshat Bo (Exodus 12,16) certain kinds of work were prohibited on the festivals, but preparation of foodnecessitating lighting a fire was exempted, the same was true during the Sabbaths during which work on the Tabernacle was in progress. The Torah therefore categorically prohibited this kind of work, implying that, of course, all other kind of work would be prohibited also.
+בכל מושבותיכם, in all of your dwellings, i.e. the Tabernacle was exempt from all of these restrictions as it was not a residence for human beings. Communal sacrifices were offered as usual. (Mechilta Vayakhel 7)
+
+Verse 4
+
+
+
+Verse 5
+
+
+
+Verse 6
+
+
+
+Verse 7
+
+
+
+Verse 8
+
+
+
+Verse 9
+
+
+
+Verse 10
+
+
+
+Verse 11
+
+את בריחו, “its bolts;” the reading is as if it had been spelled בריחיו.
+
+Verse 12
+
+
+
+Verse 13
+
+
+
+Verse 14
+
+
+
+Verse 15
+
+
+
+Verse 16
+
+
+
+Verse 17
+
+את עמדיו ואת אדניה, “its pillars and its sockets.” Anything which is not a living creature is sometimes referred to in the masculine mode and other times in the feminine mode. The following examples are proof of this rule: המחנה האחת והכהו, “one of the camps, and he smites it” (Genesis 32,8) המחנה הנשאר, “the remaining camp;” (same verse) רוח גדולה וחזק, “a great and powerful wind,” (Kings I 19,11). והרים ממנו מקמצו מסולת המנחה; our author quotes more examples; he adds that on occasion even living creatures are referred to sometimes as feminine and sometimes as masculine; example: אם בהמה אשר יקריבו ממנה כל אשר יתן ממנו, “and if the beast (feminine) from which he will offer parts as a sacrifice, every part that he will give from it (masculine), etc.” (Leviticus27.9) . An alternate explanation of our verse: the word: עמודיו refers to the posts supporting the קלעים, ‘the hangings” around the courtyards, and the word: אדניה, refers to the courtyard itself, the חצר, that word being feminine, (as we know from Kings I 6,36)
+
+Verse 18
+
+
+
+Verse 19
+
+
+
+Verse 20
+
+
+
+Verse 21
+
+
+
+Verse 22
+
+ויבואו האנשים על הנשים, the men came “upon” the women, to take away their jewelry in order to use them for building the Tabernacle, as we will read presently. A different interpretation: the word על in this verse means: “with;” in other words, the men did no volunteer their own jewelry as gifts for to building the Tabernacle until after the women had already done so by removing their own jewelry. The use of the word על as meaning “with,” we know already from Leviticus 25,31 על שדה הארץ יחשב, “it will be considered as belonging with the open country.” Or, Numbers 19,5: על פרשה ישרף, “it will be burned together with its dung.”
+חח, jewelry worn in the ear;
+נזם, jewelry worn in the nose;טבעת, jewelry worn on the fingers;
+כומוז, jewelry worn on the arms.35, 27. והנשיאים הביאו, “and the princes had brought;” they had taken these things with them at the time when theIsraelites had “emptied” Egypt of all their valuables (Exodus 12,36) each taking items appropriate to their social status.
+
+Verse 23
+
+
+
+Verse 24
+
+
+
+Verse 25
+
+
+
+Verse 26
+
+
+
+Verse 27
+
+והנשיאים הביאו, “and the princes had brought;” they had taken these things with them at the time when the Israelites had “emptied” Egypt of all their valuables (Exodus 12,36) each taking items appropriate to their social status.
+
+Verse 28
+
+למאור. “for lighting.” The letter ל, has a semi vowel sh’va under it. [instead of a kametz]
+
+Verse 29
+
+
+
+Verse 30
+
+
+
+Verse 31
+
+
+
+Verse 32
+
+
+
+Verse 33
+
+
+
+Verse 34
+
+ולהורות, “and to give instruction,” to others.
+
+Verse 35
+
+
+
+Chapter 36
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+
+
+Verse 2
+
+
+
+Verse 3
+
+
+
+Verse 4
+
+
+
+Verse 5
+
+מדי העבודה, “than what is required for the work;” the prefix letter מ in this word is superfluous, just as in Psalms 119,99: מכל מלמדי השכלתי, “I have become wiser through all those who have taught me something.”.
+
+Verse 6
+
+ויעבירו קול במחנה, “they sounded a proclamation throughout the camp;” this could have been expressed with one word, i.e.: ויכריזו. This is why our sages derived from this that it is forbidden on the Sabbath to carry something from one domain to another. They used the apparently superfluous word ויעבירו, and compared it to the same word in Leviticus 25,9: והעברת שופר תרועה, “you shall make a proclamation by means of a shofar, followed by the word תעבירו in the same sentence.” [in the Jubilee year. Ed.] Just as carrying is prohibited on the Day of Atonement, (a day also known as שבת שבתון) so it is prohibited on any other day called Sabbath
+אל יעשו עוד מלאכה, “let them not perform any more work, etc.;” we know the meaning of the word מלאכה here, because the Torah continues with: ויכלא העם מהביא, “the people were stopped from bringing more.” In other words: carrying (הבאה) from one domain to another is an activity (מלאכה) that is prohibited on the Sabbath.
+
+Verse 7
+
+
+
+Verse 8
+
+את המשכן, עשר יריעות, the inner curtains serving as the ceiling of the Tabernacle, ten each; they were the first parts of the Tabernacle to be constructed. This was followed by the structure itself, over which these curtains were spread, the structure being the most important part, they being the most beloved part. Following this, all the furnishings of the Tabernacle, inside and outside were constructed. This was followed by making the hanging curtains of the courtyard around it.
+כרובים מעשה חושב, “cherublike figures skillfully woven into the fabric by human hands”. When the Torah describes the ten curtain like carpets forming the lowest of the four layers of the Tabernacle’s “roof,” figures which were visible to people allowed into the Sanctuary, the Torah added the words: מעשה חושב, “made by man.” The other eleven carpets above the first ten, which were not seen by anyone, did not have any such pictures woven into them, as who would be there to appreciate them?
+
+Verse 9
+
+
+
+Verse 10
+
+
+
+Verse 11
+
+
+
+Verse 12
+
+
+
+Verse 13
+
+
+
+Verse 14
+
+
+
+Verse 15
+
+
+
+Verse 16
+
+
+
+Verse 17
+
+
+
+Verse 18
+
+
+
+Verse 19
+
+
+
+Verse 20
+
+
+
+Verse 21
+
+
+
+Verse 22
+
+
+
+Verse 23
+
+
+
+Verse 24
+
+
+
+Verse 25
+
+
+
+Verse 26
+
+
+
+Verse 27
+
+
+
+Verse 28
+
+
+
+Verse 29
+
+והיו תואמים ויחדו יהיו תמים, ”they would match twin like, exactly at the bottom, and join together into a ring at the top (so that they will be eight);” the verse is to be understood as follows: the word יהיו next to the word יחדו is to be understood as in the present tense as in Exodus 18,26: יביאון אל משה “they would bring to Moses,“ or as at the end of that verse: ישפוטו הם, “they would judge.” The author cites more such examples of words sounding as if in the future tense really describing the present tense.
+
+Verse 30
+
+
+
+Verse 31
+
+
+
+Verse 32
+
+
+
+Verse 33
+
+
+
+Verse 34
+
+
+
+Verse 35
+
+
+
+Verse 36
+
+ויעש לה ארבעה עמודי שטים, “he made for it (the dividing curtain) four pillars of acacia wood.” We have explained already on Parshat Trumah 26,32, why the pillars for the dividing curtain and the pillars at the entrance to the Tabernacle were required, and their respective numbers.
+
+Verse 37
+
+
+
+Verse 38
+
+וצפה ראשיהם וחשוקיהם זהב, “and he overlaid their tops and their fillets with gold.” According to Rashi’s commentary on Parshat Pekudey (38,22), Betzalel divined some matters which even his teacher Moses had not instructed him in.
+
+Chapter 37
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+
+
+Verse 2
+
+
+
+Verse 3
+
+
+
+Verse 4
+
+
+
+Verse 5
+
+
+
+Verse 6
+
+
+
+Verse 7
+
+
+
+Verse 8
+
+
+
+Verse 9
+
+
+
+Verse 10
+
+
+
+Verse 11
+
+
+
+Verse 12
+
+
+
+Verse 13
+
+
+
+Verse 14
+
+
+
+Verse 15
+
+
+
+Verse 16
+
+
+
+Verse 17
+
+
+
+Verse 18
+
+
+
+Verse 19
+
+
+
+Verse 20
+
+
+
+Verse 21
+
+
+
+Verse 22
+
+
+
+Verse 23
+
+
+
+Verse 24
+
+
+
+Verse 25
+
+
+
+Verse 26
+
+
+
+Verse 27
+
+על שתי צלעותיו על שני צדיו, “upon the two ribs thereof, on the two sides thereof.” There is some duplication of words here.
+
+Verse 28
+
+
+
+Verse 29
+
+ויעש את שמן המשחה, “he made the holy anointing oil;” why was this verse inserted at this juncture? The question is in place as we would have expected the Torah to have written this verse after all the vessels that required anointing had been completed, seeing that the work of the copper altar as well as the washbasin and its stand had not yet been completed as well as other portable utensils which would require to be ritually pure? Rabbi Chavell speculates that seeing that no one answered this question, and we know that many parts of the Tabernacle were ultimately hidden to prevent them falling into enemy hands, the holy anointing oil, which according to tradition never diminished even after use, was also something that was hidden, whereas the copper altar and the washbasin were not considered holy enough to have to be hidden.
+
+Chapter 38
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+
+
+Verse 2
+
+
+
+Verse 3
+
+
+
+Verse 4
+
+
+
+Verse 5
+
+
+
+Verse 6
+
+
+
+Verse 7
+
+
+
+Verse 8
+
+במראות הצובאות, “with the mirrors of the serving women.” The word מראות is based on ראיה, “eyesight.” The laver was placed between the entrance to the Tabernacle and the copper altar (the altar on which most sacrifices were offered) slightly north of center. It was placed there so that the women who had contributed their mirrors could see it from the section in the courtyard reserved for women. It would also serve as a reminder that women whose husbands suspected them of infidelity without having proof that could be presented at court, and who had denied the accusation, would have to drink “bitter” waters drawn from the water in the laver, and would risk their lives by doing so if they had lied. [Compare Numbers 5,11-31.] According to Rashi, the prefix ב in the word במראות is to be understood as if it had been the letter מ, so that the word means: ”from the (material) of which their mirrors was made of,” i.e. polished copper. Exchanging the letter מ for the letter ב, is not unique. One example is found in Leviticus 8,32: והנותר בבשר ובלחם, “and whatever remains from the meat and from the bread.
+אשר צבאו פתח אהל מועד, “who assembled at the entrance of the Tent of meeting.” They did so in order to pray and recite the praises of the Almighty as near to the sacred compound as was allowable for ordinary Israelites who were ritually pure. They also wished to receive the blessings by the priests and Levites.
+
+Verse 9
+
+
+
+Verse 10
+
+
+
+Verse 11
+
+
+
+Verse 12
+
+
+
+Verse 13
+
+
+
+Verse 14
+
+
+
+Verse 15
+
+מזה ומזה, “on this side and on that side.” These words apply to the two verses 14 and 15, each set of hanging curtains being on either side of the entrance gate to the courtyard.
+
+Verse 16
+
+
+
+Verse 17
+
+
+
+Verse 18
+
+
+
+Verse 19
+
+
+
+Verse 20
+
+
+
+Verse 21
+
+אלה פקודי המשכן, “these are the accounts of the Tabernacle;” which “Tabernacle” does the Torah refer to? “The Tabernacle that is testimony to the covenant between G-d and Israel, משכן העדות.” Seeing that this is not the only time the Torah used the expression: משכן, as it also occurs in Numbers 16,27, when it referred to the mishkan of Korach, as well as several times in the Book of prophets, the Torah wished to be precise beyond doubt. There was never another Tabernacle in which the Holy Ark containing the Tablets was housed.
+
+Verse 22
+
+ובצלאל בן אורי בן חור וגו, “and Betzalel, son of Uri, son of Chur, etc.;” he also constructed items that his teacher Moses had not specifically instructed him to construct such as the tops of the pillars, as he was on the same spiritual wavelength as his teacher. [Our author had already made this point on Exodus 36,38. Ed.]
+
+Verse 23
+
+
+
+Verse 24
+
+ויהי זהב התנופה, “all the gold used for the waveoffering amounted to, etc.;” the reason why the Torah used the expression תנופה, here, an expression usually used only with specific offerings for specific purposes by an individual donor, is that when presenting his gift, the owner had had to lift it.
+תשע ועשרים ככר וגו, twenty nine talents, plus. seven hundred and thirty shekels; for anyone interested, the total amount of gold used in the construction of the Tabernacle amounted to 1460 liters” [we are not familiar with the units used by our author that his readers in France were obviously familiar with Ed.]
+
+Verse 25
+
+וכסף פקודי העדה, “and the silver that was counted which had been contributed by the congregation, etc.: the Torah spells out in detail what exactly all the silver and copper donated was used for. The reason for this is that the silver was used as ransom for the people who had somehow become guilty during the episode of the golden calf. The reason why the Torah does not enumerate in detail what the gold was used for is that no item was wholly made of gold except for the candlestick and the cover for the Holy Ark. All the other furnishings were only overlaid with gold.
+מאת ככר ואלף ושבע מאות וחמשה שקלים, one hundred talents and seventeen hundred and fifty shekels.” [One kikar used for sacred purposes was equivalent to 3000 “holy” shekels, or 6000 ordinary shekels of silver. Ed.]
+
+Verse 26
+
+בקע לגלגלת, beka, per head (half a holy shekel). The people relied on G-d being aware that this amount would suffice for the silver needed in connection with the Tabernacle.
+
+Verse 27
+
+את אדני הקודש ואת אדני הפרוכת, “for the sockets of the Sanctuary (planks), and the sockets of the dividing curtain(s).” There were a total of 100 such sockets, 48 for the planks, requiring 96 sockets and 4 for the pillars supporting the dividing curtain, making a total of 100.
+
+Verse 28
+
+
+
+Verse 29
+
+ונחושת התנופה שבעים ככר ואלפים וארבע מאות שקל .“and the copper used for the wave offering was seventy talents plus 2400 shekels. Our author translates this into denominations of coins used in France in his time. Ed.]
+
+Verse 30
+
+ויעש בה, “he made of it, etc;” the word בה is used here instead of the word ממנה, which we might have expected.
+את אדני פתח אהל מועד, “the sockets of the pillars supporting the curtain at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. Sixty five talents of copper were used for constructing sockets. They were needed for each side of the courtyard around the Tabernacle, one talent for each socket. From the five talents plus remaining, they made the cover for the copper altar, as well as its appurtenances and the clasps needed to hold together the curtains used for the roof which had loops accommodating these clasps. They also made copper hammers to drive into the ground the pegs needed to hold down the edges of the curtains above the Tabernacle which straddled the ground, as Rashi has explained at the end of Parshat T’rumah. We do not have to wonder how they had copper left over for the construction of the laver and its stand. Seeing that the materials for those items had been donated by the women, i.e. their mirrors, they are not counted separately as donations of copper. No one should think that only the amounts mentioned here were donated by the people. Much more was donated. The Torah only accounts for the amounts which were used directly in the construction of the Tabernacle. The excess of the donations became part of the Temple treasury, and was used for all manner of communal needs. Just as the number 600000, that the Torah included in the census did not include the people who had not yet reached the age of twenty or the ones who were past the age of sixty, and all the women, so that most likely the total number of Israelites at the time exceeded 2-3 million, so it would be foolish to assume that only the amounts recorded in our portion were donated. From chapter 35,24, it is clear that anyone who felt inclined to make a donation could do so, and no doubt that included people under the age of twenty and over the age of sixty, and the women. Even the males between twenty and sixty who had to contribute a half shekel, most likely donated in excess of this and not only silver coins. The Torah wrote that there was oversubscription, compare 36,7.
+
+Verse 31
+
+
+
+Chapter 39
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+עשו בגדי שרד, “they made into sacramental vestments.” Each garment was composed of a different kind of fabric. How did this work out? All the coverings needed to transport the Tabernacle’s furnishings in, such as the candlestick, the table, the golden altar, the laver, etc., were made totally of blue wool, תכלת. For instance, the coverings for the copper altar were made of red wool, (Numbers 4,13), and the covers for the Table and the showbreads were made of purple coloured wool, (Numbers 4,8). All the details have been spelled out in the Book of Numbers chapter 4.
+
+Verse 2
+
+
+
+Verse 3
+
+
+
+Verse 4
+
+
+
+Verse 5
+
+
+
+Verse 6
+
+ויעשו את אבני השהם, “they “made,” i.e. arranged the onyx stones;” the root עשה is also used in this sense elsewhere, as in Genesis 18,7: וימהר לעשות אותו, “he hastened to prepare it.”
+
+Verse 7
+
+
+
+Verse 8
+
+
+
+Verse 9
+
+
+
+Verse 10
+
+
+
+Verse 11
+
+
+
+Verse 12
+
+
+
+Verse 13
+
+
+
+Verse 14
+
+
+
+Verse 15
+
+
+
+Verse 16
+
+על שני קצות החשן, “at the two ends of the breastplate.” Here the Torah used the preposition: על whereas in Exodus 28,24, it used the preposition: אל.
+
+Verse 17
+
+
+
+Verse 18
+
+
+
+Verse 19
+
+
+
+Verse 20
+
+
+
+Verse 21
+
+ולא יזה החשן, “so that the breastplate would not come loose;” this is a present tense.
+
+Verse 22
+
+
+
+Verse 23
+
+
+
+Verse 24
+
+
+
+Verse 25
+
+
+
+Verse 26
+
+
+
+Verse 27
+
+
+
+Verse 28
+
+פארי המגבעות, “the decorated turbans;” Rav Hai Gaon explains that the word means something that looks like an ornament in the shape of a pomegranate on top of the headgear.
+
+Verse 29
+
+
+
+Verse 30
+
+
+
+Verse 31
+
+
+
+Verse 32
+
+ותכל כל עבודת, “thus was completed all the work;” according to our sages the work was completed on the 25th day in the month of Kislev, the day we commence to celebrate the festival of Chanukkah.
+
+Verse 33
+
+
+
+Verse 34
+
+
+
+Verse 35
+
+
+
+Verse 36
+
+
+
+Verse 37
+
+את המנורה הטהורה, “the candlestick, the pure one.” The reason why the Torah added the adjective “the pure one,” is because no sacrificial blood was ever sprinkled on the candlestick so that it remained ritually pure.
+נרות המערכה, “the lamps in its proper order;” the expression מערכה or its equivalent יערוך, “he would do so in proper order,” first occurred in Exodus 27,21 where the functions of the priests are discussed. Alternately, it may allude to the showbreads which were arranged in order on the table and illuminated by the lamps of the candlestick.
+
+Verse 38
+
+
+
+Verse 39
+
+
+
+Verse 40
+
+את מיתריו ויתדותיה, “its cords and its pegs;” compare a similar mixture of masculine and feminine in 35,17.
+
+Verse 41
+
+
+
+Verse 42
+
+כן עשו בני ישראל את כל העבודה, “so the Israelites had done all the work;” the Mishnah in tractate Sotah folio 9 states that as soon as Solomon’s temple was completed the Tabernacle and all its appurtenances were hidden. To the question where it was hidden, the Talmud replied that it was “stored” beneath the cavities of the Sanctuary.
+
+Verse 43
+
+
+
+Chapter 40
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+
+
+Verse 2
+
+
+
+Verse 3
+
+וסכות על הארון, ”screen off the Ark with a curtain!” the word וסכות is derived from מסוכה, a separating screen. We find it used in that sense in Hoseah 2,8: הנני סך את דרכך, “I will block your path with thorns.”
+על הארון, “next to the Ark.” The word על is used in this sense also in Leviticus 25,31: על שדה הארץ יחשב, “they (the house not walled in) will be considered as belonging to the adjoining earth.”על הארון, a similar construction to: על הגמלים, beside the camels in Genesis 24,30, and על המערכת, “next to the row.”
+
+Verse 4
+
+
+
+Verse 5
+
+
+
+Verse 6
+
+
+
+Verse 7
+
+
+
+Verse 8
+
+
+
+Verse 9
+
+
+
+Verse 10
+
+
+
+Verse 11
+
+
+
+Verse 12
+
+
+
+Verse 13
+
+
+
+Verse 14
+
+
+
+Verse 15
+
+
+
+Verse 16
+
+
+
+Verse 17
+
+ויהי בחדש הראשון בשנה השנית, “it was on the first day of the second year, counting from the Exodus from Egypt; normally years are counted as commencing with the month of Tishrey.
+
+Verse 18
+
+
+
+Verse 19
+
+
+
+Verse 20
+
+
+
+Verse 21
+
+
+
+Verse 22
+
+
+
+Verse 23
+
+
+
+Verse 24
+
+
+
+Verse 25
+
+
+
+Verse 26
+
+
+
+Verse 27
+
+
+
+Verse 28
+
+
+
+Verse 29
+
+
+
+Verse 30
+
+
+
+Verse 31
+
+
+
+Verse 32
+
+
+
+Verse 33
+
+
+
+Verse 34
+
+
+
+Verse 35
+
+ולא יכול משה לבא אל אהל מועד, “and Moses was unable to enter the Tent of Meeting,” at the time he had erected it. כי שכן עליו הענן, “for the cloud of glory of G-d rested above it;” it did so immediately, to demonstrate G-d’s fondness of the Jewish people. Subsequently, the cloud moved from being above the Sanctuary and took up its position above the Holy Ark which stood in the Holy of Holies. We know this from Exodus 25,22, where the Torah wrote: ונועדתי לך שם ודברתי אתך מעל הכפורת, “I will meet with you there and I will impart to you from above the cover of the Ark.”“Then Moses could enter the Sanctuary;” this is what is meant when the Torah wrote: 'ובבא משה אל אהל מועד וגו, “and when Moses used to enter the Tent of Meeting;” (Numbers 7,89). When Solomon consecrated his Temple something similar occurred as reported in Kings I 8,11. The priests were not able to enter and perform their duties as long as G-d’s cloud was hovering above the Sanctuary. Subsequently, that cloud was visible only above the Holy of Holies.
+
+Verse 36
+
+
+
+Verse 37
+
+
+
+Verse 38
+
+לעיני כל בית ישראל בכל מטעיהם, “in view of all the Children of Israel during all their journeys.” According to Rashi, the meaning of this line is that while the Israelites were encamped as opposed to when they were journeying.
+
+Leviticus
+
+
+
+Chapter 1
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+ויקרא אל משה, “He called out to Moses;” seeing that the Torah had concluded the end of the Book of Exodus with the words: ‘the glory of the Lord filled the Tabernacle so that Moses was unable to enter the Sanctuary,” it was necessary to let us know now that He called out to him, i.e. gave him permission to enter the Sanctuary. In order to make this clear to the reader, the Torah, instead of writing: “the Lord called out to Moses,” omitted to tell us who it was that called out to him, so that the reader will know that this is not really a new paragraph but a continuation of what had been told us at the end of the Book of Exodus. In other words, we need to understand this opening line of the Book of Leviticus as follows: “the glory of the Lord which had been reported at the end of the Book of Exodus as filling the Tabernacle, now spoke to Moses.”This is also how the Jerusalem Targum translates this verse. (Compare Torah shleymah on our verse page 235, where the full text of the Jerusalem Targum appears, in Aramaic, of course) Once Moses had entered the Sanctuary, he heard G-d’s voice emanating from between the two cherubs on top of the lid of the Holy Ark as reported in Parshat Nasso, 7,89.
+אליו, “to him.” On this word Rashi explains that we might have thought that people outside had heard G-d’s voice speaking to Moses; in order to disabuse us of this, the Torah emphasized: אליו, “to him,” i.e. audible only to Moses. The point is made once more in the Book of Numbers 7,89, where the Torah writes that Moses heard the voice of the Lord talking to him, מדבר אליו, followed by וידבר אליו. Instead of writing מדבר לו, the word אליו stresses the exclusivity of that voice, i.e. audible only to Moses. Rashi stresses this also in his commentary on the Talmud in tractate Yuma folio 4.
+לאמור, “saying” [in order to relay to the Israelites. Ed.] The author refers the reader to his commentary on Genesis 8,15 on the word: לאמור, where Rash’bam is given as the source of this interpretation of this word. A well known example of the meaning of this kind of repetition is found in verse 2 of our chapter: דבר אל בני ישראל ואמרת אליהם, “speak to the Children of Israel and say to them;”
+
+Verse 2
+
+
+אדם, “anyone;” this ambiguous description is intended to convey that what follows applies not only also to converts to Judaism, but even to people who are gentiles, although in this paragraph only Israelites are addressed. The exclusive meaning of the word: אדם, here is made plain when the Torah adds the restrictive word: מכם, “from amongst you.” This means that what follows applies only to members of the Jewish people. However, seeing that we have a rule that “whenever the Torah writes two successive restrictive clauses, this is meant to include someone or something, not to exclude it,” the sages understood our verse as the Torah including even gentiles, as qualified to offer sacrifices to Hashem, i.e. using the facilities offered by the priests, but paying for the animals they authorize to be offered on their behalf. (Talmud, tractate Nazir, folio 62) This is based also on when the Torah writes: איש, איש, i.e. “any man,” including idolaters, who vow to offer a sacrifice to the G-d of the Israelites.
+כי יקריב, “who brings” (close); the word introduces the manner in which G-d wishes to be served now that He has taken up residence among His people.
+מכם, “from amongst you.” The prefix letter מ reminds us that not all of us are addressed here. On the one hand, even absolute gentile idolaters are welcome to present an offering to Hashem which will be burnt up on the altar in the Temple, as we do not wish to alienate gentiles that are seeking for a religion of truth. On the other hand, by the same token, Jewish renegades who wish to offer such sacrifices in the Temple are rebuffed by the Torah, as what they do would be akin to blasphemy, seeing they demonstrate by their daily conduct that they do not believe in the power of our G-d.
+מכם “to you” I gave you these commandments and no to the other nations. It is proper to receive an offering even from a completely wicked Jew in order to facilitate his returning to G-d. אדם כי יקריב מכם, the verse has been inverted, it’s meaning is as if it had read: אדם מכם כי יקריב, “when someone amongst you wishes to draw close to G-d;”
+כי יקריב, same as כי יקדיש, “who wishes to sanctify.”
+קרבן לה, a sacrifice in honour of the Lord. This is a heading, followed by specifics. מן הבהמה, מן הבקר ומן הצאן, “from a category of domestic beasts, it must be either from cattle or flocks.” These are the details. תקריבו את קרבנכם, “you may offer your sacrifice.” The generalization has been repeated once more, i.e. “your sacrifice.” It teaches us that as a rule the details spelled out after a general statement has been made, do not contain surprises, i.e. no matters that could not have been understood as included in the general statement already. In our case, we find that no free roaming beasts are included as potential sacrifices, even though such beasts may qualify to be eaten, such as deer, for instance. Our sages see in this another example of G-d’s “humility;” He does not ask us to do things which are too difficult, such as hunting deer in order to offer them as sacrifices, even though King Solomon had a stable of them and offered such delicacies as venison to his guests. He only asks for animals that are within the average person’s ability to obtain. This is what the prophet (Michah, 6,3) referred to when he said, quoting G-d: עמי מה הלאיתיך ענה בי?, “in which way did I inconvenience you My people? Testify against me!”An alternate explanation: I only ask you to offer Me animals as sacrifices, not human beings!” The Canaanites were in the habit at that time to offer some of their own children as sacrifices to their deities. (Midrash Tanchuma on Bechukotai, 5; compare also Torah shleymah item 56 on our verse, (who points out that Yiftach could have saved the life of his daughter had he made such a stipulation).
+
+Verse 3
+
+אם עולה קרבנו, “if his offering consists of an animal to be burned up completely,” (the priests not eating any parts of it). What is meant is that the donor had stipulated this prior to handing the animal to the priest to slaughter on his behalf. The reason why the burnt offering is the first example of animal offerings mentioned in the Torah is that it is the type of offering most welcomed by Hashem.
+יקריבנו, “he will be able to offer it,” after the building of the Tabernacle has been completed; the owner must first sanctify it, i.e. add when handing over the sacrificial animal: “this I have vowed to offer as a burnt offering for the Lord.”
+אל פתח אהל מועד, at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting;” the Torah stresses this as the donor is not allowed to invite the officiating priest to come to his home and slaughter the beast in question in the donor’s or the priest’s yard, and perform the rituals connected with it. This would be disrespectful to Hashem . Imagine a donor of a gift to a mortal king inviting the King to come and pick it up at the donor’s home!”
+לרצונו, “in order to find favour in His eyes.” The reason is that this is a voluntary offering, not a thanksgiving offering or a guilt or sin offering, all of which are mandatory offerings.
+לפני ה, “in the presence of the Lord.” Even though the donor may not enter the sacred precincts of the Temple, his gift is described as “in the presence of the Lord,“ seeing it is not his personal fault that he could not enter these precincts. According to Sifra, after having placed his hands on the sacrificial animal outside those precincts, he is allowed to do this once more inside the sacred precincts.
+
+Verse 4
+
+וסמך ידו, according to the plain meaning of the text, [this is not a commandment but the Torah describes the norm when people offer such an animal. It describes a preparatory activity, Ed]
+ידו, this does not have to refer to a single hand, but the verse excludes a son or servant performing this procedure. The Torah does not allow the donor to delegate these acts.
+ידו על ראש, “his hand on the head;” not one hand above the other, or placing his hands on any other part of the animal.
+על ראש העולה, “on the head of the burnt offering;” Rashi understands this as referring to when this burnt offering is a mandatory as distinct from a voluntary burnt offering. He quotes Torat Kohanim in support of his interpretation. It is stated there that if a voluntary burnt offering requires the above procedure as introductory step, then it is obvious that a mandatory burnt offering does not require less. The fact that the Torah writes simply: עולה, without specifying which type of עולה, the voluntary one or the mandatory one, is taken as proof that this placing of the owner’s hands on the head of the animal refers to both types. It also means that regardless of whether the animal is a sheep, or a bull, the same rule applies. On the other hand, only burnt offerings belonging to an individual require this procedure, not animals representing a group of people. Animals belonging to women or to gentiles do not require this procedure either. All of them require an accompanying libation, however, even animals belonging to gentiles. We know this from a baraitah in Menachot 29, commencing with the words; “when a gentile has sent his burnt offering, etc.”
+לכפר עליו, “to serve as his atonement.”
+The use of the word: עליו in this sense is also found in Psalms 44,23, עליך, where it clearly means: “for your sake.” The same is true of Psalms 69,8.
+
+Verse 5
+
+וסמך ושחט, “he will place his hands and slaughter;” up until this point the owners, not being priests, are basically permitted to perform these procedures, provided that they are ritually clean; from this point on the commandment applies only to the priests. The reason the two words are followed in both instances with the words: “in the presence of the Lord,” is that both procedures are carried out at the same location.
+את בן הבקר, this term describes the animal as being in its youth, not diseased, in accordance with the maxim expressed in Maleachi 1,8: הקריבהו לפחתך, “would you offer such (diseased animal) to your Governor?”
+את בן הבקר לפני ה, “the bullock before the Lord;” the one who slaughters it should be doing so in the name of the Lord, even if he has a long knife and himself stands outside consecrated earth. Shimon the Yemenite, disagreeing and understanding the words “before the Lord,” has been quoted as saying: whence do I derive the rule that the hand of the slaughterer should be within the foreleg of the animal being slaughtered, i.e. while he is on consecrated ground? You must read the words: 'את בן הבקר לפני ה, as one phrase (without comma) [not supported by the cantillation marks. Ed.]
+בני אהרן, “the sons of Aaron.” To exclude elderly priests whose hands might tremble. Our sages in the Talmud tractate Chulin, folio 24 stated that the age or appearance of age, when a priest becomes disqualified from slaughtering is when his hands begin to tremble.
+אהרן, who, age notwithstanding [he was 85 at this time, Ed.] was still without physical blemish.הכהנים, the priests, who had not forfeited their status due to having committed acts that would disqualify them, from Temple service.
+
+Verse 6
+
+והפשיט את העולה, “he shall flay the burnt offering;” seeing that in the case of rams and bulls that needed to be burnt completely, the skin had to be removed first at any rate as it would be given to the officiating priest. But with regards to the burnt offerings the Torah states that they had to be flayed and cut up into pieces even though afterwards everything was burnt completely.
+
+Verse 7
+
+עצים על האש, “wood (in order) on the fire.” The fire had to be placed there first.
+
+Verse 8
+
+וערכו בני אהרן, “and Aaron’s sons shall arrange” on the pieces of the burnt offering;” seeing that it is of the category of cattle, big animals, the Torah uses the plural mode whereas with sheep or goats the Torah uses the singular mode for this procedure. (compare verse12)
+
+Verse 9
+
+וקרבו וכרעיו ירחץ, “but its innards and its legs he shall wash;” seeing these parts are being served at the “King’s” table, they had to be prepared as if being served at the table of a mortal king. The animals that were going to be burned without having had their skin flayed were not treated in the same fashion as they represented reminders of the donor’s sins, not his desire to “donate” something to his G-d.
+ירחץ במים, “he will wash with water;” the translation (in Aramaic) of washing of human beings is יסחי, as it always refers to the immersion of the whole body in a ritual bath. As for instance in Isaiah 25,11: כאשר יפרש השוחה לשחות, “as the swimmer who spreads out his hands in order to swim.” The “washing” of which the Torah speaks in connection with the sacrificial animals is rendered as יחליל, by the Targum. The meaning of that word is more the flushing out of excrements, etc.
+ירחץ במים, I might have thought that the quantity of water required is like in the case of a ritual bath, a minimum of 40 saah; therefore the Torah writes במים to indicate that it does not stipulate a minimum amount of water, i.e. any amount of water is sufficient if it accomplishes its purpose.
+את הכל, “everything;” this includes bones sinews, horns, and hooves, wool of the head of the sheep and the beard of the goats, as long as they are still attached to their bodies.
+
+Verse 10
+
+ואם מן הצאן קרבנו, “and if the donor chose to offer an animal from his herd;” the following rules do not apply to animals stolen by the donor.
+מן הכבשים או מן העזים, “either from his sheep or his goats;” according to the Sifra this excludes animals born from crossbreeding.
+
+Verse 11
+
+ושחט אותו וגו, “he is to slaughter it, etc.;” the word אותו implies that the animal which is a burnt offering is to be slaughtered on the northern side of the altar, whereas offerings such as peace offerings, or bird offerings or firstborn animals, tithed animals, and the Passover, cannot be slaughtered on the north side of the altar. (Menachot 56)
+על ירך המזבח, near the side of the altar; the word: על is to be understood as in Exoduss 40,3: וסכות על הארון, “you will use it as a screen (next to it) for the Holy Ark.”
+ירך המזבח צפונה, “the side of the altar must be to the north of it, in other words: the front of the altar is to the south of it. This teaches that the ramp leading up to the altar was on the south side of the Tabernacle. (Compare Zevachim 62)
+צפונה לפני ה, the northern side of the Tabernacle did not have any part of the altar facing it. This rule also applied to the burnt offering of the species of cattle, as the expression: 'לפני ה, is used there also. If the priest had slaughtered that animal on the south side of the altar, this could not properly be described as “facing the Lord,” as no part of the southern part the altar faced the Tabernacle. [only the ramp leading up to it. Ed.] Seeing that the northern part of the Tabernacle was not impeded by priests walking by there, it could be described as פנוי, “always exposed to view.” When slaughtering animals which required to be done on the north side of the altar, this part of the altar faced the Holy of Holies, or 'לפני ה. [The length of the ramp alone proceeding from the southern side of the Tabernacle, was 32 cubits before it reached the altar itself. Ed.] This is based on the Torah having written: במקום אשר תשחט העולה תשחט את החטאת, “ (Leviticus 6,18) It is also written: כי כחטאת האשם, “for the sin offering is treated like the guilt offering.” (Leviticus 14,13.) The principal purpose of these sacrifices was for the sake of heaven. On the other hand, sacrifices known under the heading of kodoshim kalim, sacred gifts of a lower level of holiness, the Torah did not specify the exact location where these had to be slaughtered. [These included thanksgiving offerings, the Passover lamb, the ram offered by a Nazarene at the conclusion of his term, peace offerings, firstling animals etc. The reason is that the greater part of the offering was consumed by the donor and the priests. Ed.]
+
+Verse 12
+
+ונתח אותו, “after it has been cut up;” This had to be stated explicitly in order that we do not think that only the large animals, i.e. bullocks, require to be cut up. No mention is made of these animals being flayed, as it was taken for granted by the Torah that the reader understands this.
+
+Verse 13
+
+והקריב הכהן את הכל, “the priest is to offer up the whole;” the phrase refers to the priest carrying all the various pieces to be burned up on the ramp to the altar.
+
+Verse 14
+
+ואם מן העוף, if the offering consists of a bird or birds; the word מן “from,” here means that not every part of a bird is fit to be offered up. If the bird in question is missing one of its limbs it is not fit to be offered up as a sacrifice. (Sifra)
+העוף עולה, a bird does not qualify as a peace offering, i.e. a creature which is partially consumed by the donor or the priest. (Sifra)
+העוף עולה קרבנו, the personal pronoun at the end of the word קרבנו, “his,” teaches that birds may only be offered by individuals, not by a group of individuals. (Sifra)
+והקריב, “then he shall bring;” the connective letter ו at the beginning of this word indicates that the Torah speaks of two people having shared in paying for this offering. [Two partners are not considered a group which the Torah had stated as unable to share in the cost of one bird. Ed.]
+מן התורים, “from the turtledoves;” even if these have already fully matured. The reason that the Torah uses the word התורים in the plural mode, is that when the mate of one of the turtledoves has died, the surviving dove is not suitable as a sacrifice anymore as it will not mate with another dove of the gender to the dead dove. (Talmud tractate Eyruvin, folio 100)
+או מבני היונה, “or from immature pigeons.” Seeing that a fully mature pigeon is gullible, it does not have a “heart” so that if its mate dies it does not mind mating with another member of its species. Hence the Torah permits only very young pigeons to be offered as a sacrifice. Seeing that these two categories of birds are more persecuted than any other creature, G-d selected them to serve as sacrifices on behalf of man. (Compare Talmud tractate Baba Kamma, folio 93.)
+
+Verse 15
+
+ומלק, “and he will pinch off;” the priest himself, i.e. with his own hands, on the top of the altar; he was not to use a tool such as a knife. This is in consonance with the commandment that in building the altar, no iron tool, sword, knife, was to be used, as the altar is designed to prolong man’s life, whereas the knife or sword is used to shorten man’s life. [What makes sense when building an altar makes even better sense in the procedures to be performed on the altar. Ed.] Just as the act of pinching mentioned in chapter5,8, was performed at the neck, so here too the Torah refers to the bird’s neck being pinched off. (Sifra there) The head is not to be completely severed, however.
+ראשו והקטיר, just as find that the delivering the head to be burned on the altar was performed by the priest’s hands, no other instrument or container, and the bird’s body was placed on the altar by the priest’s hands, so the “slaughtering” of the two vital tubes that lead to the head was also performed by the priest’s hands. This had to be done in this way in order to prevent the head being accidentally severed from its body by a knife.
+ונמצה דמו, “and its blood shall be drained;” all of its blood. How could this be accomplished? The priest would hold the bird’s body by it skin to ensure it would not be cut in half completely; in this way the blood would seep out from either side of where the priest held the skin in his hands. We have a tradition that anything that disqualifies a four legged animal from becoming an acceptable sacrifice, does so also if its counterpart on the bird is defective, i.e. improperly treated by the priest. On the other hand, anything that does not invalidate the sacrifice of a fourlegged animal, for instance the skin, does not invalidate the bird offering either if it had been treated incorrectly.
+ונמצה דמו על קיר המזבח, “and the blood thereof shall be drained out on the side of the altar.” Seeing that if this procedure would be performed by the priest holding a bowl, the amount of blood secured would be minimal, there would not be enough to pick it out of that bowl and to perform the sprinkling of the blood on the top of the altar, the Torah decreed the method described. (B’chor shor)
+
+Verse 16
+
+אל מקום הדשן, “in the place for the ashes.” Chanina, son of Antignos, says (Sifra) that there were two such locations. The first one was situated east of the ramp leading to the altar, and the second one was situated east of the altar itself. The one that was located east of the ramp was used for the remainders of the bird offerings, as well as the ashes of the altar inside the Sanctuary, and the ashes from the candlestick, whereas the one east of the altar was used for ashes that originated from the burning of the remains of sacrificial animals that had become disqualified by a faulty procedure, or because the owners had not eaten all of their parts in the time allocated for it.
+
+Verse 17
+
+לא יבדיל, “he must not completely detach the wings;” the reason is that the bird is so small anyways; if he were to detach all of its parts, head and wings there would not be much left of it, if he were to offer it as a gift to a mortal king. Hence it is not appropriate to do so with a gift to the King of Kings.
+
+Chapter 2
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+ונפש כי תקריב, “an individual brings the socalled “gift offering,” “מנחה,” a meal offering, as a voluntary offering. This applies even to the High Priest. This type of offering is never presented by a group of people.
+מנחה, another word for “gift.”
+
+Verse 2
+
+והביאה, both the letters ו and ה have the vowel segol under them.
+אל בני אהרן, “to the priests;” they brought into the foyer, עזרה of the Sanctuary. [This expression is not used with the Tabernacle except possibly with the Tabernacle in Shiloh,where Channah is reported as having offered a silent prayer. Ed.] Seeing that the person offering that meal offering brings fine flour to the Temple, and this flour had not previously undergone the procedures necessary for an offering on the altar, he does not need to bring it to the altar as it is clear that her intention is to do this for the sake of heaven. However, the kind of meal offerings that are brought already baked, regardless of in which type of pans, require to be brought to the altar, in order to make plain to all that she had only baked these cakes for the sake of their being consumed on the altar not for secular consumption. He must not be viewed by onlookers as someone who first prepared a meal for himself, and then invited others to share it with him, or to send portions of these cakes to his friends while retaining the lion’s share for himself. This would not be viewed as honouring heaven. (B’chor shor)
+וקמץ משם, “and he (the priest) shall take from that flour a handful; according to Rashi on the words מלא קומצו, which appears to contradict the restrictive expression: וקמץ, the Torah here speaks of the קומץ that we are familiar with from the Hebrew tongue as meaning something hollow. This is based on Samuel II 17,9: נחבא באחת הפחתים, “hidden in one of the holes, etc. which is rendered by the Targum as קומציא [I have failed to find the word גומא quoted by our author in the text of Rashi. The super commentary on Rashi by Mizrachi also appears to have had this difficulty Ed]. According to the Talmud (Menachot 11) describes the priest as making a partial fist of the three middle fingers of his hand and wipes of any excess on either side with the remaining two fingers trapping the fine flour inside the curve of the three middle fingers. It is described as one of the most difficult parts of the priests’ duties.
+מלא קומצו, “his fistful;” [we already explained that this was not a full fist. Ed.]
+
+Verse 3
+
+
+
+Verse 4
+
+חלות מצות בלולות בשמן, “unleavened cakes soaked in oil;” 
+on the other hand, the רקיקי מצות, “unleavened wafers,” mentioned in the same verse were not soaked in oil. The pan in which they had been baked had only been lightly oiled.
+
+Verse 5
+
+
+
+Verse 6
+
+
+
+Verse 7
+
+
+
+Verse 8
+
+והבאת, “you will bring (offer);” the letter ו at the beginning of the word is a hint at the offering of the omer, the first ripe offering of the barley harvest, (though it is a communal and mandatory offering) Compare also Leviticus 23, 10: והבאתם את העומר, “you are to bring the omer.”
+והקריבה, “one has to bring it, etc.;” here the emphasis is on the pronoun ה at the end of the word, i.e. “it, but not the libations.” Also the gift offerings of the priest as well as the High Priest and the showbreads, do not require libations, as well as the first ripe wheat offering (communal) do not require libations to accompany it.
+
+Verse 9
+
+והרים, “the priest will lift off, etc.” just as this procedure mentioned in chapter 6,8 consists of a fistful of the priest’s three middle fingers, קומץ, so this is also what it means here, though the Torah does not mentions a quantity.
+אשה ריח ניחוח, “an offering made by fire, of pleasant fragrance, for the Lord.” We find the same expression, i.e. ריח ניחוח in connection with the burnt offerings of animals (Leviticus 1,9), and with burnt offerings of birds (Leviticus 1,9), and here it is to teach us that the acceptability and its welcome in the eyes of the Lord does not depend on the monetary value but on the attitude of the donor who presents it.
+
+Verse 10
+
+
+
+Verse 11
+
+
+
+Verse 12
+
+תקריבו אום לה, “you are to present it to Hashem.” This procedure is performed in the courtyard of the Temple, but the offering does not reach the altar.
+
+Verse 13
+
+במלח, “with salt.” Not with salt water.
+תמלח. In accordance with the details spelled out in Menachot folio 21.
+
+Verse 14
+
+
+
+Verse 15
+
+ושמת עליה לבונה, מנחה היא, “and lay frankincense thereon, it is a giftoffering, מנחה. This includes the minchah on the eighth day to include frankincense. (Sifra)
+
+Verse 16
+
+מגרשה, “of the groats thereof,” the letter ג has the vowel chirik.
+
+Chapter 3
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+ואם זבח שלמים, “and if his offering is a peaceoffering;” the word שלמים, here means: תשלומים, “payment for something.” In this instance, the donor is paying a vow.
+
+Verse 2
+
+וסמך ידו על ראש קרבנו, “he must place his weight with his hands on the head of his offering.” This rule does not apply if the offering is either a firstborn animal, animal tithes, or the Passover lamb. It also does not apply to this category of offering when it is offered on behalf of the community. The latter do require libation, and heaving and slaughtering, however as stated in Leviticus 23,20.
+
+Verse 3
+
+והקריב מזבח השלמים וגו , “he shall present from the peaceoffering, etc.,” nothing is mentioned here concerning the washing of the entrails and legs of peaceofferings, the reason being that these continue to belong to the owners of the respective animals, each one of whom will make his own arrangements concerning such procedures.
+את החלב, “the fat;” the expression “fat,” is used to describe the best part of something. This is clear from the Targum, rendering the word as תרבא, i.e. a combination of abundance and excellence.
+
+Verse 4
+
+
+
+Verse 5
+
+על העולה, according to the plain meaning of the text: “with the burnt offering,” as in Exodus 35,22: ויבאו האנשים על הנשים, “the men came with the women,” or as in Leviticus 25,31: על שדה הארץ יחשב, “it shall be reckoned with the field of the land.”
+העולה, “the burnt offering;” the one that has been discussed in detail, the daily communal burnt offering.
+
+Verse 6
+
+
+
+Verse 7
+
+אם כשב, here the Torah includes the Passover offering whose fatty tail is to be treated as are the ones of peaceofferings. The tail of a goat, however was thrown away. This is why in connection with the Passover lamb, i.e. שה, we also find the word: מן הכבשים, “from among the sheep,” which was not really necessary.
+
+Verse 8
+
+
+
+Verse 9
+
+חלבו האליה תמימה, “the fat thereof, the fat tail in perfect condition, earlier (verse 3) that tail had simply been part of the parts of the animal to be burned up as חלב, fat parts forbidden to be eaten,” the Rabbis derived this from Leviticus 7, 23: כל חלב שור וכשב ועז לא תאכלו, “you must not eat the fat of any ox, sheep or goat.” This means that the type of fat that sheep, oxen and goats have in common must not be eaten. It therefore exempts the fatty tail of a sheep from this prohibition.
+
+Verse 10
+
+
+
+Verse 11
+
+
+
+Verse 12
+
+ואם עז קרבנו, and if his offering is a female goat;” any paragraph that has appeared in the Torah and whose basic content has been repeated, was repeated in order to add an additional dimension to it. (Talmud tractate Sotah folio 3) Seeing that the subject of the fatty tail is not applicable to female goats, the Torah interrupted its sequential report in order to repeat the laws concerning offering a female goat.
+
+Verse 13
+
+
+
+Verse 14
+
+
+
+Verse 15
+
+
+
+Verse 16
+
+
+
+Verse 17
+
+כל חלב לה, “all fat parts are G-d’s.” This is a law applicable at all times. When the Temple stood, i.e. Solomon’s Temple, when these fat parts were burned on the altar, these parts were not allowed to be eaten even by the priests.
+The Torah added the word: לדורותיכם, “throughout your generations,” to make clear that this prohibition continues in force even after the Temple no longer functioned. Should you think that this prohibition applied only in the Land of Israel, the Torah added the words: בכל מושבותיכם, “wherever you will dwell.”
+כל חלב, “all fat,” [that used to be burned upon the altar Ed.] the reader will take note that wherever the Torah discusses the subject of animal offerings, it repeats its warning that Israelites must not eat either חלב or דם, “such fat, or blood.” We must learn not to assume that seeing that something is fit to be presented to the King of Kings, it must logically also be acceptable to the King’s subjects. However, the Torah prohibits only consumption of these parts of an animal. It does not forbid making other use of it, or even trading in it.
+
+Chapter 4
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+
+
+Verse 2
+
+כי תחטא בשגגה, “if you transgress a law inadvertently;” sin offerings as a form of atonement are acceptable only when that sin had not been committed deliberately. Deliberately committed sins cannot be atoned for by that method. [There are some exceptions. Ed.]
+מאחת מהנה, “of one of these;” the first letter מ in this expression is unnecessary, whereas the second letter מ introduces examples. An example of a similar construction is found in Hoseah 4,9: כעם ככהן, “ordinary people (will fare) as well as priests.” Another such construction can be found in Kings II 3,7: כמוני כמוך, כעמי כעמך, כסוסי כסוסיך, “I will do what you do; my troops will be your troops; my horses will be your horses.” A third example of such a construction is found in Psalms 139,12: כחשכה כאורה, “darkness is like light.”
+
+Verse 3
+
+. אם הכהן המשיח יחטא, “if the anointed priest were to commit an inadvertent sin;” because he is the High Priest, his sin offering will reflect this and he will offer a bull instead of a female goat.”
+יחטא לאשמת העם, “so as to bring guilt on the people;” the High Priest may have given an erroneous halachic ruling, and the people, by following that ruling, all committed a sin by performing a forbidden act. We know that it was the duty of the people to accept the halachic rulings of the High Priest, seeing that the Torah wrote in Deuteronomy 33,10: יורו משפטיך ליעקב, “they (the Levites) are to teach you (the people) your laws.”
+על חטאתו אשר חטא, “on account of his sin which he has sinned;” the word על occurs in this context also in Leviticus 1,4: לכפר עליו, “to make atonement on account of it.” Compare also Psalms 44,23: כי עליך הורגנו כל היום, “for we are being killed on Your account all day long.”
+
+Verse 4
+
+לפני ה, “before the Lord;” i.e. on the north side facing the entrance to the Tabernacle.
+וסמך את ידו, “and he is to place the weight of his body with his hand;” no heaving or libations are required with this offering.
+
+Verse 5
+
+ולקח הכהן המשיח מדם הפר, “the High Priest is to take some of the blood of this bull;” the expression לקח both here and again in Exodus 24,6 [in the past tense, i.e. ויקח] teach us that just as in Exodus Moses used a bowl in which the blood was placed, so the High Priest here is also supposed to place that blood in a bowl first.
+
+Verse 6
+
+וטבל, והזה, “the priest will dip his finger in the blood, and sprinkle;” every sprinkling of the blood has to be preceded by the priest dipping his finger in the blood;
+אצבעו, “his finger”; this finger is mentioned both here and again in Leviticus 14,16. Just as in that verse the right index finger is the one to be used, so here too he is to perform this procedure with the index finger of his right hand. (Sifra)
+שבע פעמים, “seven times.” He is to count seven times during this procedure, not the way the High Priest does during the sprinkling on the Day of Atonement, (Sifra, here) where he counted:; “one, plus seven.”
+שבע פעמים, seven times.” The number seven occurs on many separate occasions repeatedly in matters involving heaven. There are seven constellations of major stars, we speak of seven layers of the heavens, and the earth, correspondingly, is referred to by seven different names, i.e: ,ארץ, אדמה, ארקא, חרבה, יבשה, תבל and חלד There are seven deserts mentioned in the Torah; there are seven “worlds,” (i.e. G-d created seven universes, and destroys six of them) compare (Pirkey de Rabbi Eliezer) the week has seven days, we count seven years of the sh’mittah cycle, seven times seven for the Jubilee cycle. The candlestick in the Temple had seven lamps. Bileam, the sorcerer, built seven different altars. (Compare more on this in Avot de Rabbi Natan, chapter 37.)
+
+Verse 7
+
+על קרנות מזבח הקטורת הסמים לפני ה, “on the horns of the altar of sweet fragrances, in front of the Lord.” This does not mean that the priest is standing before the Lord, as he is standing in front of that altar when he sprinkles, and both the altar and the dividing curtain separate him from the Holy Ark in the Holy of Holies.
+
+Verse 8
+
+
+
+Verse 9
+
+
+
+Verse 10
+
+כאשר יורם, “as it is lifted off;” Rashi explains that the Torah had to spell out the “heaving” of the fat pieces of the High Priest’s sin offering in order that we learn from this that the same procedure also had to be performed in the case of the ox that was a peace offering. (Leviticus 3,3-10) Why did also the same procedure have to be spelled out again in verse 20 of our chapter instead of the Torah simply writing: “as in that instance?” What was different here from there? How could we make a legal comparison that had not been spelled out from a verse in which it had itself not been spelled out, i.e. seeing that in verse 20 the Torah only writes: “as he had done, etc.,” without saying what he had done in that other instance? According to our author rule number three out of 13 rules of how to interpret the written Torah, by Rabbi Yishmael, does not apply when the Torah deals with the subject of קדשים, offerings presented in the sacred precincts of the Temple.
+כאשר יורם משור זבח השלמים, “as it is taken off the ox of the sacrifice of peace offerings;” the reason why the Torah used this example to compare this offering to, is to teach that it too is instrumental in restoring peace between Israel and G-d, as opposed to comparing it to peace offerings consisting of sheep, which are brought on the Sabbath and in a state of uncleanliness, just like communal offerings, as in Leviticus 23,19.
+
+Verse 11
+
+על ראשו ועל כרעיו, “with its head and its legs.”
+וקרבו ופרשו, “as well as its entrails and its excrement.” This teaches us that the animal is not skinned but is burned completely.
+
+Verse 12
+
+והוציא את כל הפר, “he is to remove the entire bull, etc.” this teaches that he has to do so before the animal has been cut up into pieces; in other words: the head with the legs need to be cut up of this animal outside the sacred precincts.
+
+Verse 13
+
+
+
+Verse 14
+
+
+
+Verse 15
+
+
+
+Verse 16
+
+
+
+Verse 17
+
+
+
+Verse 18
+
+
+
+Verse 19
+
+
+
+Verse 20
+
+
+
+Verse 21
+
+
+
+Verse 22
+
+אשר נשיא יחטא, “when the secular head of the nation commits an inadvertent sin;” the construction אשר נשיא יחטא, instead of: נשיא אשר יחטא, also occurs in Esther 6,8: ואשר נתן כתר מלכות על ראשו, where we would have expected the sequence of וכתר מלכות אשר נתן בראשו, “and the crown of the Kingdom which had been placed on his head.”
+
+Verse 23
+
+
+
+Verse 24
+
+במקום אשר ישחט את העולה, “at the same place as he has to slaughter the burntoffering.” This was done in order not to embarrass a sinner, so that the people would think he is presenting a burnt offering.
+
+Verse 25
+
+על קרנות מזבח העולה, “on the horns (corners) of the altar for burnt offerings.” When either the High Priest or the community offers a sacrifice (sin offering), the blood for the atonement through these sacrifices is considered before the Almighty as if it had been offered inside the Sanctuary and having been sprinkled on the dividing curtain and on the golden altar. By the same token, the sins for which atonement had been sought may be perceived as if they had been cast out even beyond the three Camps of the Israelite nation, all according to the severity of the sin to be atoned for. If either the secular head of the people or another person find themselves in the same position, seeing that they are not so highly ranking individuals do not bother to offer the required sacrifice and do not consider either the blood of it or its entrails etc, the blood of their sacrifices is offered on the altar in the courtyard of the Temple, and the meat of these sacrifices may be consumed. (based on B’chor shor end of Vayikra)
+
+Verse 26
+
+
+
+Verse 27
+
+ואשם, “and he has become guilty;” he found out himself that he had committed an inadvertent sin.
+
+Verse 28
+
+או הודע אליו, “or it had been brought to his attention;”
+
+Verse 29
+
+
+
+Verse 30
+
+
+
+Verse 31
+
+
+
+Verse 32
+
+
+
+Verse 33
+
+
+
+Verse 34
+
+
+
+Verse 35
+
+
+
+Chapter 5
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+
+
+Verse 2
+
+
+
+Verse 3
+
+והוא ידע ואשם, “it came to his attention some time after the event so that he now had become guilty;” according to Rashi he had known, but had forgotten that this contact had made him ritually impure, so that he considered himself ritually pure. According to Rashi, how could he have become guilty since he had not been warned that he had committed something that results in his becoming impure?
+
+Verse 4
+
+לאחת מאלה, “be guilty concerning one of these things.” Concerning this Rashi asks what the Torah means to tell us with these words? (Actually on verse 13, where the same expression occurs, not on this verse) he answers that the three different sins all involving oaths that are being mentioned here are being treated equally. He answers that I could have thought that the type of offering demanded would be determined by the relative severity of the sin, whereas theTorah reveals that it is determined by the economic status of the sinner concerned. For example: if the person concerned had by mistake eaten part of an offering, he basically has to atone for this by offering a sheep or female goat. If he had committed a less serious sin, by failing to testify to something he had been a witness of, he has to bring a bird offering. If his inadvertent sin consisted of swearing an oath concerning what he would or would not do, and had forgotten that he had expressed this by words that made it an oath, he will bring a meal offering as atonement consisting of about two kilos of flour.
+
+Verse 5
+
+
+
+Verse 6
+
+והביא את אשמו, “he shall bring as his guilt offering, etc;” this offering does not have to be accompanied by a libation, but it does require that the person bringing it places his weight through his hands upon it (when confessing his guilt). (Sifra)
+
+Verse 7
+
+ואם לא תגיע ידו, “if he is financially unable, etc.” the Torah does not demand that he must borrow money in order to be able to atone for his unintentional sin, and it does not require that he use the products of his special skill and bring this as an offering. But if he owns a lamb, which is what is basically required of him as an offering, but he does not have money to cover his basic expenses, he does have to bring this lamb as his offering. The sages derive this rule from the Torah having written: די שה. (Sifra on that verse)
+אחד לחטאת ואחד לעולה, “one of which (the two birds) as a sin offering and the other as a burnt offering.” Only the blood of a bird offering that is a sin offering is brought to the altar, so that the altar has something that can be “eaten.” When a wealthy person has to bring a sin offering, the Torah is satisfied with either a female sheep or goat, seeing that there is enough meat on these animals to provide a meal for the officiating priest, and the entrails provide the ”meal” for the altar.
+
+Verse 8
+
+והקריב את אשר לחטאת ראשונה, “he (the priest) is to present the offering serving as the sin offering, first;” the verse does not discuss what is offered first on the altar, but what is slaughtered (pinched) first. Any left over blood will be squeezed out on the altar.
+ולא יבדיל, “he must not sever the head (of the bird) completely. Only one of the vital conduits of the bird, either the one for breathing, or the one for leading to the stomach needs to be pinched.
+
+Verse 9
+
+והנשאר בדם ימצה, “and the remainder of the blood shall be drained out;” the priest walks around the side of the altar and squeezes the bird against the wall of the altar so that the blood drains by itself. The word ימצה is spelled here with the letter א at the end to suggest that the blood ends up the same way as does the blood which had been sprinkled, namely at the base of the altar.[I have not in any of the editions of the chumash or training Torah scrolls at my disposal. According to one commentary I have seen the author had the same spelling in front of him as do we, but he means that the vowel tzeyre instead of the vowel segol the result is that the meaning is as if the letter ה had been written instead of the letter א. Ed.]
+
+Verse 10
+
+
+
+Verse 11
+
+One tenth of an ephah. A commandment performed at its proper time is more welcome to the Lord than at a later time, i.e. the sinner having expected some substantial money coming his way and therefore preferring to wait with the sin offering until he can present an animal of greater worth. The same rule applies to the poor person who, although not even having sinned, promises his own worth as a donation to G-d. It is preferable that he donates one sela (or whatever the Kohen determines he can afford) rather than wait until he becomes rich and give 50 shekalim. (See Leviticus 27.2-8)
+כי חטאת היא, “for it really should have had the rules pertaining to a sin offering, requiring libations so that the sinner would not emerge as having actually profited. The reason why the Torah decided to forego this requirement is so that the sinner would not be able to boast about what kind of costly sacrifice he had brought in order to atone for what was, after all, only an inadvertent sin. In the case of someone who offers a sin offering after having been healed from the affliction of tzoraat, since [at least according to the written text of the Torah, Ed.] he had not been afflicted for a specific sin that he had been guilty of, and since this offering is required only in order to enable the person offering it to be able to eat of sacrificial meat when the occasion arises, this offering requires libations, as our sages have stated in the Talmud tractate Sotah folio 36.
+
+Verse 12
+
+
+
+Verse 13
+
+והיתה לכהן כמנחה, “and it (the remnant) will belong to the priests, just as a giftoffering. All male priests are allowed to partake of it within the sacred precincts of the Temple only.
+
+Verse 14
+
+
+
+Verse 15
+
+איל תמים, “an unblemished ram, according to Rashi, a two year old ram, fully mature.
+
+Verse 16
+
+
+
+Verse 17
+
+
+
+Verse 18
+
+
+
+Verse 19
+
+אשם, אשם, “a guilt offering, he is guilty;” according to Rashi, he has to bring the offering decreed for having sexual relations with a Canaanite servant woman who has not yet completed the procedure for becoming free; This offering consists of a two year old ram. This is clear, as only after having attained that age is this animal referred to as איל. We might have asked what special “power” does a 2 year old ram possess to have been selected by the Torah as atonement for the sin of treating Temple treasury money as if it were secular money? At that age this animal is valued at two shekels. This is why the Torah repeats the word אשם. We might have thought that a sheep, כבש בן שנתו, one year old, such as is required from someone healed from the affliction of tzoraat, would have sufficed. This is to teach us that this is not so, the Torah emphasized: אשם, he is guilty, as opposed to a person afflicted with tzoraat concerning whom no specific guilt has been spelled out. As to the question of how we could have made such a mistake seeing that in the case of the sin offering for a Nazarene or a person afflicted with tzoraat, the Torah had spelled out the word כבש, which if not stated otherwise, is a one year old sheep?This is why we need to correct the wording in Rashi, and add the words “worth two shekels,” an expression not used in the Torah accept in connection with the atonement offering or people guilty of abusing money belonging to the Temple treasury, i.e. the sin of מעילה(Compare Torat Kohanim on Leviticus 19,11, where this has been spelled out already.)
+
+Verse 20
+
+
+
+Verse 21
+
+
+
+Verse 22
+
+
+
+Verse 23
+
+
+
+Verse 24
+
+ישבע עליו לשקר ושלם, “about which he has sworn falsely,” the Torah here tells us of the penalty for this sin, but where did the warning not to commit this sin which we expect, appear? Answer: compare Leviticus 19,11: לא תשקרו, “do not lie!”
+ושלם אותו בראשו, “he shall repay the victim in full;” he does not have to pay twice the full amount, as in the case of a thief who has stolen tangible chattels. Neither does he have to repay the victim four or five times the value as in the case of a thief who has stolen an ox or a sheep (see Exodus 21.37). An alternate explanation of this verse: “he has to repay the stolen object, and in the event that the stolen goods have already passed to other hands so that we cannot determine its value, his sin offering would not be acceptable.
+וחמשיתיו, “plus twice an additional 25%, i.e. 20% when counted after adding the full amount of the fine, if he had only owned up to his sin after witnesses have testified to his being guiltyIf he admitted his guilt without our having independent proof of it, it suffices if he adds 25% to the value of the goods in question.י
+יתננו ביום אשמתו, “the robber has to make restitution on the day when he had admitted his guilt, in order for his guilt offering to become acceptable to the Lord.
+או מכל אשר ישבע עליו לשקר, “or from anything concerning which he had sworn falsely;” this additional detail is meant to include תשומת יד, intangibles, such as pledges or loans which no longer can be collected from the sinner. It also includes false oaths as witness, or intangible damage caused by a non priest entering sacred precincts, which did not cause measurable damage to the Temple. In some of these examples the sinner did not enjoy a tangible or even intangible profit from having committed this sin. In such instances the Torah took this fact into consideration when assessing the penalty to be applied. This is why financially hard up people, guilty of either of these sins may attain atonement by low cost offerings, depending on how hard up they are. The reason the sages have tagged these sacrifices with the expression: עולה ויורד, “ascending or descending,” is that if a poor man delayed bringing the inexpensive offering he was entitled to due to his economic status, and he became wealthy in the interval, he cannot plead poverty as a reason for offering the low priced offering. On the other hand, if the sinner before having a chance to offer the higher priced offering became impoverished, G-d will accept the offering of a pair of birds instead of a sheep or goat, or in extreme cases even a meal offering. If someone ate (inadvertently, of course) forbidden fat from a sacrifice, or he ate any kind of blood, or he ate on the Day of Atonement, or he performed biblically prohibited kind of work on the Sabbath, or he indulged in sexual intercourse forbidden under the heading of “incest,” all sins from which he derived physical pleasure, he must bring the standard type of sacrifice prescribed by the Torah. Someone who ate from sacrificial meat that he was not entitled to eat from has actually enjoyed a dual benefit from his sin, so that he must bring a sin offering worth two shekels. Similarly, if he swore falsely not to have stolen what he has been accused of. If he is guilty of what is called: “a guilt offering valid while we are in doubt if he had committed a sin,” he first has to offer a sacrifice worth two shekels, and if it is eventually determined that he had indeed been guilty of having committed that sin, he offers an additional sacrifice worth one shekel. Although at first glance we may be puzzled by this, the reason is that the only reason why he had not known that he had indeed committed the sin in question, is because he chose to give himself the benefit of the doubt. Next time, hopefully, he will be more careful not to develop such a doubt.
+
+Verse 25
+
+
+
+Verse 26
+
+לאשמה בה, “to become guilty thereby.” The only exception to this rule is if the sinfully acquired property is less than the lowest valued coin, called prutah (Compare Torah sh’leymah on this item 236 on our verse).
+
+Chapter 6
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+
+
+Verse 2
+
+צו את אהרן, “command Aaron;” whenever the expression tzav is used, it is a commandment to be performed with alacrity, without delay, and is meant to apply indefinitely, not only for a limited period, i.e. one time. The reason we know that it is meant to encourage the person so commanded to fulfill the order without delay, is because the Torah wrote in Deuteronomy 1,16: “I will charge (command) your judges, etc.” In Numbers 5,2 the Torah wrote: (concerning the people afflicted with tzoraat, the dreaded skin disease, that such people must be removed forthwith from the camp of the Israelites. The Torah there adds, that this order was carried out without delay (Numbers 5,4). The fact that this is not a formulation used with commands valid only on a single occasion, is that in Numbers 15,23, the Torah writes concerning a number of commandments that they apply for all future generations for sins committed inadvertently. Seeing that such tasks were removing last night’s ash from the altar, or making sure that there was always an adequate supply of wood at hand on the altar, it is human nature not to relate to this with exceptional haste, the Torah, when legislating this command, employed a term implying haste, the need to perform that task without delay. Rashi, quoting Rabbi Shimon, is on record as saying that all commandments which involve expense to the person commanded to do so need reminders not to delay, as it is only human to seek to delay having to spend one’s money when it is not for making a profit from the transaction. What he means is that if the first person charged with doing something has not performed his task, then another person has to substitute for him, something called חסרון כיס, being out of pocket. In our age the correct term would be: “because time is money.”
+את אהרן, up until now we read about the sons of Aaron having to perform certain chores, as for instance in chapter 1 verse 11, and verse 8. At this point, according to Vayikra rabbah, Moses turned to G-d and said: “how can a well which is in disgrace produce water that is welcome and pure? What he meant was that if Aaron was in disgrace because of the sin of the golden calf, how could his sons be fit to perform the duties in the Tabernacle? [I find this somewhat difficult to accept as the commands in our chapter were addressed to both Aaron, and his sons (6,2). Ed.] We have learned in Mishnah 3 of Tamid at the beginning of chapter 2, that all manner of wood is suitable as firewood for the sacrifices with the exception of olive wood and the wood of grape vines. The reason is that the wood of the olive tree is of a higher status as the oil of the lamps candlestick is made from the olives that grew on an olive tree, and the wine used in libations is used in Temple. The Mishnah immediately preceding that one reports the fact that none of the priests charged with removing the ash had ever been late in the performance of his duties. We see that the trunk of the olive tree was honoured on account of its fruit, so that the sons of Aaron should be honoured because of their father. When G-d heard Moses’ reasoning He immediately changed the wording of the commandment by including Aaron in it.
+זאת תורת העולה, “these are the instructions pertaining to offering any burnt offering;” up until now we had not known from which hour in the morning this communal daily sacrifice could be offered. Neither had we known at what hour its counterpart in the evening was to be presented. This is why this verse was preceded by the words: זאת תורת העולה, ”this is the instruction concerning the burnt offering,” i.e. this burnt offering is subject to special rules. The rules for any burnt offerings mentioned in the Book of Leviticus have been reiterated here.
+היא העולה, even though this burnt offering is burned up by day, (as opposed to most other offerings). This point is underlined once more when the Torah wrote in Leviticus 7,16: ביום הקריבו את זבחו, “on the day when he offered his meat offering, its fat parts and its limbs are permitted for consumption all night long.”
+ואש המזבח, but the fire on the golden altar within the Sanctuary,
+תוקד בו, “shall be fed and kept going all night long; you are to light it by taking fire from the copper altar,” (the altar on which the burnt offerings were offered and burned up. (compare Torat kohanim on our verse.)
+בו, “from it;” the letter ב here is substituting for the letter מ which we would have expected. We find something similar in Exodus 30,26: ומשחת בו את אהל מועד, “you are to anoint from it (from the oil of anointing) the Tent of Meeting.” You find this use of the word בו again in verse 13 of our chapter: where the words: ביום המשח אותו, mean “from the day he had anointed him.”Whence do we know that the fire for Aaron’s coalpan and the fire for kindling the candlestick in the Sanctuary were also taken from the altar for the animal sacrifices? This is simple logic. If the fire for the golden altar had to be provided from the fire on the altar in front of the Tabernacle, the same must be true for the fire of the priest’s coalpan (for incense) and for lighting the lamps on the candlestick. (Sifra)
+
+Verse 3
+
+מדו בד, “in a garment made of linen;” the letter ו at the end of the word: מדו is superfluous, just as the second letter ו in וחיתו ארץ in Genesis 1,24, and the letter ו in Numbers 24 in the word: .בנו
+מדו בד, these are the cap, tunic, and belt worn by the ordinary priest, all of which are made of linen. The reason that they are all mentioned in the singular mode, is that whenever worn by the priest, all of them are worn simultaneously. The reason why the pants are mentioned separately, as we find already in Exodus 28,42, after the garments worn by the High Priest and the ordinary priests have been listed. The pants are mentioned separately, as both the High Priest and the ordinary priest wear the same kind of pants. According to Torat Kohanim, (Sifra on our verse) this is hinted at in the apparently extraneous word: ילבש, the four letters hinting that the ordinary priests wore four garments when on duty. The repetition both here and Exodus 28 that the pants must be worn on his skin, על בשרו, suggest that these pants must always be also the first garment the priest dons in order to cover his private parts. [The plural mode מכנסים is similar to the English language where “pants” or “trousers” are in the plural mode because they refer to a single garment covering both legs. Ed.]
+על בשרו, a delicate description of the priest’s private parts (see Lev. 15.2).
+והרים את הדשן, “he shall lift up the ashes;” the plain meaning of the verse is that in order to remove the ashes the priest must first put on the priestly garments described here. He is not allowed to wear street clothes even for performing this procedure.
+את הדשן, “at least a fistful of ashes.”
+
+Verse 4
+
+והוציא, same as להוציא, “in order to remove the ashes.” The absence of the word “the priest,” here is an indication that even a priest who is disqualified from performing other procedures in the Temple due to physical blemishes, may perform this procedure.
+אל מקום טהור,”a ritually pure location” seeing that these ashes had originated in sacred precincts. This is distinct from the stones of a house whose stones were afflicted with tzoraat, which have to be removed to a ritually unclean location, a location which people carrying objects that require ritual purity may not be brought to. (Leviticus 14,41)
+
+Verse 5
+
+והאש על המזבח, “and the fire on the altar, etc.;” the Torah reverts now to a statement made by Rabbi Yehudah in the Talmud Yuma folio 45 according to which the wood used for kindling may be burned only on the top part of the altar, i.e. על המזבח. This was used to kindle the major stack of wood that burned around the clock on the altar. (This is the way Rashi explains the word .(אליתא
+וערך עליה, to the question where on the altar all the parts of the burnt offering are to burned up, the Torah answers with the word: עליה; to the question where the relevant parts of the sin offerings and peace offerings are to be burned up, the Torah adds the words: חלבי השלמים, “the best parts of the peace offerings.” [fat parts listed previously, mainly above the kidneys and liver of the animal. Ed.] To the question where the fistful of meal offerings and frankincense, and libations etc. are to be burned up, the Torah answers with the word: והקטיר. To make sure that we do not get the impression that the incense is also to be burned up on the large altar in front of the Temple, the Torah adds: ובער עליה וערך את העצים, “that the priest is to set a special fire on the golden altar where the incense will be burned up.”
+
+Verse 6
+
+אש תמיד, “a perpetual fire;” it will be kept burning even on the Sabbath, even if for some reason it became ritually impure.
+לא תכבה, “where it will not go out.” Even while the Israelites were journeying through the desert, G-d’s honour demanded that precautions be taken that this flame be kept going. According to Rabbi Yehudah in the Sifra. they used a kind of metal dome fixed above it to insure that it was kept going. [Seeing that the clouds of glory kept the people protected from rain, sandstorms and other inclemency of weather, this does not sound so exceptional. Ed.]
+
+Verse 7
+
+אל פני המזבח, “In front of the altar.” There was no need to present it on the altar, as explained already on Leviticus 2,1. (Compare also B’chor shor)
+
+Verse 8
+
+והרים ממנו, “he will remove some of it,” (the gift offering) it has been written in the masculine mode (although the word מנחה is feminine) We find a similar grammatically incorrect construction in Leviticus 27,9: כל אשר יתן ממנו לה' יהיה קודש, where according to the grammar the Torah could have been expected to write ממנה instead of ממנו. There are numerous such incongruous constructions in different parts of the Torah.
+
+Verse 9
+
+והנותרת ממנה, “and what is left of it;” the Torah here repeats itself seeing that it had written in Leviticus 2,3: that the leftover from the minchah offering was to be given to Aaron and his sons. If the Torah had not stated this at this point, we might have thought that the entire left over was to be given to be burnt. The word: ממנה from it, makes it clear that this is not so.
+מצות תאכל, “it must be consumed as unleavened cakes;” seeing that up until now, i.e. before it had been sanctified the flour was permissible to be eaten by anyone either leavened or unleavened, the Torah had to make clear that though it is “leftovers,” it did not revert now to its original status. We find something similar in the legislation of the levirate marriage. (Deuteronomy 25,5) The Torah writes that even though prior to the marriage of this woman to her late husband she was free to marry any Jews, now she is limited to her brother-in-law who must perform the levirate marriage.
+
+Verse 10
+
+חלקם נתתי אותה מאשי, “I have given it as their share of My offerings by fire;” The Torah explains here why it must not be baked with leavening, having first been part of the offerings brought to Hashem. Of these offerings we had been told in Leviticus 2,11: 'כל שאור וכל דבש לא תקטירו ממנו אשה לה, “you are not to burn up as a fire offering to Hashem anything leavened or anything containing honey.”
+קדש קדשים היא, “it is most holy;” it is of the same status as all holy things.
+כחטאת, “just as the sin offering;” just as the sin offering originally had been secular, i.e. the person presenting it used money to purchase the animal without first sanctifying that money. This had to be done by day and with the right hand.
+
+Verse 11
+
+כל זכר, “every male; the content of this paragraph had already been written Leviticus 2,10. It was repeated here for three reasons. 1) Unleavened bread. 2) had to be eaten on sacred ground. 3) Any male priest could eat it.
+Anyone or anything coming into contact with it would become out of bounds unless such a person had first ritually purified himself.
+
+Verse 12
+
+
+
+Verse 13
+
+ביום המשח אותו, “on the day when he is anointed;” the prefix letter ב in the word ביום was used here instead of the prefix letter מ, “from.” From that day on the high Priest has to present this daily offering. We find another example of the use of the letter ב in the same sense as here, in chapter 7, verse 36: ביום משחו אותם, “from the day they were anointed.” (Ibn Ezra) Also in chapter 8, verse 32, והנותר בבשר ובלחם, the correct translation is: “and that which is left over from the meat and the bread.”
+מחציתם בבקר ומחציתם בערב, “half of it in the morning and half of it in the evening.” How is the High Priest to perform the procedure? He brings a whole tenth of an eyfah in the morning, and proceeds to divide that quantity in half, proceeding to offer the first half in the morning and the remaining half in the evening. If, in the interval, the half reserved for offering in the evening has becoming ritually contaminated, or has somehow been lost, the priest will bring the full eyfah in the evening to compensate for what was lost or has been contaminated. He will do so by dividing it into two halves, but only offering one of the two halves, so that a whole eyfah will have been offered and a whole eyfah will have been lost. (Sifra)
+
+Verse 14
+
+תעשה מרבכת, “it will be presented after having been prepared with oil on a griddle.” The only time in the Torah that we hear about such a procedure, is here and in connection with the קרבן תודה, mandatory thanksgiving offering, and during the consecration rites of the priests when the Tabernacle was consecrated. (Menachot 78)
+תפיני, “in broken pieces;” the expression means that it has not been baked thoroughly, and is neither raw nor cooked.
+
+Verse 15
+
+
+
+Verse 16
+
+כליל תהיה, “it shall be offered whole.” Seeing that no one will eat part of it, how miserly would it be if he only offered part of a fistful, קומץ to the Lord, as is done with the minchah offering of the ordinary Israelites, of which only this partial fistful will be burnt up symbolically, the remainder being eaten by the priests in their capacity of servants of Hashem? It can also not be compared to sin offerings or guilt offerings offered by the priests (on their own behalf). Seeing that they themselves are the servants of the Lord, the whole offering had become a gift to Hashem. What do the priests lose by offering the entire minchah offering to Hashem? We can also not make a comparison with the sin offerings and guilt offerings of the priests for their own sins or guilt, as in wither event at least the entrails are burned up on the altar, and the skin is distributed among the priests of that particular watch. Logic also dictates that the whole minchah be burned up as it is the priest who has presented it, and it would not make sense that he present part of his offering to Hashem to other priests. We find an example of this reasoning being practiced in the bulls offered by the priests during the consecration rites, which are burned up completely. (Leviticus 8,17)
+
+Verse 17
+
+
+
+Verse 18
+
+במקום אשר תשחט העולה, “at the site where the burnt offering will be slaughtered;” the reason why the Torah repeats this is because when it wrote about it the first time (4,24) we did not know that the rule applies to all sin offerings to be slaughtered at the same site as the burnt offering.
+
+Verse 19
+
+
+
+Verse 20
+
+אשר יזה עליה תכבס, “the one (part) which he has splashed upon you shall wash;” only that part has to be washed, not the whole garment.
+תכבס, it is necessary to wash off the blood because it is the blood of an offering which is destined to be eaten within the Sanctuary; if the officiating priest would leave the holy precincts with these bloodstains on his garments, the offering would have become disqualified retroactively.
+במקום קדוש, “in the sacred precinct.” This includes (in Solomon’s temple) the offices adjoining the Sanctuary, even those built outside the Sanctuary, as long as their doors led directly to the sacred precinct. (Sifra) [There were none such in the Tabernacle. Ed.]
+
+Verse 21
+
+וכל כלי חרש תשבר, “Just as the washing (ritual cleansing) of garments when required had to take place inside the sacred precincts, so the breaking of earthen vessels (which had become ritually contaminated because the blood had been washed in it) had to take place inside the sacred precincts, if that vessel had to be broken (made useless).”
+בכלי נחושת, “if, however such garment as we discussed was washed in a copper vessel, (or any metal vessel),
+ומרק ושוטף, ”it requires scouring and rinsing out with water (only).” The condition is that this scouring takes place during the period that the remains of that sacrifice were allowed to be eaten by the priests. Otherwise, it would be subject to the laws of נותר, sacrificial meat left uneaten, and it would have to be destroyed by fire. (Sifra) The “washing” i.e. ritual cleansing did not have to be done in a ritual bath containing a minimum of 40 seah of water (approx 530000 ccm). The Torah added the word: במים, to tell us that the quantity of water was immaterial.
+
+Verse 22
+
+
+
+Verse 23
+
+
+
+Chapter 7
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+
+
+Verse 2
+
+
+
+Verse 3
+
+
+
+Verse 4
+
+
+
+Verse 5
+
+אשם הוא, “it is an guilt offering.” according to Rashi, these two, at first glance superfluous words, seeing that the subject in this paragraph is the guilt offering, teach something about the guilt offering about a person who died before he had a chance to present this offering; alternately, it speaks of a guilt offering whose owner had attained atonement for his guilt before it was offered up through another means. For instance: normally, if the original animal had been sanctified and been lost before the priest appointed by its owner could slaughter it, so that he had substituted another animal for the lost one and performed all the ritual with it, the Torah teaches what is to be done with such an animal when it was found. Normally, the rules for disposition of such an animal are that it is to be offered as sacrifice on the altar when the altar “has summer vacation,” i.e. is not very busy with offerings that are mandatory for people to present. If such an animal had been entrusted to a shepherd to graze, in order to keep it alive until needed, and it was slaughtered without any specific designation, it is fit to be offered as a burnt offering. According to Rashi (in the Talmud Sukkah folio 56a the expression “summer vacation,” is to be understood as something similar to “dessert;” it is consumed in order to tickle one’s palate, not to still one’s hunger.
+
+Verse 6
+
+כל זכר, “every male (priest).” This is meant to include priests, who because of a physical blemish, are not allowed to perform service in the Temple.
+קדש קדשים הוא, “is it;” This expression is meant to include communal offerings that may not be eaten except by male members of the priesthood.
+הוא, “it is most holy.” (the offering) this excludes such offerings as the ram brought by the Nazarene at the end of his term of abstentions, and the mandatory thanksgiving offerings, known as תודה, whose status is not “the most holy.”
+
+Verse 7
+
+
+
+Verse 8
+
+והכהן המקריב, “and the priest who offers, etc.” The singular mode used here for “the priest,” is misleading, as it includes all the priests belonging to this particular watch, i.e.doing service on that day. All of them are described by the Torah as כהן. (Karney Or)
+
+Verse 9
+
+
+
+Verse 10
+
+
+
+Verse 11
+
+
+
+Verse 12
+
+אם על תודה יקריבנו, “If he offers this offering as a thanksgiving offering;” it does require placing his weight on it with his hands before slaughtering, and elevating it, i.e. swinging it, after the slaughtering; (Sifra)
+והקריב על זבח, “he will offer with the meat offering, etc;” the word על meaning “with” also in על חלת לחם, is also to be understood as meaning: “with”; we have an example of this in Leviticus 25, 31 על שדה הארץ, “it will be considered as belonging with the field of the earth.”
+וסלת מורכבת, “and fine flour mixed in well soaked oil.” This teaches that the cakes the Torah speaks of must be soaked well in oil.
+חלות בלולות בשמן, wafers mixed with oil. Here we have one addition followed by another addition, (חלות and רקיקות) something unusual. It suggests that actually it is meant to be a limitation, i.e. that this is not to be treated like other gift offerings in which a whole log of oil is used, whereas here only half a log of oil is used. (Compare Rashi on Menachot 89)
+
+Verse 13
+
+
+
+Verse 14
+
+תרומה לה, “as a gift to the Lord;” (author questions rhetorically why no measurements are given) I do not know the measurements of this gift; the Sifra writes that we might derive it from a similar verse in Numbers 18 where the תרומת מעשר is described as being one tenth of the regular tithe, i.e. slightly less that 1% of the total.
+לכהן הזורק את דם השלמים לו יהיה, “it shall belong to the priest who sprinkles the blood of it.” The remainder may be eaten by the owners.
+
+Verse 15
+
+
+
+Verse 16
+
+ואם נדר, “but if the sacrifice is fulfillment of a vow by the donor, etc.;” the donor had made the vow while he had been in distress.(Ibn Ezra)
+ביום הקריבו את זבחו יאכל, “his meat offering must be eaten on the day that he offered it and the day following;” immediately after the priest had completed his ritual.
+
+Verse 17
+
+ביום השלישי באש ישרף, “anything remaining of it on the morning of the third day must be burned.” Our sages derive from the apparently superfluous words: “it (the leftover) has to be burned on the third day,” that any leftovers of any sacrificial meat must be burned by day after it may no longer be eaten. (Sifra).
+
+Verse 18
+
+
+
+Verse 19
+
+כל טהור יאכל בשר, “everyone that is ritually clean may eat of the meat.” The verse refers, of course, to meat of sacrificial offerings, as ordinary meat may be eaten also by ritually unclean people.
+
+Verse 20
+
+וטומאתו עליו, “while he is still ritually unclean;” Rashi explains here that we did not find a specific warning that ritually unclean people must not eat sacrificial meat, (although the penalty has been spelled out, something most unusual) but that it can be derived from a גזרה שוה, when two laws contain similar expressions to clarify each other. In this instance we find three times that the Torah decrees the karet penalty for people eating sacrificial things while in a state of physical ritual impurity. (Compare Talmud tractate Shavuot, folio 7 where the three verses are spelled out) [Our author devotes a whole page to this complicated manner of deriving such laws by linking it to the written Torah. Since, unfortunately, the subject is not applicable until we will have a Temple again I have decided to delete these details. Ed.]
+
+Verse 21
+
+
+
+Verse 22
+
+
+
+Verse 23
+
+כל חלב שור, “any of the fat parts above the kidneys and liver of the four legged animals fit for sacrifices on the altar, are forbidden to be eaten.” Contrary to verse 20, where we encountered the penalty for eating while in a state of ritual impurity, though we had not heard about the warning not to do so, here we hear the warning, but must search for where the penalty has been spelled out. We find it in verse 25. The reason why the law has been repeated is to teach us that the law forbidding to eat these fat parts from animals which the Torah has forbidden us to eat, anyway does not apply. [In practice this means that when someone eats an animal that is forbidden to be eaten, he is not penalised additionally for eating those parts of the animal. Ed.] (Sifra)
+
+Verse 24
+
+
+
+Verse 25
+
+מן הבהמה אשר יקריב ממנה, “who eats (fat) from the beast which people use to present as offerings;” from that species of beast, although it had never been sanctified as a potential sacrifice. This teaches that fat parts not used exclusively for the altar may be eaten.
+
+Verse 26
+
+וכל דם לא תאכלו, “but you must not eat any kind of blood. We have heard the warning here, now we have to search for the penalty if this law is contravened. It is found in verse 27 in this chapter: כל נפש אשר תאכל כל דם ונכרתה הנפש ההיא, “the soul of any person eating any blood will be cut off (from his people).”
+בכל מושבותיכם, “in all your dwellings;” even though any animal outside of the Holy Land is by definition only secular.
+
+Verse 27
+
+
+
+Verse 28
+
+
+
+Verse 29
+
+המקריב את זבח שלמיו, “he who offers his sacrifice of peaceofferings.” These types of offerings require to be accompanied by libations, need that the weight of the donor be placed on their head with his hands, and they need תנופה, physically being lifted up, the right thigh and breast being given to the officiating priest.
+
+Verse 30
+
+ידיו תביאנה, “he shall bring it with his own hands;” Rashi adds that this means that he (the priest) is to carry it by supporting the hand of the donor while transporting it from the hall in which it is slaughtered. This is why Rashi adds that three priests are needed to do all this.
+את החלב על החזה, “the fat with the breast.”
+
+Verse 31
+
+
+
+Verse 32
+
+
+
+Verse 33
+
+
+
+Verse 34
+
+
+
+Verse 35
+
+זאת משחת אהרן, “this is the consecrated portion of Aaron, etc.” They have been consecrated as reward for performing these tasks. Another interpretation of the word: משחה: “to be anointed with that oil is a mark of distinction for them.” (compare Exodus 29,29 למשחה בהם)
+
+Verse 36
+
+ביום משחו אותם, “on the day that they were anointed.” The prefix letter ב has been used here instead of the more common prefix מ the meaning being: “from the day they were anointed. From this day on, these portions of the sacrificial animals were perpetually given to the priests.
+
+Verse 37
+
+זאת התורה לעולה, “this is the law for the burnt offering;” this is a reference to the skin of the burnt offering which has not been burned up;”
+ולמנחה, “and for the gift offering;” this is a reference to the part of this offering that has not been consumed. ולחטאת ולאשם, “and for the sin offering, and for the guilt offering; the meat of which is to be consumed by the priests.
+ולמלואים, and for the consecration offerings which we learned about earlier in Exodus chapter 29.
+ולזבח השלמים, and for the sacrifice known as peaceofferings. This is a reference to the breast, right thigh, and the parts given to the priests of the mandatory thanksgiving offerings.
+
+Verse 38
+
+להקריב את קרבניהם לה׳ במדבר סיני, “to present their offerings to the Lord in the desert of Sinai. The reason why this line is necessary, although most of us would have understood the chapter without it being repeated, is because until the Israelites had made camp at Mount Sinai they had not offered a single offering (Exodus 24,5) The altar which Moses had built after the battle with Amalek was located at Mount Sinai. (Exodus 17,15) “Mount Chorev” and “Mount Sinai” are two names describing the same Mountain or group of peaks. The Israelites encamped around there for a period of 10 days less than a year from the first day of Sivan (in the first year) to the twentieth day of iyar of the second year. (Numbers 10,11) During the remainder of their journeys, for almost 39 years they did not offer any sacrifices as stated by the prophet Amos 5,25: הזבחים ומנחה הגשתם לי בני ישראל במדבר, “did you offer to Me any sacrifices or oblations in the forty years in the desert?” Even the Passover offering was presented only in Egypt and in the following year, before the Israelites had broken camp.” According to our author, offerings were brought on the Day of Atonement of the second year, but we do not know his source for this.
+
+Chapter 8
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+
+
+Verse 2
+
+קח את אהרן, “take Aaron, etc.” this paragraph was told to Moses on the twenty third day of Adar during the first year. (Compare Targum Yonatan on verse 4.)
+
+Verse 3
+
+ואת כל העדה הקהל “and assemble the whole congregation!” They were all to treat the priests as holy. (Sifra).
+
+Verse 4
+
+
+
+Verse 5
+
+
+
+Verse 6
+
+
+
+Verse 7
+
+ויאפוד לו, “and he girded him;” the letter פ in this word has a dagesh, (dot.)
+
+Verse 8
+
+
+
+Verse 9
+
+
+
+Verse 10
+
+וימשח את המשכן ואת כל אשר בו, “He anointed the Tabernacle and all the furnishings therein.” Each vessel in the Tabernacle and each item of furnishing was anointed separately. But Aaron and his sons were anointed together while wearing their priestly garments, as is written in Psalms 133,2: כשמן הטוב היורד על הראש ירד על הזקן, זקן אהרן שיורד על פי מדותיו “like the fine oil on the head running down onto the beard, that comes down over the collar of his robes.” The word: מדותיו, is to be understood as in Leviticus 6,3: מדו בד.
+
+Verse 11
+
+
+
+Verse 12
+
+
+
+Verse 13
+
+
+
+Verse 14
+
+ויגש את פר החטאת, “He led forward the bull for the sin offering;” now, when the Torah reports details, this bull is referred to as “the bull of the sin offering,” whereas previously in Exodus 29,10 this animal was simply referred to as: הפר, “the bull.”
+
+Verse 15
+
+
+
+Verse 16
+
+
+
+Verse 17
+
+
+
+Verse 18
+
+
+
+Verse 19
+
+
+
+Verse 20
+
+
+
+Verse 21
+
+
+
+Verse 22
+
+
+
+Verse 23
+
+
+
+Verse 24
+
+
+
+Verse 25
+
+
+
+Verse 26
+
+
+
+Verse 27
+
+
+
+Verse 28
+
+על העולה, “with the burnt offering.”
+
+Verse 29
+
+
+
+Verse 30
+
+ויקח משה משמן המשחה, Moses took some of the anointing oil;” here the Torah speaks of after he had burned up the fat parts of the second ram and its fatty tail and the remainder of the kidneys and the right thigh, Moses took some of the anointing oil and sprinkled it on Aaron and his sons, whereas in the text describing that Moses was commanded what to do and how, this procedure in Exodus29,21, the procedure is described as in the reverse order. (Nachmanides raised the same point and attempted to answer the apparent contradiction)
+
+Verse 31
+
+
+
+Verse 32
+
+בבשר ובלחם, “of the flesh and of the bread;” the prefix letter in the word בבשר is to be understood as meaning “from,” i.e. מ.
+
+Verse 33
+
+לא תצא שבעת ימים, “do not leave (the door) of the tent for seven days;” this is not to be understood as a house arrest, but means that Aaron and his sons are not to undertake any other activities and not go to another tent even. However, at night they were at liberty to perform what any normal person needs to do. We have another example of a similar construction in Deuteronomy 34,8 where the whole people of Israel is described as mourning Moses and weeping over his death for thirty days, and the meaning surely is not that they did not move from their tents during all this time even to use the sanitary facilities. The same construction is used in connection with the commandment to dwell in the huts on Sukkot for seven days, (Leviticus 23,42) as well as in Leviticus 21,12: “he (the High Priest when mourning his father or mother) must not leave the Tabernacle.” (Compare Ibn Ezra on our verse).
+
+Verse 34
+
+
+
+Verse 35
+
+
+
+Verse 36
+
+
+
+Chapter 9
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+ויהי ביום השמיני קרא משה לאהרן ולבניו, “It came to pass on the eighth day that Moses called upon Aaron and his sons;” he intended to consecrate them as priests;
+ולזקני ישראל, “and the elders of Israel;” so that they could stand and watch them present their sacrificial offerings.” (B’chor shor)
+
+Verse 2
+
+קח לך עגל, “take for yourself a calf;” it was customary for the priest to take a bull as a sin offering as is written in Leviticus 4,3: ,'אם הכהן המשיח יחטא וגו, “if the High Priest will sin, etc.; in other words, the calf will atone for the sin of the golden calf. [According to Sifra we must understand that verse as referring specifically to this High Priest. Ed.]
+
+Verse 3
+
+קחו שעיר עזים, “take a he-goat as a sin offering to atone for your sins, etc;” they had to pray for atonement for what their forefathers had done to Joseph, when they had sent his tunic soaked in the blood they had taken from the heg-oat they slaughtered for that purpose. (Genesis 37, 31-32) (Sifra) An alternate explanation: They needed to offer a sin offering for idolatry they had been guilty by burning he goats for idols. (in Egypt) (Tanchuma, section 4 on this portion) We find that also on other occasions such animals were burned in idolatrous rites outside the camp. (Torat Kohanim, chovah chapter 6,5.) This is why this he-goat was burned outside the camp, as we are told in verse 11.
+
+Verse 4
+
+ומנחה בלולה בשמן, “and a gift with oil mixed in;” the same applied to frankincense, as we had already learned in Parshat Vayikra, chapter 2, a standard procedure with all such gift offerings. We have also learned this in the Talmud tractate Menachot folio 59. All of these gift offerings consisted of unleavened dough, including this one.
+כי היום ה׳ נראה אליכם, “for today the Lord will appear to you.” This is why it is appropriate to appear before him with a variety of offerings, including samples of all the categories of offerings. (B’chor shor).
+
+Verse 5
+
+
+
+Verse 6
+
+זה הדבר, “this is the thing;” the sacrifices of which we spoke.
+
+Verse 7
+
+קרב אל המזבח, “come close to the altar;” seeing that during all of the seven days of the consecration Moses was performing all the duties in the Tabernacle and around it, he had to tell Aaron on the eighth day that the time had come for him to take over.
+וכפר בעדך, “and (commence) by obtaining atonement for yourself,” and subsequently,“for the people,” so that someone free from guilt performs these rites. After all, both Aaron as well as the people had born a share of the guilt associated with the sin of the golden calf.
+
+Verse 8
+
+
+
+Verse 9
+
+
+
+Verse 10
+
+
+
+Verse 11
+
+ואת הבשר ואת העור, “and both the meat and the skin, etc;” Rashi explains here that there is no other occasion when the blood of the sin offering is burnt outside the Tabernacle, except in this instance and on the preceding seven days. (when Moses officiated.) If you were to question that we find that the blood of the second bull offered by the Levites in Numbers 8,8-15 was also offered before the Levites entered the Tabernacle, and that in the Book of Ezra chapter 8,35, we encounter something similar, a) these were consecration offerings prior to the second Temple beginning to function, and b) Ezekiel had already predicted in Ezekiel 45,18-20, that in the new Temple the ritual involving all these sin offerings would take place outside the doorposts of Temple itself. What Rashi meant when he commented on our verse refers to every place when the consecration rites of the Tabernacle in the desert had been discussed, as well as when the consecration rites in the days of Ezra were discussed and when the prophet prophesied about the consecration rites of the third Temple, hopefully in our own days. The answer given to the question raised above in the first chapter of the Talmud, tractate Horiyot, is that what was done in the days of Ezra was an emergency measure, one from which no conclusions may be drawn for normal times.
+שרף באש, “he burned in fire;” the reason for this has already been explained in both Exodus 29,14, and in the last Parshah.
+
+Verse 12
+
+
+
+Verse 13
+
+
+
+Verse 14
+
+
+
+Verse 15
+
+
+
+Verse 16
+
+
+
+Verse 17
+
+מלבד עולת הבקר, “in addition to the burnt offering in the morning.” This teaches that on this occasion two gift offerings were presented, one which was part of the daily burnt offering in the mornings, the other on its own. (Compare verse 4 in our chapter, and chapter 28 in the Book of Numbers).)
+
+Verse 18
+
+
+
+Verse 19
+
+
+
+Verse 20
+
+
+
+Verse 21
+
+
+
+Verse 22
+
+וישא אהרן את ידיו, “Aaron raised his hands, etc.;” this verse has been truncated somewhat; it should have commenced with: “from having completed the rites of the sin offering and the burnt offering and he then raised his hand in order to bless the people.”
+וירד מעשות החטאת, “he descended from the altar from performing the rites of the sin offering,” i.e. burning up the parts not to be eaten.
+
+Verse 23
+
+ויבא משה ואהרן אל אהל מועד, “Moses and Aaron entered the Tent of Meeting.” They did so in order to see the glory when heavenly fire would descend as proof that their sacrificial service had been accepted in heaven.
+וירא כבוד ה, “the glory of the Lord appeared.” How so?
+
+Verse 24
+
+ותצא אש וגו, “Heavenly fire descended,” etc.; the heavenly fire that was visible in the time of Moses did not depart from the copper altar until the days of the Temple of Solomon. It disappeared only in the days of King Menashe, who had incurred G-d’s wrath more than any King of the kingdom of Yehudah before him.
+
+Chapter 10
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+.וישימו עליה קטורת, “they placed incense on it.” They offered their own incense instead of the communal incense.. This is what is meant by the line: ויקריבו לפני ה' אש זרה, “they tendered before the Lord alien fire.” Incense without fire is an impossibility. Any incense offering that is than that of the community is called: “alien.”
+אשר לא צוה אותם, “which He had not commanded them (to offer)”. The meaning, as opposed to the translation, is: “that He had commanded them not to offer.” Proof of this is to be found in Exodus 30,9: לא תעלו עליו קטורת זרה, “do not offer alien incense upon it.!” An example of a similar construction is found in Jeremiah 7,31: לשרוף את בניהם ואת בנותיהם באש אשר לא צויתי, “to burn their sons and daughters, which I did not command.”
+
+Verse 2
+
+ותצא אש, “Fire came forth;” the Torah first reports the fact that fire originated in heaven, before going into details, i.e. that this fire was triggered by actions taken by the two sons of Aaron mentioned here. The fire mentioned here is the fire mentioned in verse 24 of the previous chapter. The “details” commence with verse 1 in our chapter, i.e. “the two sons of Aaron, Nadav and Avihu each took his own censer and placed man made fire and incense on them, fire that G-d had forbidden to be put on these censers.” It was the custom of that heavenly fire to travel first to the Holy of Holies and from there to the golden altar in the Sanctuary and there to consume the incense offered. In this instance, the heavenly fire discovered Nadav and Avihu in front of the Golden Altar in the Sanctuary offering the incense with their own fire. Therefore the heavenly fire consumed them before continuing to the copper altar in front of the Sanctuary and consumed to the copper altar in front of the Sanctuary and consumed there the Elevation offering.
+ותצא אש; according to Rashi, quoting Rabbi Eliezer, the reason why the sons of Aaron were killed was that they had arrogated to themselves the right to render halachic rulings while their mentor Moses was alive and well, to do this himself. What prompted them to do this? They reasoned that although the fire to burn up the incense was provided by heaven it was still a mitzvah to add manmade fire, seeing that the Torah has written in Leviticus 1,7, “the sons of Aaron are to put fire on the altar.” ונתנו בני אהרן הכהן אש על המזבח. They failed to confirm with their teacher Moses that they had correctly interpreted this verse. This is why the Torah wrote: “which He had not commanded them.” We have a clear statement in the Talmud, tractate Taanit folio 22, that the King Yoshiahu, [the most observant King the Kingdom of Yehudah ever ruled, was punished and killed by enemy troops for having failed to check with the prophet Jeremiah if to go to war against the Egyptians, who only wanted right of passage. Ed.] There is another opinion according to whom the sin of Nadav and Avihu was not the fact that they brought alien fire into the Sanctuary, but that they had done it on that day. As far as the verse we quoted from Leviticus 1,7, is concerned, the instructions of that verse were to become effective only after the first day on which the Tabernacle operated under the leadership of the High Priest, Aaron. They were also misled as heavenly fire on previous days when Moses performed the service in the Tabernacle had occurred earlier in the day. The reason why G-d had delayed was that He wished to be honoured by a large turnout of the people who would witness that event. This would then be the meaning of the words in verse 1: “that He had not commanded them.” G-d had waited, not as on the occasion of the revelation on Mount Sinai when in spite of having previously announced that He would manifest His glory on the Mountain, He had done so but the people had not bothered to rise early. (Compare Exodus19,11, 16, 17-18) Nadav and Avihu meant to avoid G-d’s honour not being sufficiently appreciated by the people. We find something parallel in Kings I 18,25, where the prophet Elijah tells the priests of the Baal not to set fire to their offerings.
+ותאכל אותם וימותו, “it consumed them so that they died (on the spot)”. The punishment fitted the crime. They were killed by heavenly fire as they had diminished the glory of the Lord which is described as being comparable to אש אוכלת “consuming fire.” (Exodus 24,17) Both Nadav and Avihu had been warned on that occasion not to look upon the G-d of Israel, as we know from verse 10 in the above quoted chapter, where the Torah added or hinted that on that joyful occasion G-d did not want to kill the happy mood of the people by punishing those who had transgressed the warning not feast their eyes on what they thought was the true image of G-d. They were warned again in Numbers 11,1 when badmouthing G-d and being killed by heavenly fire.
+וימותו לפני ה, “They died in the presence of the Lord. [This is an unusual expression. Are we not all, at any given moment, “in the Presence” of the Lord?] Rabbi Eliezer says this expression teaches that they did not die until having left the sacred precincts and being in the antechamber where Levites were permitted. We have proof of this from verse 4 where the cousins of these brothers, by the names of Mishael and Eltzafan were charge with removing their bodies from there for burial. But why did the Torah say that they dies before the Lord (i.e. inside the Tabernacle)? Perhaps they did die there but later an angel pushed the bodies outside to where the Levites were permitted. Rabbi Akiva on the other hand said that they did die inside the Tabernacle. Since they were still wearing their garments which had not been burned by the heavenly fire, their cousins hooked their spears into the outer garments and dragged them until they were outside the sacred parts of the Tabernacle.
+
+Verse 3
+
+הוא אשר דבר ה׳ לאמור: בקרובי אקדש, “this is what the Lord said: “I will be sanctified through those who are near Me.” Where had the Lord said this? In Exodus 19,22: ונועדתי שמה לבני ישראל ונקדש בכבודי, “this is where I will make Myself known to the Children of Israel, and where My glory will be sanctified.” (Exodus 29,43) An alternate interpretation: where is the verse proving this? (Exodus 19,2) וגם הכהנים הנגשים אל ה׳ יתקדשו פן יפרוץ בהם ה׳, “and also the priests who came close to the Lord have to sanctify themselves” [by not doing what they think is best, but by what G-d had thought best. Ed.], “so that the Lord will not break out against them.” This verse is addressed specifically to the High Priests whom G-d warns that they especially have to be on guard not to infringe on the rules laid down for them even in the slightest. Any deviation on their part would have to result in G-d becoming “sanctified” through His immediate, and for the priest in question fatal, punishment, as otherwise it would be seen as a desecration of the Lord’s name. Concerning the High Priest, the Torah had therefore written: in Leviticus 21,10: “and he must not let his hair grow loose, nor rend his clothes, and not leave the Temple in order to follow the bier of his father on the way to burial, etc.” (verse 12 there) The point that Moses is making to his brother in our verse is that the higher one’s rank, the more strictly G-d applies the rules laid down for their conduct. A High Priest, exactly by not leaving G-d’s Temple in order to attend his father or mother’s funeral, demonstrates that G-d’s honour comes first, and he cannot take time out for his personal concerns. There is no better way to demonstrate this than the example mentioned in the Torah. It is true that the subject has not been dealt with sequentially, but this is the way of the Torah [We must remember that the Author of the Torah, maybe because “Time” is subservient to Him and not vice versa, as it is to His creatures, deliberately demonstrated this by not revealing what He has to say to us in chronological order. Ed.]
+ועל פני כל העם אכבד, “and I will be honoured in the presence of the whole nation.” They will all be witness that even though as Aaron’s sons had died he will push away the mourning ritual in order to serve me.
+וידום אהרן, “Aaron responded by accepting this silently.”This response is repeated by the prophet Ezekiel quoting G-d saying to him after the death of his wife (Ezekiel 24,17: האנק דום אבל מתים לא תעשה, “moan softly, do not observe the ritual of mourning for the dead.” (Rash’bam)
+
+Verse 4
+
+ויאמר אליהם קרבו, “he said to them (Aaron’s great nephews) come forward;” he had to reassure them that they did not have to fear any interference by G-d. (Pessikta zutrata).
+
+Verse 5
+
+בכתנותם, “in their tunics;” not the tunics of the pallbearers since only priests, not Levites, wore those tunics.
+
+Verse 6
+
+ראשיכם אל תפרעו, “let not the hair of your head grow loose;” seeing that your are ‘valets’ of the Lord, it is not seemly that you should display your mourning in that way and that you weep; your brothers, however may observe normal rites of mourning.
+ובגדיכם לא תפרומו, “and do not rend your garments;” even though you are not priests, but on this occasion you are similar to a High Priest in this respect. Concerning the High Priest the Torah had written in Leviticus 21,10: את ראשו לא יפרע ובגדיו לא יפרום, “he must not let his hair grow loose on his head, he must not rend his garments (in mourning).” We know from Leviticus 13,45, that someone whom the priest has confirmed as having been stricken with the dread skin disease tzoraat, must rend his clothes and let his hair grow loose (as an external sign that he is suffering from this disease.)
+ועל כל העדה יקצוף, “and He will display His anger at the whole community if you observe mourning.” This commandment was applicable only on that day when these pallbearers removed the bodies of Nadav and Avihu from the sacred precincts where they had been struck down by heavenly fire. We find a similar construction in Psalms 9,19: “the hope of the humble beggars will not always be disappointed.”An alternate commentary: “if you were to observe mourning now, G-d will demonstrate His anger by not accepting the sacrifices you offer Him this day.”
+
+Verse 7
+
+לא תצאו, “do not leave, etc,” the priests (Aaron and his remaining two sons) must not leave the sacred precincts of the Temple seeing that they had been anointed with anointing oil to do service in the Tabernacle by Divine decree. This is what we learned from Torat Kohanim, who cites that Moses spoke separately on the subject to Mishael and Eltzafan, whereas when he spoke now to Aaron and his surviving sons, he did not address Mischael and Eltzafan, Levites, but not priests. The reason was that it could be derived that any priests must not contaminate themselves spiritually by contact with dead bodies, otherwise why could not they have been the pallbearers of their brothers? Our author questions this statement found in the Sifra, by asking rhetorically, why this verse had be used to teach us this fact, when there are many other verses which spell this out directly. Furthermore, Elazar and Ittamar were only ordinary priests not High Priests, The Talmud in tractate Zevachim, folio 100, states specifically that ordinary priests may defile themselves in order to bury a brother or unmarried sister. We must therefore understand Torat Kohanim as stating that from our verse we can derive that it is not only permitted for an ordinary priest to bury his nearest relatives, (7) but that it is a duty that he participate personally in such a funeral. Elazar and Ittamar were in a class by themselves as they had had to be anointed, just like their father, in order to become priests. Future priests would be priests from birth because their fathers were priests, and they would not need anointing.
+
+Verse 8
+
+וידבר אל אהרן, “he spoke to Aaron etc,” this paragraph was revealed on the day that the Tabernacle had been erected, seeing that from that day onward they had been forbidden to become drunk, seeing that this prohibition had been linked to entering the Tabernacle since Exodus 30,20, as stated by Rashi in the Talmud, tractate Gittin folio 60. The reason is that the prohibition was not restricted to the priest’s performing sacrificial service in the Temple but to his entering the Temple precincts.
+
+Verse 9
+
+יין ושכר וגו, wine and other alcoholic drink, etc.” according to Rashi, the addition of the word ושכר in this verse is meant to refer to a quantity that will cause drunkenness by the person consuming the wine. (based on Torat Kohanim) This has also been confirmed in the Talmud, tractate K’ritut, folio 13, where Rabbi Eliezer understands the verse to mean: “do not drink wine in quantities liable to result in your becoming drunk, or in a manner which will lead to drunkenness.” If, for instance, the priest drinking wine had first added water to it in order to weaken its capacity to intoxicate, he would not be guilty of violating this commandment.
+אל תשת, “do not drink!” Even though in according to Jewish custom other mourners are given wine to drink, as is written in Proverbs 31,6: תנו שכר לאובד ויין למרי נפש, “give liquor to those who are about to perish, and wine to those who are embittered,” you and your sons must not drink it is as you are not used to it as you do not observe the customs of mourners. Furthermore, you are prohibited from imbibing on pain of death from entering the holy precincts of the Temple. It is simply not befitting that a drunk person should perform sacrificial service.
+
+Verse 10
+
+ולהבדיל בין הקדש ובין החול, “and in order to separate between what is holy and what is secular.” This is a line referring to people that have been sanctified. Compare Leviticus chapter 27.
+ובין הטמא ובין הטהור, “and between the ritually impure and the ritually pure.” This is a reference to things ritually impure and things ritually pure,
+
+Verse 11
+
+ולהורות, and to instruct (others) in the laws,
+את כל החוקים, these are the interpretations,
+אשר דבר ה, ”which the Lord has revealed by word of mouth.” these are the laws
+ביד משה, the written Torah, and Whence do we know about the Targum? answer: from the word להורות, “i.e. to explain the meaning of the text.”
+
+Verse 12
+
+אצל המזבח, “next to the altar,” and not within the Sanctuary nor on the altar. How do I know that the Torah also includes the most holy offerings? The Torah wrote: קדש קדשים היא, “it is most holy.” קדש קדשים היא, thus far I only know that this expression refers to the proximity of the altar, how do I know that it includes the offices adjoining the Temple walls? (The Torah discusses the permanent Temple in the future). The answer is found in the words: ואכלתם אותה במקום קדוש, “you are to eat it on consecrated grounds.”(Verse 13)
+
+Verse 13
+
+אותה והיא, “both of these words are restrictive by definition, they come to exclude the thanksgiving offering and its attending loaves of bread or wafers, and the ram to be offered by the Nazirite at the conclusion of his term and the loaves accompanying that offering, as well as the ram of the consecration rites of the priests, (a one time offering).
+
+Verse 14
+
+ואת חזה התנופה, “and the breast of waving,�� this refers to the waving of the basket.” Compare 8,2.
+ואת שוק, “and the thigh” mentioned in our verse;
+התרומה, the קרבן תודה described as תרומה in Leviticus 7,1314.
+תאכלו במקום טהור, “you are to eat in a spiritually pure place.” Rashi asks the rhetorical question if the Torah meant to tell us that the offerings mentioned earlier were eaten in ritually contaminated places? Surely not! He therefore understands our verse as referring to the parts of the minchah offering (except half a fistful) which was not burned up on the altar. These “remains” could be eaten anywhere inside the camp, also outside the consecrated area around the Tabernacle, as the soil of the camp was ritually pure, any person afflicted with tzoraat having been banished from it.
+מזבחי שלמי בני ישראל, “out of the sacrifices of the peace offerings of the Children of Israel.” This line is meant to include those offered already on the day this law was introduced, as mentioned in chapter 9.4. (See Sifra on that verse.)
+
+Verse 15
+
+
+
+Verse 16
+
+ואת שעיר החטאת, “and concerning the male goat sin offering;” according to the plain meaning of this verse, the animal referred is that first mentioned in chapter 9,3, where Moses had commanded the people of Israel to take such an animal as a sin offering. Both in that verse and here (verse 17) the people for whom atonement was sought were called by almost identical names, i.e. עם or .עדה
+שעיר החטאת, “the male goat serving as sin offering.” According to Rashi the reference is to the mandatory sin offering on New Moon, and this day was the first day of Nissan of the second year. On this day three such animals were offered as sin offerings. The one mentioned by Rashi, the one that was part of the consecration rites, and the one offered as the first of twelve identical offerings by each of the princes of the tribes, Nachshon. Of all these three sin offerings only the one meant as the New Moon’s sin offering was burned (not offered and its parts eaten as prescribed) There are different opinions as to the reason for this. Some scholars hold that the priests had become ritually defiled by having touched the corpses of Nadav and Avihu. If you were to argue that even without their having become ritually defiled they could not have offered that offering in the proper manner as they had been ritually impure by having been in contact with at least one corpse since they had been born;they had not undergone purification rites for this, there not having been a red heifer yet without which such purification rites could not have been performed until at the earliest on the following day; we would have to answer that they had become ritually purified by dint of their having been anointed with the holy oil of anointing, (Leviticus 8,2) as well as by the blood which had been sprinkled on the altar. (Compare Talmud, tractate Yuma folio 4.) The Tabernacle had been erected on the first of the month, and the red heifer was slaughtered and burned on the second of the month. The Talmud explained there that on that occasion the water took the place of blood just as when the Jewish people had to purify themselves at the revelation of Mount Sinai when there had not yet been a red heifer.
+
+Verse 17
+
+לכפר עליכם, “to obtain atonement for you.” This refers to the he goat of the new Moon. We have read in connection with the New Moon at the month of Tishrey: ושעיר עזים אחד לחטאת לכפר עליכם, and one male goat as a sin offering to atone on your behalf. (Numbers 29,5)
+
+Verse 18
+
+
+
+Verse 19
+
+הן היום הקריבו, “behold they have offered their sin offerings and burnt offerings this day,” Rashi explains this line as follows: “what kind of answer does Aaron give to Moses here? Moses had asked him why they had not eaten from the offerings? If they had not first offered them, how could they have eaten from the remains? Besides, all the offerings of that day had been performed by Aaron, not by his sons, as the Torah has already stated! What Moses must have meant and have said referring to the sons of Aaron was: “did you perhaps perform the sprinkling of the blood, etc, seeing that a priest in mourning would have disqualified and desecrated that offering?” To this implication Aaron answered: “did they perform the ritual? Seeing that they are only ordinary priests, how could they have arrogated to themselves the right to substitute for me? I have performed all the rites? Seeing that I am not legally a mourner as my sons have not yet been buried, I have performed all these rites seeing they must be performed during certain hours of this day. This is also why they have been eaten.”
+
+
+ותקראנה אותי כאלה, “seeing that I have been struck by such a tragic loss,” that two of my sons who were priests have died suddenly; they were supposed to help me eat the relevant parts of the sacrifice so that none would have become leftovers that had to be burned.
+I, in my state of premourning, was not allowed to eat these parts, while the Levites if in such a state of premourning are allowed to sing the songs which it is their duty to sing.” (Sifra on this verse)
+ואכלתי חטאת היום, “I have eaten the parts of the sin offering this day that I was halachically permitted to eat together with my two remaining sons.”
+הייטב בעיני ה, “would it have been pleasing in the eyes of the Lord that these parts would have become “leftovers, ”and thus would have to be burned outside the holy precincts, seeing that only three of us are left?”
+הייטב בעיני ה, “the letter ה at the beginning of the word הייטב has the vowel patach, whereas it actually should have a chataf patach [seeing that it introduces a question. See Ibn Ezra)
+
+Verse 20
+
+
+
+Chapter 11
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+
+
+Verse 2
+
+
+
+Verse 3
+
+מעלת גרה, “chewing the cud;” the word גרה is derived from גרון, “throat,” as is also גרגרותיך in Proverbs 3,3, which means: “(around) your throat.” The meaning of the term is that after having already eaten the food, these animals regurgitate it once more up to their throats. An alternate explanation (Karney Or); the word is similar to the word מוגרים in Michah 1,4: מים מוגרים, “cascading waters,” i.e. that it describes the mixing of what the animal ate and drank, before the mixture descends to its intestines.,
+
+Verse 4
+
+אך את זה לא תאכלו ממעלי הגרה וממפריסי הפרסה .“however only the following you must not eat even though they either have cleft hooves or are chewing the cud;” the reason that the animals mentioned now are forbidden is that they possess only one of the two distinguishing marks mentioned in the previous verse. For instance: the pig, the camel and the hare and rabbit. The Torah did not have to spell out that animals which do not possess even one of the above distinguishing features are also forbidden. Most of them are not even considered as worthwhile eating by the gentile nations (because they are predators and their meat is not tasty). (B’chor shor)
+
+Verse 5
+
+
+
+Verse 6
+
+ואת הארנבת, “and the arnevet”; some commentators say that this animal is one that are not found as male, [as all the other animals that are mentioned are always mentioned as feminine; Ed.] the same would be true of the bird called בת היענה. The objection raised by some scholars that this cannot be so as we know of masculine יעינים found in deserts (Lamentations 4,3) Those are also feminine, in spite of the masculine endings in their names, as are ,דובים עזים, רחלים גמלים, דובים, shegoats, shecamels, etc.; they all have masculine sounding endings, even though the respective animal in question may be a female specimen.
+
+Verse 7
+
+
+
+Verse 8
+
+, מבשרם לא תאכלו, “you must not eat any of their meat.” This prohibition is applicable regardless of whether the animal in question has died of natural causes or has been slaughtered ritually, something that saves an animal from being labelled as neveilah, cadaver. (compare Ibn Ezra)
+ובנבלתם לא תגעו, “and you are not to touch their cadavers.”
+
+Verse 9
+
+
+
+Verse 10
+
+
+
+Verse 11
+
+
+
+Verse 12
+
+שקץ הוא לכם, “it is detestable for you.” When this expression is used it means we must not even trade in such animals, much less not eat them. (Sifra)
+כל אשר אין לו סנפיר וקשקשת, any (marine) creature without fins or scales, etc.;” the reason why the Torah does not mention any of these species by name is that the vast majority of them is hidden from our view by being under water.
+
+Verse 13
+
+הנשר, “the eagle;” its is called such as it can see even small objects from a long distance and identify them. The word is reminiscent of Bileam’s describing his visions of future events with his eyes as: אשורנו. (Numbers, 23,9)[Translation of these birds presents the editor with a problem as there is disagreement among the scholars. Basically, seeing that the Torah did not give clear guidelines how to recognise the few species (20) we are not allowed to eat, I will not attempt to bring the author’s translations in verses 14 through 20, but limit myself to the statement by our sages that they are all birds of prey and that the arrangement of their toe nails is a clue as to their nature. The Talmud, tractate Chulin folio 63 deals with this. Principally, if the bird has two toes at the back of its leg and two in front, it is a sign that it is a bird of prey, as that enables it to better grab and hold on to its prey. In ritually pure birds the three toes are at the front and only one at the back. In addition to this if it has a zaphak a crop, and/or a korkovov, gizzard, maw beneath its chin that can be peeled off without difficulty this is a sign that it is a forbidden species.
+
+Verse 14
+
+
+
+Verse 15
+
+
+
+Verse 16
+
+
+
+Verse 17
+
+
+
+Verse 18
+
+
+
+Verse 19
+
+
+
+Verse 20
+
+
+
+Verse 21
+
+אשר ��ו כרעים, “which have jointed legs,” The word לו is spelled לא in the text, to hint at the dual nature of these (additional) legs. It is read as if it had been spelled as shown.
+
+Verse 22
+
+, הארבה, “the species known as locusts. The word is related to הרבה, “many,” there being so many different subcategories.
+הסלעם, “the cricket,” a species dwelling in rocks, i.e. .סלע
+החרגל, “the grasshopper;” [details of this kind of locust are sketchy. Ed.]
+
+Verse 23
+
+וכל שרץ העוף, “and all winged swarming things;” in respect of fish and birds that are forbidden to eat, the Torah did not use the term טומאת מגע, ritual contamination through touching, it only wrote that we should detest them. The reason is that seeing that seeing that they have mostly been created in water, they are treated as if part of that domain. In accordance with this approach, we find that our sages in tractate keylim 17,13, state that any creatures that live in water are not subject to ritual contamination.
+
+Verse 24
+
+
+
+Verse 25
+
+
+
+Verse 26
+
+לכל הבהמה אשר היא, “all of the above mentioned four legged domestic beasts (when dead) that do not possess the features mentioned confer ritual impurity upon people touching them or carrying them even if death had been caused by ritual slaughter. (Compare verse 8)
+כל הנוגע בהם יטמא, “everyone who touches them will be considered ritually unclean.” This is the verse that makes clear that there is no way such animals can escape conferring ritual contamination by any manner of death.
+
+Verse 27
+
+
+
+Verse 28
+
+והנושא את נבלתם, “and anyone carrying their cadavers, etc.” By repeating this the Torah teaches that merely moving such a carcass, even without directly touching it confers ritual impurity on the person doing so. The Jerusalem Targum uses the word מסיט to describe such indirect “carrying.”
+
+Verse 29
+
+על הארץ, “on the earth;” as opposed to the ones “in the water.”
+
+Verse 30
+
+
+
+Verse 31
+
+כל הנוגע בהם, anyone touching any of the aforementioned creatures (from verse 29 on) when dead, will confer ritual impurity if the size of the creature or its part touched, is at least the size of a lentil. (Sifra)
+
+Verse 32
+
+מכל כלי עץ, “be it any vessel made of wood;” the letter מ at the beginning of the word מכל, teaches that if a piece of wood, or a tree, is too large to be carried by one person falls on to such a dead creature, the wooden object would not become ritually unclean. (Sifra) [The same limitation applies to the other raw materials mentioned in this verse. Ed.]
+או שק, or sack, ”woven or embroidered materials,” but not vessels constructed of ropes and cords (Rash’bam).
+אשר יעשה מלאכה בהם, “wherewith any work is being done;” this excludes fabrics used only as covers, or whose insides by definition remain empty.
+במים יובא, “it shall be put into water (ritual bath); the whole vessel must be immersed in water at one and the same time.” Just as the process of becoming ritually clean again at sunset occurs at one moment, so the removal of contamination must also occur at one and the same time, not piecemeal.
+
+Verse 33
+
+אשר יפול מהם, “when into one of them falls;” we find a similar construction to this in Judges 12,7, i.e. באחד מערי גלעד where according to the text as written, ויקבר בערי גלעד, literally: “he was buried in the cities of Gilead,” we might have thought that different parts of his body were buried in different cities, which is of course absurd. The author simply did not feel it necessary to add the word אחד, “one of,” in order for the reader to understand his meaning. אל תוכו, “into its inside;” Rashi comments here that earthen vessels do not become ritually unclean except through the airspace they enclose. The reason for this is that because there is no way to dispose of this contamination except by breaking the vessel in question, the Torah, out of concern for the owner, did not want to make it easy for such vessels to become ritually contaminated, as by its outside coming into contact with ritually polluted items. This is why the Torah wrote: (Numbers 19,15) וכל כלי פתוח אשר אין צמיד פתיל עליו טמא הוא, “and any open vessel which has no covering which closes it tightly on it, is ritually unclean.” In other words, if it had had a tight lid on it, it would not have become ritually unclean. If the outside of this vessel without a tight covering had been in contact with something ritually unclean all day it would need to be broken up completely to dispose of this impurity. There is no way that it could have been reinstated as fit for use.
+ואתו תשבות, “and you will have to break it.” The reason is that it had absorbed too much impurity.” Besides, seeing that it is not expensive to replace, the financial loss for the owner is minimal.
+
+Verse 34
+
+אשר י��א עליו מים יטמא, “(any food) which has become wet through contact with water has become subject to ritual impurity.”The Torah had found it as necessary to spell out the rules governing how different kinds of food or drink and seeds may become subject to ritual contamination until this point. [As long as fruit or grain is on the tree or attached to the soil, no rainfall can contaminate it. Ed.] As soon as it had been mixed with water it became fit as food and seeing that water was no longer connected to its origin, river or pond, liquids other than water when not integral to the fruit from which they have been squeezed, confer basic susceptibility to ritual defilement. Orange juice, etc, while in the orange is therefore not considered as a “liquid” at that stage. Wine, dew, oil, blood, which are not part of their original status anymore are subject to the same rules as water that is no longer part of the earth it came forth from. This is also the reason why the Torah had written: מים, “water,” and not כל מים, “water, “any (kind of) water.”
+בכל כלי, “in any such vessel,” the logic is that just as the vessel is no longer attached to the origin from which its craftsman had detached it, so any other material which has been attached from its origin is liable to become a source directly or indirectly of ritual defilement. This rule means that water contained in cisterns and caves is not liable to make the vessels in that airspace subject to ritual defilement as long as they have not been detached.
+
+Verse 35
+
+תנור, and an oven for baking bread; 
+כירים, a kitchen range, for boiling meat, will be considered as having been contaminated and unfit for further use. These vessels are usually made of earthenware [in those days. Ed.] 
+The warning is addressed to both men and women as well as to children.
+
+Verse 36
+
+
+
+Verse 37
+
+אשר יזרע, “which is to be sown;” which is to take root in the soil. This teaches that even seed which had been ritually impure will be transformed and be ritually clean once it has taken root. (Rash’bam.
+
+Verse 38
+
+ונפל מנבלתם, “and part of their carcass fell upon them;” Bones free from flesh, Teeth, horns and hair are not included in the definition “carcass.”
+
+Verse 39
+
+וכי ימות מן הבהמה, “if any beast (of the ones you may eat) dies;” if it dies by a cause other than ritual slaughter; once it has been slaughtered ritually, even if found diseased afterwards and therefore unfit to be eaten, it will not become ritually contaminated. (Sifra)
+אשר היא, this word is spelled with the letter י in the Torah.
+
+Verse 40
+
+והאכל מנבלתה, והנושא את נבלתה, “and anyone who eats from its carcass, or anyone who carries part of that carcass;” the same law applies even if one person carries the carcass while outside sacred grounds and his partner is within sacred grounds. You cannot argue that instead of repeating the words: את נבלתה a second time, the Torah need only have written the pronoun: “it;” different measurements are applied to what is called “eating,” and what is called “carrying;” therefore the noun “its carcass,” had to be repeated. (Compare Rashi).
+
+Verse 41
+
+
+
+Verse 42
+
+
+
+Verse 43
+
+ונטמתם בם, “so that you have become ritually contaminated by them.” The word ונטמתם has the letter א after the letter מ missing. We find more such examples in the Torah, as in Genesis 20,6: מחטו לי, “from sinning against Me, or Numbers 10, 13, צב instead of צבא, as well as Deuteronomy 11,12, מרשית instead of מראשית. [Our author cites similar examples also from the Books of the prophets. Ed.]
+
+Verse 44
+
+
+
+Verse 45
+
+כי אני ה' המעלה אתכם מארץ מצרים, “for I am the Lord Who has brought you up from the land of Egypt.” I did so in order that you accept the Torah from Me.
+להיות לכם לאלוקים, “in order for me to be your G-d.” Even if you had not wanted to become My servants. Compare (Sifra) on this verse. [I believe that the words: ”even against your will,” in Sifra refer to what follows, i.e. “having accepted My Torah you cannot help becoming holy, seeing that I am Holy.” Ed.],,
+
+Verse 46
+
+זאת תורת הבהמה והעוף וכל נפש החיה הרומשת במים .“This is the law of the beast, and of the fowl, and of every living creature that moves on the earth. The Torah inserted the fowl between the beasts that live on the land and the creatures that inhabit the waters. It was impossible to allow the fowl to be killed regardless of certain rites to make it permissible to be eaten, but on the other hand, the Torah did not want to treat it as it had the mammals. The Rabbis therefore decided that when killing fowls ritually, only one of the vital windpipe and gullet need to be severed in order for the bird to qualify as food for Israelites. (Talmud, Chulin, folio 27.)
+ולכל נפש השרצות, “and for any creature that swarms upon the earth. The first letter ל in the word לכל is unnecessary, as it is in Exodus 27,3 in לכל כליו.
+
+Verse 47
+
+בין הטמא ובין הטהור, “between the ritually pure and the ritually contaminated. This refers to the earth based mammals, the creatures in the water, other than fish, and the fowl. After the Torah has spelled out the details concerning the above, it spells out details concerning free roaming beasts, followed by the laws concerning women giving birth, the phenomenon of the dreaded skin diseases tzoraat, which can afflict human skin, clothing, or houses. The common denominator of all these is that they are subject to becoming ritually contaminated. 
+בין החיה הנאכלת, “between living creatures that may be eaten, etc.;” on this phrase Rashi comments regardless of whether these animals displayed such symptoms, such as when one of the abovementioned pipes had been duly cut whereas the other had been punctured prior to having been cut i.e. after it had already displayed the symptom of being treyfah. A punctured lung is also a definite symptom of such an animal being treyfah, as the life expectancy of such an animal had it not been slaughtered would have been less than 12 months. (Compare Chulin folio 32)
+ובין החיה אשר לא תאכל, “and between a living creature that may not be eaten.” (Sifra on this verse explains why this line is not superfluous.)
+
+Chapter 12
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+
+
+Verse 2
+
+ אשה כי תזריע וילדה, “when a woman has fructification of seed and has given birth as a result;” the regulations about to be discussed apply only when she gives birth naturally from the womb, not by caesarean invasive procedure. Rabbi Shimon holds that a baby born by caesarean section is considered as having been “born,” and that its mother is obligated to offer the same sacrifices that the mother of a baby born from the womb has to offer. The only difference between such a baby and the one born from the mother’s womb, is that if it is firstborn male, its father does not have to redeem it by paying a priest five shekel. (Sifra)
+וילדה, even if the mother gave birth after only between five up to eight months pregnancy, she has to do so, and the restrictive nature of this word means that she has become ritually unclean by giving “birth” to a fetus after five or more months of pregnancy. (Sifra)
+ זכר, “a male;” including if it was stillborn. 
+וילדה זכר, “and she gave birth to a male;” According to our author (quoting ספר התולדות), a woman’s body contains seven openings, three on her left side, three on her right side, and one in the center. If her husband’s semen enters via the openings on her right side it will produce a male child. If it enters through the openings on her left side, she will produce a female child. If it enters through the opening in her center she will produce either a hermaphrodite possessing both fully developed masculine and feminine organs, or neither of such organs that are fully developed. Her position in bed shortly after her husband’s ejaculating semen into her determines through which of these openings the semen travels. If she lies on her right side the degree of ritual contamination “evaporates” faster than if she had been lying on her left side; this is why she cannot resume marital relations with have husband or offer her respective sacrifices until this process has run its natural cause. Lying on her left side at that critical juncture slows down the ritual contamination which was the result of the mother having been impregnated with her partners’ semen. This is why the Torah decreed different length of 33 or 66 days before the mother can purify herself. (verses 47) The above is hinted at by Solomon in Song of Songs 2,6: שמאלו תחת לראשי, “with his left hand under my head.” The maid’s lover did this in order to help his partner to give birth to males. [The fact that Solomon who had so many wives and concubines produced only a single male heir is proof that G-d’s active providence overrides nature. Ed.]
+וטמאה, “she will be ritually unclean;” the emphasis here is on the suffix ה meaning only the mother, not her child will become ritually unclean as a result of that birth. (Sifra)
+שבעת ימים, “for seven days;” in the event that she gave birth to twins or more babies, the count starts at the end of the last birth. When the students of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai asked him why the Torah decreed different lengths of ritual contamination depending on the sex of the baby, he answered them that the birth of a male baby results in an even greater degree of joy than the birth of a female baby. As a result, the baby’s mother retracts her oath made at the time of enduring the pains during her delivery sooner than after the birth of a daughter, (who is after all also destined to undergo such pain in due course.)
+נדת, this word is a variant for distance, temporary disassociation, as for instance in Job 18,18: ומתבל ינדוה��, “and chased out of the world.” In our verse the separation is from her husband.
+כימי נדת דותה, “just as she separates from him during the days when she has her menses. A Baraitha (Niddah, folio 31) relates that Rabbi Meir explained the reason why generally speaking the period of a woman’s menses lasts seven days, is because if her husband had to abstain from marital relations with her during that period, she will be as desirable for him at the end of that period as she was when he stood with her under the wedding canopy. The woman who just gave birth is familiar with the seven day period during her menses and it is a period she abhors. By reminding her of this comparison, she may look forward to having marital relations with her husband again as when pregnant she does not experience the discomfort of her menses. By the same token, this separation also awakens desire in her for her husband.
+
+Verse 3
+
+וביום, “and on the day, etc.;” the reason why the Torah had to write this word is to teach us that if for some reason the circumcision had been delayed beyond the eighth day it must not be performed at night but on the nearest day thereafter possible, except on the Sabbath, as the Sabbath may be desecrated only when the circumcision is performed on the eighth day after birth. (Sifra)her for her husband. וביום השמיני ימול, and on the eighth day the baby is to be circumcised; Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai’s students asked him why that day had been chosen by G-d for circumcision of the newly born; (not sooner) he answered them that this was so that the whole family could rejoice in that celebration, as otherwise the mother of the child could not participate in the joyful activity due to her still being ritually unclean. That day has been described as a joyful occasion in Psalms 119,162: שש אנכי על אמרתך, the psalmist proclaiming “I rejoice over Your promise,” and our sages in the Talmud tractate Shabbat folio 130 understand David as having referred to the day the child is circumcised. On the face of it this is a remarkable statement as one would expect both parents to be saddened by the fact that they cannot indulge in marital relations until then; however as soon as the mother has immersed herself in a ritual bath on the evening after the seventh day, she is free to resume normal relations with her husband. Thus on the eighth day the whole family can rejoice. The reason why this commandment has been repeated is to remind us that it is so important that it be performed on the eighth day that it overrides the work prohibition on the Sabbath. 
+How then can I deal with the explicit warning that anyone desecrating the Sabbath laws is subject to legal execution? (Exodus 31,14.) Only preparatory activities associated with the circumcision are forbidden even on the Sabbath, whereas the circumcision itself overrides the Sabbath provided it is performed on the eighth day. (If the baby was born at dusk on Friday evening, the circumcision is deferred until the day after the Sabbath. If there is some doubt about the baby having a proper foreskin, the removal of that is also not performed on the Sabbath. (Sifra)
+ימול בשר ערלתו, “the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.” We have learned concerning this procedure as follows in the Talmud tractate Shabbat folio 137: “a newborn may be legally circumcised on the eighth, ninth or the tenth, the eleventh or the twelfth day, without the father having been remiss in performing the procedure on the correct day. How can this occur? 1) The normal day for mandatory circumcision is the eighth day. 2) the ninth day as the “official” day is when the baby was born at dusk. If dusk is considered as part of the next day, then the baby cannot be legally circumcised until the morning of the day following, i.e. the ninth day. If that day happens to be the Sabbath, circumcision would have to be delayed for another day. How could it happen that the legal day for the circumcision would not occur until the eleventh of even the twelfth day? If the baby was born at dusk on Friday, and the day following the Sabbath is a festival. If the baby was born at dusk of the end of the twentysecond of Ellul and the following Thursday which would normally be the eighth day is New Year of the following Year and a holiday. As this day however could be the ninth day, both days of New Year as well as Sabbath following are out, so that the earliest legal day would be Sunday, which is the twelfth day after its birth. It is possible that our author bases himself on a statement attributed in Bereshit Rabbah 7,2, to someone by the name do Yaakov, resident of Nevorai, who issued a ruling in Tzor, that the son of an idol worshipping woman and a Jewish father, born on the Sabbath, could be circumcised on the Sabbath. When Rabbi Chagai heard about this ruling he ordered this Yaakov to appear before him in order to be punished by lashes for such a ruling. To this Yaakov of Nevorai replied that “when someone gives a correct ruling according to the Torah, why should he be punished by lashes?” Thereupon Rabbi Chagai asked him to explain how his ruling could conform to Torah law. Thereupon Yaakov cited Numbers 1,18: ויתילדו על משפחותם לבית אבותם, “they identified themselves according to their families by their fathers’ houses.” To this Rabbi Chagai replied that Yaakov had not interpreted that verse correctly, as it could not override the prohibition against intermarriage with members of an idolatrous nation which is spelled out in Deuteronomy 7,3, with the words לא תתחתן בם, “do not intermarry with them (the Canaanites) i.e. since such a union is illegal its offspring is not Jewish. It is also confirmed by Deuteronomy 7,4 where the Torah gives as the reason for such a prohibition: כי יסיר את בנך מאחרי, “for he will lead your son astray from Me;” a reference to your soninlaw. The Torah did not write כי תסיר, for she will lead astray, but “for he will lead astray.” She cannot lead astray, as she is not Jewish in the first place. Therefore the son of the woman mentioned in the story cited in Bereshit Rabbah, does not require circumcision on either a weekday or the Sabbath since he does not qualify for performance of that rite until and if he converted.
+
+Verse 4
+
+ושלשים יום ושלשת ימים, “and thirty three days, etc;” the thirty three days plus the first seven days combine to make forty days, the number of days that are required until the male fetus has developed its features. The female fetus requires twice this number of days as has been proven conclusively. (based on the Talmud tractate Niddah folio 30)
+
+Verse 5
+
+
+
+Verse 6
+
+תביא כבש, “she is to bring a sheep as an offering;” when his students asked Rabbi Shimon why the mother of the baby has to bring an offering, he answered them that it was because during the contractions preceding her giving birth she swore not again to have marital intercourse with her husband which was the reason for the pain she had to endure. This was an inappropriate oath for which she as to atone.
+אל פתח אהל מועד, “to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting.” This teaches that the mother herself looks after these birds as well as sheep until then, when she hands them over to the priest. (Sifra)
+
+Verse 7
+
+והקריבו, “and he (the priest) shall offer it;” although the pronoun ending in this word is in the singular mode, i.e. ”it,” what is meant is all three creatures, the two birds and the sheep. The Torah also does not bother to spell out the manner in which the birds will be killed, i.e. מליקה, “pinching off of the head, as per Leviticus 5,8.
+
+Verse 8
+
+
+
+Chapter 13
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+אל משה ואל אהרן, “to Moses and to Aaron.” The reason why Aaron has been mentioned here is that it is he, i.e. the priests, who decides if to declare the afflicted person as suffering from tzoraat or not. He decides who is ritually pure and who is not.
+
+Verse 2
+
+אדם, a person, i.e. man or woman, minor, male or female.
+בעור בשרו, “on the skin of his flesh;” as will be explained in greater deal forthwith, i.e. an eczema either on his head or his beard. (compare verse 20) at this point the Torah had to mention the skin of his flesh;
+שאת, an elevation of the skin; when looked at in the shade it appears to the onlooker as if higher that the skin exposed to the sun.
+ספחת, an adjective describing the nouns שאת or בהרת. There are subcategories to both שאת and בהרת. An example of nouns that have such adjectives of varying degrees is found in Samuel I 1,37: ספחני נא אל אחת הכהונות, “please attach me to one of the priestly duties.” [Descendants of the High Priest Eli, who had been condemned to become beggars. Ed.]
+לנגע צרעת, “to the plague (similar to) leprosy;” the are of this affliction is white looking flesh. Compare Exodus 4,6 מצרעת כשלג, “an eczema white as snow.” It is also written: ומראה הנגע עמוק לבן, “the appearance of the eczema is a deep white.” (Source not found)
+והובא אל אהרן הכהן, “he is to be brought to Aaron the Priest.” Even against his will, if necessary.או אל אחד מבניו, “or to one of his sons,” even if they are deformed to the degree that they cannot perform sacrificial service in the Temple.
+אחד, the letter א has the vowel patach.
+הכהנים, “the priests;” excluding the descendants from a marriage forbidden to priests and therefore have lost their status permanently. How do we know that all the Israelites are included? Answer: from the words “or one of,” which includes anyone who is a member of the Jewish people. If so, what is the point of the Torah having written: “from among his sons the priests?” It is to teach you that only the priests can give a ruling concerning ritual purity and ritual impurity. Not even the Supreme Court can do so. Are then all priests experts by birth? The system works as follows: When the problem of tzoraat arises, an expert who has studied the subject is consulted. The priest accepts the superior knowledge of this expert, and makes his ruling based on what he has been told by the expert who has examined the afflicted person. It is irrelevant whether the priest is truly familiar or not with the symptoms the Torah has taught us.
+
+Verse 3
+
+ושער בנגע הפך לבן, “and the hair in the stricken area has turned from black to white.” This is a sign that the affliction has become stronger and the afflicted area attacks the healthy flesh surrounding it. Elderly people experience that their hair turns white as time progresses. However, if the hair had turned white already before the area had been declared as a נגע צרעת, white hair is not a sign of ritual impurity, seeing the change in colour had not been related to the skin’s discolouration. This is what our sages had in mind when they said: “when baheret precedes the manifestation of white hair this is a sign that the person is ritually contaminated; if not, he is ritually pure.” (Sifra)
+
+Verse 4
+
+ואם בהרת לבנה היא, “but if the bright spot is white on the skin;” but it is not so white that the appearance of the afflicted area is as if recessed under the skin; as is written: “and its hair has not turned white;” ועמוק אין מראה, “and its appearance is not deeper, etc.” Rashi writes concerning these words, that he does not understand their meaning. What he meant was: seeing that its appearance as white, how is it possible that it did not look deeper?Some commentators say that the words ועמוק אין מראה mean that its appearance is not like the appearance of skin which has been afflicted with שחין, the plague known from Egypt as the skin breaking out in boils. (Torat Kohanim on verse 21) This would mean that the affliction while neither lower nor higher, appears as level with the remainder of the skin.
+ושערה לא הפך לבן, and the hair which formerly had been black had not turned white; the letter ה in the first word ושערה (here, as opposed to verse 20) does not have the dot that we would have expected if it were to mean: “its appearance.”
+והסגיר הכן, “and the priest will lock him up;” at the end of another seven days the priest will understand if there has been a further expansion of the afflicted area. When someone observes a condition constantly, he would not recognise minor changes; but if he had not looked at that area for a period of seven days, it is much easier to judge if there had been a change.
+
+Verse 5
+
+וראהו הכהן ביום השביעי, “when the priest looks at it on the seventh day;” he does not wait a whole seven days before inspecting the affliction again. From this verse we learn the principle that in the Torah even part of a day is considered as if it were a whole day.
+עמד בעיניו, “has remained unchanged;” the area that had been strongly inflamed had not weakened, and the areas that had been relatively mildly inflamed had not become more inflamed.
+שבעת ימים שנית “a second period of seven days of waiting.” The first “seventh” day, counts as a whole day in both directions. (Sifra)
+
+Verse 6
+
+והנה כהה הנגע ולא פשה הנגע בעור וטהרו, “and behold, if the plague had dimmed and the plague had not spread;” the priest declares the afflicted person as ritually pure.”If you were to ask why the Torah appears to repeat itself, seeing that it is obvious that if the symptoms had not spread, and the afflicted person is declared ritually pure, then if the symptoms had diminished he must certainly be declared ritually pure? You have to understand the words: ולא פשה, “and it did not spread,” as applying to the result of the priest’s inspection after the first seven days. When at the second inspection it turned out that not only had the affliction not spread but it had even diminished, only then does the priest declare that person as ritually pure, i.e. as cured. It is not possible to understand the words: “the afflicted area did not increase” as applying to the second period of seven days because Rashi there had explained already that as long as the afflicted person had not been healed he remains not only potentially ritually impure, but he remains absolutely ritually impure. Concerning the healing process, i.e. the afflicted person’s progress toward ritual purity, the second inspection, Rashi says clearly that the appearance of the affliction, i.e. that it had not diminished, is proof that he remains impure (pending) and if it had spread he is definitively impure. Concerning his ritual purity, the Torah writes: (14,3) והנה נרפא נגע הצרעת מן הצרוע, “and behold if the plague of tzoraat that the afflicted person suffers from has been healed;” as soon as this has occurred the afflicted person can leave the place where he had been locked up, i.e. even though his symptoms have not disappeared. All that is required is that on the second inspection after the second period of seven days the symptoms have not spread. והנה כהה הנגע, “and behold the symptoms of the affliction have diminished;” even though one might have thought that any change [even for the better,] is proof of a new affliction, and that the person would be declared as ritually contaminates; in order to forestall such erroneous thinking, the Torah added the word: והנה, “and lo and behold!”
+וטהרו, “he [the examining priest Ed] declares him as ritually pure.” He does so by making this declaration by mouth.
+וכבס בגדיו, the now ritually pure person will immerse his clothing, [seeing that they had become contaminated by his having worn them in his state of the plague, Ed.] Naturally, if he had to immerse his clothing, it is understood that he also has to immerse his body in a ritual bath, (seeing there had been doubt if he had remained pure during the period when he had been locked up he might not have not been careful not to become ritually unclean in a way unrelated to his plague) following this, the process of purification is complete,.וטהר
+
+Verse 7
+
+ואם פשה תפשה אחרי הראותו, “but if the scab spread after he had shown it to the priest, even immediately;
+
+Verse 8
+
+
+
+Verse 9
+
+
+
+Verse 10
+
+והיא הפכה, “and it had changed colour;” the word והיא here is spelled with the letter י and not with the letter ו; [as in verses 4,7 and 8. Ed.]
+
+Verse 11
+
+צרעת נושנת היא, “it is an old plague,” it had only appeared to have healed by new skin covering it. Beneath that new skin the flesh had remained raw and moist. The Torah had to inform us of this so that we would not think that the surface of the skin is the only determining factor. That is not enough for the priest to declare the afflicted person as ritually pure. (Compare Rashi)
+
+Verse 12
+
+ואם פרוח תפרח, “if these symptoms show up in different parts of his skin;” if different parts of his skin seem to break out in white spots as if flowering;”
+מראשו, “from his head down;” not on his head; ועד רגליו, “all the way down to his feet;” excluding the feet themselves;
+לכל מראה עיני הכהן, “as far as it appears to the priest’s eyes;” this excludes a priest whose eyesight is defective; (Rashi) Why did the Torah only exclude a priest who has defective eyesight?, Why did it not also prohibit such inspections on a very cloudy day when everyone’s vision is impaired? This did not have to be spelled out as it is logical. (Compare verse 5) where the word: בעיניו, “as it appears to his eyes,” has already implied that any impediment to the priest seeing clearly prevents such an inspection from being performed and to have legal validity. An alternate interpretation: the words above mean that the inspection must be performed in parts of the body which are clearly visible, not in the armpits, private parts, etc. In connection with this our Rabbis coined the saying: האיש נראה כעודר ומוסק זיתים, והאשה כעורכת ומיניקה את בנה, “a man looks as if busy picking olives, whereas the woman appears as if getting ready to nurse her son.” These are similes describing when normally hidden folds in one’s skin become exposed due to the nature of that person’s activity. [The Rabbis used elegant language to refer to respective private parts of men and women. Ed.]
+
+Verse 13
+
+
+
+Verse 14
+
+
+
+Verse 15
+
+צרעת הוא, “it is the affliction we have been discussing.” The reason why the Torah here uses the masculine pronoun is that it refers to בשר חי in verse 10 which is masculine.
+
+Verse 16
+
+או כי ישוב, “or the raw flesh reverses its appearance, etc.” this refers to what the Torah had described in verses 1015, especially in verse 13.
+או כי ישוב, “refers to the extremities of the limbs like the tips of fingers or toes which had alternately becoming visible as normal and as diseased. [The Torah had taught in verse 13 that if the entire surface of someone’s skin is afflicted, such a person is ritually pure. It follows therefore that when the healing process begins, some skin will no longer be afflicted, i.e. he will then have to become ritually unclean when the priest sees this and acknowledges it. I have added this, as not all my readers may have paid attention to the verses not dealt with by our author as he assumed that his audience was familiar with them. Ed.]
+
+Verse 17
+
+
+
+Verse 18
+
+
+
+Verse 19
+
+
+
+Verse 20
+
+והנה מראה שפל, “and behold its appearance is as if lower than the skin’s surface;” How do we know that what is true for the appearance remaining level with the skin adjoining it is treated by halachah as the same as if it appears raised? To teach us this, the Torah wrote: ושפלה איננה מן העור, “but it does not appear lower than the rest of the skin.” (verse 21)
+
+Verse 21
+
+ושפלה איננה מן העור והיא כהה, “and it does not appear to be lower than the skin surrounding it;” why did the Torah have to write the words: והיא כהה, “and it has diminished in intensity?” The reason is because we have had that same expression used when the priest made his second examination. (verse 6) Some commentators understand this expression as referring to the word: איננה; we find a similar construction in Psalms 9,19: תקות ענוים תאבד לעד, “the hope of the afflicted will not forever be lost.” [This line must not be understood as a positive statement, instead as a plaintive question or reassurance that “of course this hope will not be lost forever. “ Ed.] The verse should therefore be understood as follows: “even though the symptom of the affected skin does not appear lower than that surrounding it, but the intensity of the discoloration has not diminished, this is sufficient reason for the priest to place the person in isolation, even if the hair in that area has not turned white; in other words, if the intensity of the discoloration did diminish, it is clear that the person afflicted will be declared ritually pure.
+והיא כהה, here too the word: והיא, is spelled with the letter י before the letter א, just as in verse 10.
+
+Verse 22
+
+נגע הוא, “it is a plague.” The word הנא is read as having the vowel chirik. It is in the feminine mode as it describes either the word: בהרת or שאת, both of which are feminine nouns.
+
+Verse 23
+
+ואם תחתיה תעמוד הבהרת, “but if the bright spot stays unchanged in its place;” even though it did not diminish, the afflicted person is declared as ritually pure, seeing the cause of the affliction had been the rising on the skin of the boil, or the burns that that person had suffered; as long as the area of the plague had not increased in size it is not a fully fledged plague.
+
+Verse 24
+
+או בשר, “or when flesh, etc.;” there is no difference between how halachah treats either a burn on the skin or a boil caused through internal swelling. The reason, why in spite of this, the Torah appears to treat it as two different phenomena, is because it wishes to teach that if either of these phenomena are present in smaller sizes than the minimum size to qualify as a plague, these two phenomena combined are not to be considered as big enough combined to result in our viewing them as evidence of a plague. This has been stated in the Talmud, tractate Chulin, folio 8. The minimum size is half the size of a certain kind of bean known as פול.
+
+Verse 25
+
+ומראה עמוק מן העור, “and its appearance is as if deeper than the skin;” how do we know that when it appears as level with the surrounding skin or higher that the same rule applies? This is why the Torah had added in verse 21: ושפלה איננה, “but not lower than the surrounding skin;”
+
+Verse 26
+
+
+
+Verse 27
+
+
+
+Verse 28
+
+לא פשתה בעור והיא כהה, “it had not spread on the skin, and had become dimmer in appearance;” the word כהה is used as complementing the words לא פשתה, i.e. “it had not spread and not become dimmer.” (Compare our commentary on verse 21 in connection with שחין)
+
+Verse 29
+
+ואיש או אשה כי יהיה בו נגע בראש, “and a man or awoman who display signs of a plague on the head; (in the case of the woman))
+או בזקן, or in the beard, (in the case of a man;)
+
+Verse 30
+
+ובו שער צהוב, “and there is yellow hair on it;” the skin on which hair growth is usually rougher than the skin on which no hair grows. Therefore, when yellow hair appears it is a sure sign that the flesh beneath it is dead and weak.
+דק, “thin;” as a result, any hair that grows on that skin is also weaker and the growth is less dense.
+נתק, “it is a scall;” the area on which hair grows is called נתק, the word being a derivative of the verb לנתק, “to tear out,” or “tear apart.”
+
+Verse 31
+
+וכי יראה, same as אם יראה, “if or when he sees.”
+
+Verse 32
+
+
+
+Verse 33
+
+והתגלח, “he shall shave;” seeing that we find “shaving” also in connection with the priest when it is being performed by himself, (Leviticus 21,5), I might have thought that the person that had been afflicted with tzoraat, would also have to do this himself, the Torah employs the reflexive mode to show that anyone can perform this procedure. [He may use any means, not only a razor to perform this removal of hair. Ed.]
+והתגלח, “he is to be shaved;” even if he is a Nazirite, and his term of being such has not yet expired. [Nazirites are forbidden to shave their hair. Ed.]
+ואת הנתק לא יגלח, “but he must not shave off the scall;” Rashi understands this to mean that he must leave at last two hairs in place so that it can be determined if the area of the scall has expanded. The only way the status of the scall can be judged is by hairs
+
+Verse 34
+
+וכבס בגדיו וטהר, “and after having immersed his garments in a ritual bath he shall be ritually pure.�� He will not confer ritual impurity through touch lying or sitting on something or having marital relations.
+וטהר, he will also become ritually pure (if he is a Nazirite) although as such he should have let his hair grow wild, etc.
+
+Verse 35
+
+
+
+Verse 36
+
+
+
+Verse 37
+
+ושער שחור צמח בו, “and black hair had grown on it.” The letter ו at the beginning of the word: ושער is not conjunctive, but means “or.” Examples of similar uses of the letter ו are found in Exodus 21,15: מכה אביו ואמו, “if someone strikes father or mother;” and in Exodus 12,5: מן הכבשים ומן העזים תקחו, “you are to take from the goats or from the sheep; here too the words ושער mean: או שער, or black hair (grew).
+טהור הוא, “he is ritually pure;” the reason is that the plague has not changed for the worse, or that growth of black hair proves that the follicle it grew out of is healthy, and the flesh surrounding it has not become weaker.
+
+Verse 38
+
+
+
+Verse 39
+
+
+
+Verse 40
+
+ואיש כי ימרט ראשו, “or if a man loses the hair on his head;” baldness of women is not mentioned here seeing that her head does not become bald. (Talmud, tractate Nedarim folio 30)
+
+Verse 41
+
+
+
+Verse 42
+
+
+
+Verse 43
+
+
+
+Verse 44
+
+איש, from the fact that the Torah speaks only of איש, “a man,” how do we know that the same law applies to both women and minors? We know this from the superfluous word צרוע in verse 44. We know that this term applies to every category of human being. איש צרוע, “he is a man afflicted with tzoraat;” all the rules discussed in this chapter affecting such people apply to what follows.
+
+Verse 45
+
+והצרוע, “and the so afflicted person;” even if he happens to be the High Priest of whom it has been written in the Torah (Leviticus 21,10) that he must not let his hair grow loose nor rend his garments [as signs of mourning, Ed.] when faced with the problem discussed here he must ignore what is written in chapter 21. (Sifra)
+בגדיו יהיו פרומים, “his clothes shall be rent;” this will serve as a symbol that he mourns over his errors which led to him becoming afflicted. (Ibn Ezra)
+ועל שפם יעטה, “and he shall cover his upper lip.” This is to stop bad smell coming forth from his mouth which might affect people negatively. (Ibn Ezra)
+
+Verse 46
+
+בדד ישב, “he must dwell in isolation;” he must not have marital relations, as doing this would cause rot. (Talmud, Moed Katan, folio 7)
+מחוץ למחנה מושבו, “his residence must be beyond the boundaries of the camp.” His residence itself is ritually impure;” the disease from which he suffers is contagious to people who conduct social intercourse with him. This is the source for the statement in the Sifra here that if a ritually unclean person sits under a tree and a ritually clean person stands in front of him (under the branches), the previously ritually clean person has become ritually contaminated. If the situation is reversed, the ritually pure person remains ritually pure.
+
+Verse 47
+
+מחוץ למחנה מושבו, והבגד, “his residence must be outside the camp. “And the garment;” [in spite of verse 46 being the conclusion of a paragraph Ed.], Rabbi Yossi from the Galil, claims that we learn from these two verses that the afflicted person’s clothes also require to be quarantined with him. [Possibly he disregarded the end of the paragraph, as the new paragraph commences with the conjunctive letter ו alerting us to the fact that this verse belongs together with the one preceding it. Ed.]
+בבגד צמר או בבגד פשתים, “whether it be a woolen or a linen garment;” when the Torah speaks of garments, we always hear of woolen garments before linen garments are mentioned. The reason is that once a woolen garment has been completed, it is worth more than a linen garment. When the Torah speaks of a warp or a woof (in weaving) it always mentions linen before wool. The reason is that a woven linen garment is more valuable than a woven garment made of wool.
+
+Verse 48
+
+.או בשתי, “or in the warp;” the word שתי is not a genitive, construct mode, but a word in its own right, meaning “foundation”. Compare Psalms 11,3: השתות, “the foundations;” the reason is that the warp is the basis of all manner of weaving.
+או בערב, “or in the woof;” the word is so called as it mixes the threads that have to be woven together.
+
+Verse 49
+
+
+
+Verse 50
+
+
+
+Verse 51
+
+
+
+Verse 52
+
+
+
+Verse 53
+
+
+
+Verse 54
+
+
+
+Verse 55
+
+בקרחתו או בגבחו, “whether the bareness be within or without.” These words refer to either the garment or the hide. It is similar to when people who come from a hairy region “baldy,” whereas they do the reverse with people coming from a region of smooth skinned people, “hairy.”
+
+Verse 56
+
+
+
+Verse 57
+
+
+
+Verse 58
+
+וכבס שנית, “it shall be immersed in a ritual bath a second time.” The second time in order to purify it, whereas the first time was in order to remove the residue of the plague.
+
+Verse 59
+
+ לטהרו או לטמאו, “to declare him purified or contaminated.” If the priest who investigated the outbreak of the plague in a garment dies, another priest can declare him purified or contaminated.
+
+Chapter 14
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+
+
+Verse 2
+
+ביום טהרתו, “on the day of his purification;” this teaches that his state of defilement, purification, the slaughtering of the birds, and the sprinkling of their blood, as well as his being shaved, all take place during the day and on the same day. ביום טהרתו, this also teaches that he is not to tarry in performing these rites. 
+והובא אל הכהן, “after he had been purified he shall be brought to the priest;” while still outside the camp, but where the priest can inspect him without undue discomfort. We know that the afflicted person could not yet have entered the confines of the camp from what is written immediately following, i.e. that the priest had to leave the camp in order to perform his duties. An alternate explanation: the words: “and he was brought to the priest,” mean that he had to be brought to the priest because he was still resident outside the camp, so that he had to be brought to the boundary. The priest on his part came as near as he could in order to meet him.
+
+Verse 3
+
+ויצא הכהן אל מחוץ למחנה, “and a ritually pure priest left the camp as he could reenter the camp, and he performed the purification rites. The fact that the Torah wrote: “the priest left the camp,” proves that he must have been ritually pure else what enabled this priest to return to the camp otherwise? A ritually contaminated priest could not enter the camp, so how could he perform all the rites? (Sifra) והנה נרפא, “and behold the plague had been healed.” It had vanished.נ
+נגע, “the white hair had disappeared;” הצרעת, the raw flesh had disappeared. מן הצרוע, “from the person who had been afflicted with tzoraat. Not a trace was left.
+
+Verse 4
+
+ולקח למטהר, “he will take for the one who was to be purified;” the word מטהר includes man, woman or minor as the case maybe. This wording prompted the sages to coin the phrase: לקח לאיש, כשרות לאשתו, “when weddings are performed publicly it is a public demonstration of the chastity of both partners, as if they had wished they could have married one another in the privacy of their homes legally. [I have abbreviated the saying. Ed.]
+שתי צפרים, “two birds;” whenever there is a reference to a bird as צפור, it is a ritually pure bird. Rabbi Yitzchok says that a ritually pure bird may be referred to as either עוף or צפור, whereas a ritually impure bird is always referred to as עוף. (Talmud, tractate Chulin folio 139)
+טהורות, “ritually pure;” both genetically, and free from physical defects. (Compare Malbim)
+ועץ ארז, “and some cedar wood;” according to Rabbi Chanina ben Gamliel, the leaves from the cedar tree were torn from the top of the tree. [In order that the tallest of plants and the lowliest, i.e. hyssop, both be part of this offering. Ed.]
+
+Verse 5
+
+וצוה הכהן ושחט, “and the priest issues the order to slaughter. The order had to be given by a priest, whereas it could be executed by any ordinary Israelite. (According to Rabbi Yehudah in the name of Rabbi Yossi.) [Some sages disagree that an ordinary Israelite could perform the act of slaughtering in this instance. Ed.]
+ושחט את הצפור האחת, “the superior looking one of the two birds.” (Based on the prefix ה before the word (אחת
+על מים חיים, “over running water,” (from a spring, not a tap.) The symbolism here is to show that the deadlike person who had been afflicted, was now on the way back and could take his place among them. על מים חיים, this spring water was to mix with the blood of the bird which had been slaughtered, so that the hyssop and the leaves from the cedar tree could be dipped in that mixture with the crimson wool and the living bird.
+
+Verse 6
+
+ואת הצפור החיה בדם, “together with the living bird in the blood of;” this was so that the living bird before being released had been dyed the colour of the slaughtered bird’s blood; the other birds of the same subspecies will look at it and will know that it had changed colours (allegorically speaking had become impure) and gang up on it and kill it so that they themselves will not be found as afflicted with the disease of the now healed victim. They are afraid of being chosen as sacrifices for another person afflicted with the same disease. (This strange sounding paragraph is found inTossaphot. The idea of releasing a living bird in order that it be killed by its mates sounds somewhat puzzling.) Seeing that the Torah in verse 20 writes that this whole procedure as outlined in the verses following, is designed to achieve atonement עליו, i.e. only for the person of which we have been reading, if the bird that had been released would return, the affliction would also return and the person who had brought all these sacrifices would not have become ritually pure. If proof would be needed that this statement is indeed correct, i.e. that the mates of that bird that has changed colour by having been dunked in blood will kill it or devour it, our sages quote Jeremiah 12,9 as saying in the name of G-d: העיט צבוע נחלתי לי התיו לאכלה, “My heritage has become like a speckled bird, the birds around it are against her ready to devour her!” this simile appears completely inappropriate as the Torah had never spoken about an עיט, “a speckled bird.” It must therefore be a bird which because it had changed colour, cannot be recognised for what it had been like originally. The Talmud argues that surely the Torah would not have instructed this live bird to be released if the intention had been that it should be killed! (Talmud, tractate Kidushin folio 57) [Remember that we had learned that any bird referred to as צפור is automatically permitted to become an instrument to lead someone into sin, especially a bird that is permitted to be eaten, so how did Jeremiah quote G-d as saying that it has become a forbidden bird, עיט. Ed.]
+
+Verse 7
+
+שבע פעמים;” seven times.” This bird’s blood was to be sprinkled on the back of the hand of the afflicted person.
+וטהרו, “and pronounce him ritually pure;”
+ושלח את הצפור החיה, “whereupon he is to send off the living bird;” this is a symbol of the purity signifying that the tzoraat has “flown off” the owner of these birds who had suffered the affliction. The allegorical meaning is that whereas previously the owner of this bird had sat on the roof of a house (i.e. homeless and exposed to all kinds of danger, seeing that he had been forbidden any contact with human society, now he had miraculously been readmitted to civilization and all its advantages.)
+
+Verse 8
+
+
+
+Verse 9
+
+והיה ביום השביעי יגלח, and as soon as the seventh day has come, he will shave all his hair. The reference is to hair that has grown during the preceding seven days. There are two occasions when shaving has to occur. He has to perform two separate shavings;
+את כל שערו את ראשו, “all the hair on his head;” but when the Torah prescribes the Levites as having to shave off their hair, it requires only the eyelids and eyebrows and their body hair. (Numbers 8,7). The purpose there is for cosmetic purposes. Usually they only shave off excess hair and they leave most of it. If they had been asked to remove all their body hair they would present themselves as practically naked in the Presence of the glory of G-d;People who had been afflicted with tzoraat, on the other hand, would have been asked to remove the whole skin over their flesh if they would be able to survive such a procedure. The Torah, therefore, does not ask this of them, but is content with a symbolic procedure. It only wants to ensure that all the symptoms of their affliction have been removed.
+ואת כל שערו, “and all of his hair;” what is the meaning of these words? Why does the Torah repeats this instruction? It is to emphasise the critical importance of this procedure and its date. It must be performed on the seventh day, but if not, it may be performed on the eighth or ninth or tenth day.
+
+Verse 10
+
+שני כבשים, “two male sheep;” one is to be a burnt offering, i.e. the priests do not get to eat any of it, and neither does the owner, and the second sheep is to be a guilt offering.
+וכבשה אחת, “and one female sheep;” this is to be a sin offering, to be treated like any regular sin offering.
+This sacrifice will be accompanied by a libation consisting of three tenths parts of an eyphah of fine flour (one tenth for each of the three animals) for a meal offering mixed with oil and one log of oil;
+
+Verse 11
+
+ואותם, “together with them;” (the sheep under discussion) (Rash’bam)
+
+Verse 12
+
+
+
+Verse 13
+
+
+
+Verse 14
+
+ולקח הכהו. ונתן הכהו, “the priest will take personally, and the priest will give personally;” (put it) just as the priest personally performs this rite so he personally performs the other rites connected with this sacrifice. I might have thought that placing the blood on the altar should be performed by some specially designated vessel such as a spoon or something like it. To prevent us from thinking this, the Torah repeats the word הכהן where it did not appear to have been necessary, and adds that the procedure for the sin offering is the same as that for the guilt offering. There were two priests needed for this whole procedure; one would receive the blood in a vessel, and the other, in his hand. The first would sprinkle the blood from his vessel on the side of the altar, and the other who held the blood in his hand would approach the leper.
+
+Verse 15
+
+
+
+Verse 16
+
+וטבל הכהן, “the priest would dip, etc.” from the oil,” the word מן השמן used here mans “into the oil.” We could have expected the Torah to have written בשמן instead.
+וטבל ...והזה, every time the priest sprinkled from the oil he first dipped his finger in the oil again.
+הימנית, “the right one;” not the finger of the person holding the bowl with the oil. What the right hand or finger does is always more visible than what the left hand does.
+
+Verse 17
+
+על דם האשם, “on the blood of the guilt offering. ”(verse 17) which had been placed there before, (verse 13)
+
+Verse 18
+
+והנותר בשמן, “and the rest of the oil;” we would have expected the Torah to have written: מן השמן instead of בשמן. [Whenever our author makes this kind of succinct comment, it is to remind the reader that we are not dealing with a scribe‘s error that need to be emended, but that the Torah had its own reasons for changing the syntax as well as spelling. Ed.]
+
+Verse 19
+
+את החטאת, “the sin offering.” This refers to the female sheep, ewe; the details of the guilt offering have already been dealt with.
+את העולה, “one of the two male sheep.”
+
+Verse 20
+
+ואת המנחה, “and the mealoffering;” the three partial fistfuls of fine flour separated from the original quantity of three tenths of an eypha of fine flour that we read about in verse 10 that were to be eaten by the priests.
+
+Verse 21
+
+ואם דל הוא ואין ידו משגת, “and if the afflicted person is poor and cannot afford (the price of the sheep);” we usually find the adjective דל in connection with the body, as in the case of the cows that Pharaoh saw in the dream he told Joseph about in Genesis 41,19. Compare also: “happy he who is happy when he gives his attention to the poor.” Psalms 41,2: משכיל אל דל,“ or Samuel II 13,4: מדוע אתה ככה דל בן המלך, “why are you so poorly, son of a king?!” In none of these examples does the word דל describe one’s financial status. This is why in our verse the Torah had to add the words: “for he cannot afford;”
+
+Verse 22
+
+
+
+Verse 23
+
+
+
+Verse 24
+
+
+
+Verse 25
+
+
+
+Verse 26
+
+
+
+Verse 27
+
+
+
+Verse 28
+
+
+
+Verse 29
+
+
+
+Verse 30
+
+
+
+Verse 31
+
+על המנחה, “in addition to the mealoffering.”
+
+Verse 32
+
+
+
+Verse 33
+
+
+
+Verse 34
+
+כי תבאו אל ארץ כנען, “When you will come to the lad of Canaan;” the Torah did not write: כי תבואו in connection with the legislation governing the plague of Tzoraat. The reason is that the rules about tzoraat already applied when the Israelites were still wandering in the desert. When speaking about tzoraat afflicting houses it did write these words of introduction, as that plague only occurs in the land of Israel. [Besides they only had tents there no houses built of stone. Ed.] A different explanation: the reason why when a plague breaks out on a house it must be destroyed, is that the earth of the land of Israel is holy, and its earth does not gladly suffer ritual contamination.
+ונתתי נגע צרעת, “and I put the plague of tzoraat on a house in the land of your inheritance. According to some commentators, reading the plain text, this line has to be understood in conjunction with Deuteronomy 12,2: אבד תאבדון את כל המקומות אשר עבדו שם הגוים, “you must destroy utterly every place where the gentiles have worshipped (idols).” How are we to know in which locations the Canaanites once worshipped idols? Answer: the plague that shows up on your house is an indication that this was a house which served such a purpose. It alerts us to the need to fulfill that commandment.
+
+Verse 35
+
+אשר לו הבית, “to whom this house belongs, after the Israelites have conquered the land of Canaan. Everyone by then knows which house is his house. (Sifra)
+
+Verse 36
+
+
+
+Verse 37
+
+וראה את הנגע והנה הנגע בקירות הבית, “and he sees that the plague has struck the walls of the house. The repetition of the word נגע in this verse led our Rabbis to understand that the minimum size of such a plague on a house is two גריסין, [surface of a large bean. Ed.]
+
+Verse 38
+
+
+
+Verse 39
+
+
+
+Verse 40
+
+וחלצו את האבנים, “they shall remove the stones concerned;” from the plural mode of the verb וחלצו, we learn that at least two people are required to remove these stones. This is the source of the proverb: “woe to the wicked as well as to his neighbour.” (Sifra)
+
+Verse 41
+
+יקציע ....הקצו, “they will scrape off;” this root appears again in verse 43 and it means the same there.
+
+Verse 42
+
+יקח וטח, from the use of the singular mode of this verb here we learn that the friend of the owner of the house does not help in this procedure of replacing the stones with mortar. (Sifra)
+
+Verse 43
+
+The verse refers to the reappearance of the plague after seven days have elapsed since the symptoms and the afflicted stones have been removed. Our author states that he copied Rashi’s entire commentary on this verse, in order to enable the reader to fully understand it.“after having been scraped off;” this is inferred from the similarity of the verb: “if the plague recurs,” אם ישוב הנגע ופרח. I might have thought that if the plague recurs immediately after having been scraped off, the house would be declared as ritually contaminated with all the consequences thereof. The Torah wrote: “the priest returns, etc.;” in order to make plain that this occurs only after an interval of seven days, just as in the case of a priest reexamining the symptoms of a plague on the skin of a person so afflicted. (13,32). Moreover, unless in the interval the area afflicted with these symptoms had expanded, the house will not be declared as ritually contaminated. (verse 44) We find the expression צרעת ממארת, “a malignant tzoraat,” In connection with houses as well as in connection with tzoraat on clothing; (13,52) here too the reappearance of the symptoms of the plague that had been removed is sufficient for the house to be declared as having been ritually contaminated, even if the area of the contamination had not become larger. Actually, this is not the place where we would have expected to read this verse. What are we to learn from the words (verse 44) “the area covered by the symptoms of the plague has expanded,” seeing that the verdict of the priest will be no different? That verse should have been written before verse 43, and then the next verse would have taught us that even if the area had not increased the priest would still order the tearing down of the house. We must therefore assume that verse 44 speaks of the priest having come for another inspection at the end of the second week. The proper place for our verse actually is after verse 47, where we are taught that people who had used that house to dwell in and go about their normal activities have to retroactively treat what they wear, their food supplies, their furniture, etc. as having been contaminated since the departure of the priest the previous time.[I am taking the liberty to abbreviate here and draw the reader’s attention to the fact that the Torah had warned the inhabitants of that house to empty it out before his return (verse 36). The inhabitants have now incurred additional financial loss because they had ignored the priest’s warning. If until the next visit of the priest the symptoms of the plague had not come back after they had been scraped of and new plaster had been applied to that area, the priest will declare it as ritually pure, and will take two birds, etc., on behalf of the owner and slaughter one of them, etc. and release the second one into the air, as described in verse 4953. Ed.] Rashi’s principal contribution here is that the expressions used by the Torah for the priest’s visit to the house, once described as ביאה, “coming,” and once as שבה, “returning,” are not chosen randomly, but are to draw our attention to the results of each visit by the priest, depending on the choice of words used by the Torah to describe them, being basically similar.
+
+Verse 44
+
+
+
+Verse 45
+
+
+
+Verse 46
+
+כל ימי הסגיר אותו, during all the days that he had sealed it; according to Rashi, we have to understand the word: ימי, as excluding the days when the owner had scraped off the symptoms. Those days actually overlapped after the priest had sealed the house. [There is disagreement among the commentators as to what happens to people who enter the sealed house between the inspections. Some commentators feel that third parties who did not own nor live in that house would not be penalised by becoming ritually impure, i.e. that all the yardsticks applied are subjective; others feel that entering such a house, seeing it was sealed make such persons ritually impure even if eventually the house was declared as ritually pure by the priest.[According to at least one opinion in the Talmud, (Sanhedrin 71) it never got to the point when such a house had to be torn down. In light of this, this editor has decided not to pursue the subject further, seeing that our author does not offer an opinion of his own but only quotes commentators. Ed.]
+What is clear from verses 46-48 is that merely entering that house during the period it is sealed, results in a very brief state of ritual impurity not even requiring immersion in a ritual bath, but requiring only sunset, whereas sleeping in that house requires a more elaborate ritual before such a person becomes ritually pure again, i.e. immersion in a ritual bath of both his body and the clothes he wore.
+
+Verse 47
+
+
+
+Verse 48
+
+וטהר הכהן את הבית, “the priest purifies the house.” He does so by means of a verbal declaration.
+
+Verse 49
+
+
+
+Verse 50
+
+
+
+Verse 51
+
+
+
+Verse 52
+
+
+
+Verse 53
+
+את הצפור החיה אל מחוץ לעיר, “the living bird outside the boundaries of the city;” according to Rabbi Yossi Haglili, this bird had had its “residence��� outside the city; in other words, it is not a bird that was domesticated and for which the owners had provided a שובך, dovecot.” It was by definition a “free roaming bird.”
+וכפר על הבית וטהר, “by doing so he makes atonement for the house and it is (again) ritually pure.” The ritual is analogous to that of the scapegoat on the day of Atonement that carries the sins of the Jewish people into the wilderness. (Nachmanides) If atonement is required for the afflicted house why only for the house that had such an affliction? Why not for the person whose skin had been afflicted? The answer is that one cannot take a house to a ritual bath, and the house cannot bring a sacrifice. Houses could not have been guilty by committing an act that displeases the Lord, as they are inert by definition. Besides, these houses had already required scraping, removing stones, and plastering, none of which are procedures that were required from afflicted clothing or afflicted skin.
+
+Verse 54
+
+זאת התורה לכל נגע הצרעת, “this is the law for allmanner of the plague known as tzoraat;” this verse once more summing up the subject as a Torah, is a reminder to the priest not to undertake pronouncing decisions about tzoraat until he has thoroughly familiarised himself with the subject as well as with the terminology used by the Torah.
+
+Verse 55
+
+
+
+Verse 56
+
+
+
+Verse 57
+
+
+
+Chapter 15
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+
+
+Verse 2
+
+אל בני ישראל, “to the Children of Israel;” the addition of these words is a reminder that the conditions described forthwith apply only to Israelites. Gentiles, even if they display these symptoms cannot confer ritual impurity on Israelites by means of them.איש, an adult male, not a minor; [if that word had not been repeated. Ed.] איש, the repetition of the word converts this line into something more inclusive, hence the halachah rules that minors are also included.
+מבשרו “from his flesh;” this restrictive clause teaches that as long as this issue is still in contact with its origin, i.e. connected to the person from which it came forth, it does not confer ritual impurity on those who come into contact with it. (Sifra) The word בשרו is a simile for the private parts of the person from which the issue emanates. We find this word used in the same sense also in Leviticus 16,4: ומכנסי בד יהיו על בשרו, he shall wear linen trousers on his flesh (to cover his private parts). Another example of the word בשר referring to private parts is found in verse 19 of our chapter: זובה בבשרה, “an emission from her flesh,” i.e. vagina
+
+Verse 3
+
+רר בשרו את זובו, “his flesh ran with his issue;” the word את here is to be understood as מן, i.e. “from;” we have an example of this use of the word את when Moses tells Pharaoh he is going too pray for the plague to stop when he leaves the boundaries of the city, i.e. כצאתי את העיר (Exodus 9,29)
+
+Verse 4
+
+
+
+Verse 5
+
+ואיש אשר יגע, “and a man who touches;” he contaminates his clothing at the time he touches his bed, his clothing will become contaminated. When he separates from the bed, seeing that his status of ritual contamination is relatively mild, i.e. ראשון לטומאה, one step removed from the impurity’s origin, his clothing had not become contaminated also.
+במשכבו, “his bed;” according to Rashi we learn from this that the ritual impurity of his bed is more severe than if he had touched the source of the impurity, the emission itself. If someone had touched him, he would become impure only in the second degree, requiring only to wait for sunset in order to regain his purity. Sitting on the bed of the person who had had this involuntary emission of semen is worse than his body touching the source of the emission. A person who touched only the body of the person having suffered this emission, only needs to immerse his clothing in a ritual bath, in order to regain his ritual purity. (Compare verse 8)
+
+Verse 6
+
+
+
+Verse 7
+
+
+
+Verse 8
+
+
+
+Verse 9
+
+
+
+Verse 10
+
+
+
+Verse 11
+
+כל אשר יגע בו הזב וגו, “anything that the person who had the emission touches, etc.” this is not really the place where this verse should have been written. It should have been written after verse 13: וכי יטהר הזב מזובו, “when the person concerned has become purified again from this contamination;” i.e. before the seven days he has to count have expired. The reason why it was written here and not there, is since the Torah had already been in the middle of dealing with this status of a person who touches ritually pure things while himself being ritually contaminated, the Torah saw fit to stick to that subject matter.
+וידיו לא שטף במים, “without first having rinsed his hands with water;” on this line Rabbi Elazar ben Aroch commented that the act of purifying one’s hands by washing them with water is a biblical commandment. [It is not just a Rabbinical decree. Ed.] Actually, the line “rinsed with water,” is an elegant way of saying that immersion in a ritual bath is necessary. We find this confirmed in Psalms 26,6 where David says: ארחץ בנקיון כפי, ”I wash my hands in innocence;” [he does not refer to tap water, but to a ritual bath. Ed.]
+
+Verse 12
+
+וכלי חרש אשר יגע בו, “and any earthen vessel which the person afflicted with involuntary issue touches will have to be broken;” in this verse the Torah uses the pronoun בו, implying touch from the outside, whereas in Leviticus 6,21 where the Torah wrote about holy things within an earthen vessel it stated that that vessel must be broken, as it cannot be used for a profane purpose anymore, some of the holy stuff having been absorbed by it, the same pronoun is used, instead of בתוכו, “inside it.” From this we derive, seeing that we have stated that the zav contaminates only an airspace, that if here the Torah used the word בו, it must mean that even indirect touching confers ritual impurity here. This impurity is called tumat hesset, and in practice it means even indirect contact such as sitting on top of several blankets confers this impurity even to the lowest blanket in that stack, or even shaking something so that it will come into contact with the source of the impurity. (Sifra)
+
+Verse 13
+
+לטהרתו, “after his process of purification has begun when the emission has stopped and seven days had elapsed.
+ורחץ בשרו במים חיים, “and he shall bathe his flesh in running water, [emanating from the earth, i.e. a spring; Ed.] The person suffering from such involuntary seminal emissions cannot merely immerse himself in a ritual bath, but requires “living water,” as opposed to stagnant water, such as a collection of rain water. On the other hand, his vessels, as well as a person suffering from the skin disease tzoraat, do not require spring water for their purification.
+
+Verse 14
+
+יקח לו, “he (the priest) will take on his behalf;” the word לו here means that these birds must be owned, i.e. paid for, by the person on whose behalf the birds will be offered as a sacrifice.
+
+Verse 15
+
+
+
+Verse 16
+
+ואיש כי תצא ממנו שכבת זרע, “and if a flow of seminal emission originated from a man;” the word איש in this verse exempts a minor from this legislation, as long as that minor is not yet nine years of age and one day.
+כי תצא ממנו, as long as this semen has not left his body it does not confer ritual impurity. Seeing that this sounds somewhat superfluous, the Rabbis interpreted this to mean that both a priest with gonorrhea and an ordinary priest who experience an erection should take hold of their member to prevent the emission until he has swallowed the truma which he was eating so that it will not become contaminated. (Sifra)
+ורחץ במים, “he may even immerse himself in a ritual bath;” [does not require spring water. Ed.]
+את כל בשרו, the bath must contain enough water to cover his entire body at one time when he immerses himself in it. According to halachah this is 3 cubits high, 1 cubit wide and 1 cubit deep, or approx. 530000 cubic centimeters.
+
+Verse 17
+
+אשר יהיה עליו שכבת זרע, “(garments or skin) which have been splattered with semen of a human being;” even only partially; (Sifra) just as when this subject was discussed previously it referred to fresh, moist semen, so here too the Torah speaks of freshly emitted semen, not dried out semen.
+
+Verse 18
+
+אשר ישכב איש אותה שכבת זרע, “also the woman with whom a man had had carnal intercourse involving the ejaculation of semen;” the wording of this line teaches that any ejaculation into thin air is not considered as carnal intercourse for this law.
+ורחצו במים, they have both to immerse themselves in a ritual bath; just as when this subject of “washing” i.e. immersing oneself in a ritual bath did not include washing out one’s private parts, the woman’s vagina, so here too, only the surfaces of the skin have to be in contact with the water of the ritual bath, but all the skin has to be made accessible to that water, [cleaning fingernails and toenails, for instance. Ed.]
+
+Verse 19
+
+שבעת ימים תהיה בנדתה, “she will remain in her state of ritual impurity for a full seven days;” if she immerses herself before evening the immersion is not valid. (Talmud Pessachim, folio 90)
+
+Verse 20
+
+
+
+Verse 21
+
+ורחץ במים, “he will have to immerse himself in a ritual bath and he remains ritually impure until nightfall.” It goes without saying that his partner in intercourse in a state of menstruation will have to do no less than the male. [The Torah here does not speak of the parties involved having deliberately ignored her state of menstruation, an act which is punished by death through heavenly intervention (Leviticus 20,18 for both.) Here the scenario is that during intercourse the woman suddenly sees some blood not having expected to do so. [No violation of the Torah’s law had been intended by either party. Ed.]
+
+Verse 22
+
+
+
+Verse 23
+
+ואם על המשכב הוא, “if he is on the bed (of his partner) with most of his body.” (Sifra) Some commentators understand the word הוא in this verse as referring to the person who has contracted the disease of involuntary seminal emission. According to them, we must understand the verse as follows: “if that blood which was on the couch or on any chair on which the woman in question has sat after having experienced the symptoms has now been touched or even if he touched the vessel or chair on which she had sat, he will remain ritually impure until nightfall after he has immersed himself in a ritual bath. Let us quote a practical example, using verse 17. We read there: וכל בגד אשר יהיה עליו שכבת זרע, “and every garment on which has come moist human semen, (Jewish) etc.,” you might well ask why this verse has been written at all. If someone who has only come into contact with the garment that had been stained with semen by its wearer has thereby become ritually impure, how much more so will someone who has been lying with the body from which this blood was emitted does not have to undergo purification rites? Answer: Jewish law does not permit a judge to impose a penalty based only on logic; unless the penalty has been spelled out in the Torah it cannot be imposed (as the guilty party will plead ignorance of the law.) We find the same thing Numbers 19,14: וכל הבא אל האהל וכל אשר באהל יטמא, “anyone entering such tent (containing a corpse) will become ritually defiled.” The beginning of the verse refers to someone whose body has partially entered the covered airspace within which the corpse lies. The second part speaks of someone whose entire body is within that airspace. It is no more than logical that the second party will not have to do less than the first party in order to purify himself. Nonetheless, because of the rule we just mentioned, the Torah had to spell this out.
+
+Verse 24
+
+ישכב איש אותה, “a man will lie with her;” this excludes a woman suffering from the skin disease tzoraat; she does not confer her specific impurity to her partner, as the word אותה, implies a limitation, i.e. “only her, someone in her state.” (Chafetz Chayim)
+
+Verse 25
+
+ואשה כי יזוב זוב, “if a woman have an emission of her blood for many days, (not connected to her menstrual cycle);” this includes when such a flow was the result of some accident, a power completely beyond her control.
+דמה, “her blood;” not the blood related to any pregnancy or fetus.
+ימים רבים, “many days;” an unusual expression as in halachah as few as three days are considered as the minimum for the expression: “many days.” Seeing that this woman had to be physically separated from her husband such a separation is already considered as psychologically painful as if it had been “many” days, literally.(Tanchuma on this portion, section 6).
+על נדתה, as if the Torah had written: עם נדתה, “with her state of menstrual impurity.” Another example of the use of the word על in the sense of עם, is found in Leviticus 25, 31: על שדה הארץ יחשב, “it is considered as belonging with the field of the land.”
+
+Verse 26
+
+
+
+Verse 27
+
+וכל הנוגע בם, “and anyone touching them;” even if touching them only indirectly, as for instance by holding on to the same rope.
+
+Verse 28
+
+וספרה לה, “then she shall count for herself, etc.” she does not recite a blessing over her counting such as we do when we count the omer as she cannot be sure that she will complete the count, for instance if the bleeding recurs before seven days of counting have elapsed. She would then have uttered the name of the Lord in vain, a major sin.
+
+Verse 29
+
+והביאה אותם אל הכהן, “and she will bring them (the two birds) to the priest;” whence do I know that this woman is permitted to immerse herself in a ritual bath before the evening, even? The clue are the words: ”to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting;” how could she have done this on this day if she had not first immersed herself in a ritual bath? She would still have been ritually impure? Having immersed herself in a ritual bath before sunset enabled her to bring the birds to the priest still on the same day. (Sifra)
+
+Verse 30
+
+
+
+Verse 31
+
+והזהרתם, “you shall issue the warning to the Children of Israel;” these words are the warning not to violate the law;
+ולא ימותו, “so that they will not die (on account of the sin)” these words are the announcement of the potential penalty for violation.
+בטומאתם, “on account of their ritual contamination;” (IbnEzra)
+
+Verse 32
+
+
+
+Verse 33
+
+עם טמאה, “with a ritually impure woman, be she afflicted with emissions of blood at unusual times, or while she counts the days before purification.
+
+Chapter 16
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+אחרי מות, “after the death;” Rashi queries why this verse was written, as we do not hear what G-d said to Moses, and verse 2 immediately begins with G-d speaking to Moses again and telling him to tell Aaron that entrance to the Holy of Holies in the Tabernacle is not permitted at any time he so chooses. What was missing in Rashi’s commentary is the parable by Rabbi Elazar ben Aroch, who said that when a physician visits a sick person he tells him not to eat certain foods, not to lie down in wet areas, etc; subsequently someone else comes into the room of the patient and tells him the same thing, but he Acharey Mot adds that if the patient does not heed this warning he is liable to die. The effect of the second person’s warning is far greater than the effect of the physician’s instructions. Rashi saw in the second verse in our portion a comparison to the second person in Rabbi Elazar ben Aroch’s parable. The Torah realised that in order to impress Aaron sufficiently with the prohibition to enter the Holy of Holies at will, he had to be warned of the consequences if he disregarded the warning. (Torat kohanim) The version there is as follows: in the second verse Moses is asked to remind Aaron that his two sons had died, because they had ignored the warning not to enter the Holy of Holies unless invited to do so.
+
+Verse 2
+
+ויאמר ה' אל משה דבר אל אהרן אחיך ואל יבא בכל עת אל . the Lord said to Moses: “tell your brother Aaron not to enter the Holy of Holies at any time of your choosing, etc;”This paragraph, even though it deals with the laws of the Day of Atonement, was told to Moses on the day the Tabernacle had been erected , because on that very day the two sons of Aaron had died already because they had entered the Holy of Holies unnecessarily, and unbidden. As a result, the Torah warned Aaron, and of course everyone else. You might well ask why this paragraph had not been appended to the paragraph in Parshat Sh’mini, where we have been told what happened to these two sons of Aaron and what they had done? (Leviticus 10,11) The reason may be that even after learning about all the laws of impurity that disqualify a person in many instances from remaining within the camp of the Israelites, much less that of the priests and the Temple, we had not yet heard if these sons of Aaron had sinned deliberately or had committed merely an error, albeit with the best of intentions. Nor had we been told what manner of atonement would be appropriate for people who commit such a sin inadvertently. This is why the Torah continues here in verse 16: וכפר על הקודש, “he shall make atonement (the High Priest) for the holy place.”'בקרבתם לפני ה, “when they had approached the face of the Lord and died as a result.” (verse 1) They had deposited their incense on the golden altar inside the Sanctuary, illegally.
+אל פני הכפורת אשר על הארון, “before the cover of the Holy Ark;” why did the Torah have to write that the lid was on the Holy Ark, when we have all been familiar with this? The reason is that we read in connection with the curtain dividing the Sanctuary from the Holy of holies [in which the Holy Ark and this cover stood, Ed.] וסכות על הארון, “you shall screen the Ark with the veil.” (Exodus 40,3) This could have confused us into thinking that the dividing curtain was considered as a cover for the Holy Ark [seeing it screened it from all human eyes except once a year on the Day of Atonement. Ed.] We have therefore been taught that it was not the function of the dividing curtain to serve as a cover for the Holy Ark. ולא ימות, “so that he will not die as a result.” Now that we have heard the penalty for this sin, where do we find the warning not to commit this sin? It is part of the words: כי בענן אראה על הכפורת, “for I am capable of being seen above the lid.” [And we know that G-d had told Moses that no human being while connected to its body is granted the privilege to have a visual image of G-d’s essence. (Exodus 33,20) Ed.] כי בענן אראה על הכפורת, “for I will only appear screened by a cloud above the lid.” We have another verse explaining the same in Kings I 8,12: ה' אמר לשכון בערפל, “the Lord has said (of Himself) that He resides within a thick cloud.”
+
+Verse 3
+
+בפר בן בקר, “by means of a bull, one year old;” the Torah does not mean that the bull itself is to enter the sanctuary, only its blood [i.e. its essence, Ed.] will be sprinkled within the Sanctuary.
+
+Verse 4
+
+כתנת בד קדש וגו “a holy linen tunic, etc.” why did the Torah have to repeat the word “בד” four times in this verse? It was to exclude the breastplate, ephod, the robe, and the headband, which did not contain any linen. The reason is that the priest is not to appear in the Sanctuary wearing those garments, although in connection with them the Torah had also used the expression: 'לפני ה, in the presence of the Lord. (Compare Exodus 28,29, 28,35,28,37.)
+על בשרו, ���on his flesh,” covering his private parts, as in זב מבשרו in Leviticus 15,2. What is the meaning of the words: ילבש, יחגור, יצנוף? [if these garments could not be worn inside the Sanctuary? Ed.] Seeing that before nightfall the priest would still don those garments, it had to be mentioned that he would wear them, even if not during the morning and afternoon while Temple service was carried out.
+ובמצנפת בד יצנוף, “and he shall be attired with a linen mitre.” From the fact that the breastplate and the ephod are not mentioned here we learn that during the entire 400 plus years that the second Temple stood these latter garments were not available. There was no point in wearing them if the means of communication with G-d through the urim vetumim did not exist during that period. (Ibn Ezra)
+בגדי קדש הם, “they are holy garments;” this expression here teaches that that term applies to all the priestly garments.
+ורחץ במים את בשרו, “and he is to wash his flesh with water;“ Rashi comments on this line that on that day the High Priest is to immerse himself each time he changed his garments. It is no more than basic courtesy that someone who is a personal attendant of a king purifies himself before he commences a new task each time; this is in addition to the fact that his hands had become sullied each time he handled certain objects or materials. This is why the Torah requires the High Priest in addition to wash his hands and feet each time also. All this has been spelled out in the Talmud tractate Yuma, folio 32. Seeing that our verse inserted the words: ורחץ את בשרו במים, between the words: ופשט, “he is to disrobe,” and the words: ולבש, “and he is to get dressed,” it is clear that what is required is that prior to each changing of the garments he must immerse himself in a ritual bath. Seeing that those words were not necessary in order to teach us that he must immerse himself, they had to be applied to separate washing of hands and feet. As far as Rashi writing that he must sanctify hands and feet from the כיור, the special basin for this positioned near the entrance to the Tabernacle, it is clear that the water in that basin must be used for this purpose, the Mishnah in Yuma folio 43, concludes that there was a special golden ladle available on that day, not just the copper faucets used normally.
+
+Verse 5
+
+
+
+Verse 6
+
+וכפר בעדו, “he will perform atonement for his personal sins;” he will recite a confession by mouth. If you were to assume that the Torah here refers to an atonement by means of the blood of a sacrifice, our sages understood, after looking at verse 10 where we read the words: לכפר עליו in connection with the scapegoat, where it is clear that a confession by mouth is described, that the same expression being used here is meant to draw a parallel, i.e. that he is to recite a verbal confession. In verse 21 the words: והתודה עליו “he will make a verbal confession,” are spelled out clearly. This confession was in addition to the blood of the animal being sacrificed. If you were to ask why the High Priest did not also recite a confession over the male goat whose blood was sprinkled inside the Sanctuary, the reason was that it was destined for G-d, and it would be unseemly to make use of it for the needs of creatures here on earth. The Torah had especially written that this animal had been chosen by lot to be G-d’s. (verse 9) (Sifra). [According to Malbim, the unnecessary word עלה in this verse may be the reason for the Sifra’s comment.]
+
+Verse 7
+
+
+
+Verse 8
+
+וגורל אחד לעזאזל, “and one lot for Azazel.” This word is an alternate word for Samael, which means “Satan.” According to Rabbi Eliezer in Pirkey de Rabbi Eliezer chapter 46, we are commanded to assuage the feelings of Satan on that day so that he will not attempt to interfere with the effectiveness of our repentance. When the Jewish people can enlist even Satan’s silence at the throne of G-d, there is no greater bribery than this. We are bidden to enlist this so that our sacrifices are not going to be in vain due to his citing our shortcomings.
+
+Verse 9
+
+ועשהו חטאת, “and it will be made into a sin offering.” This was determined by lot. The High Priest had no hand in which of the two animals wound up as the sin offering.
+
+Verse 10
+
+יעמד חי לפני ה, “shall be standing alive before the Lord;” initially it will remain standing alive before the Lord, whereas its death will be caused by the rock from which it will be thrown. How long will it have to remain standing alive? According to Rabbi Yehudah, until the High Priest has completed all the procedures resulting in the atonement for the Jewish people, something hinted at in verse 20. (Sifra)
+
+Verse 11
+
+ושחט את פר החטאת, “he will slaughter the bull as a sin offering;” and take a full shovel. He shall then take some of the bull's blood and sprinkle it. It is necessary for him to give the bull's blood to another priest (Talmud Yoma 43) to stir it so that it does not congeal after the slaughter while he is bringing the incense into the innermost sanctum before the sprinkling.
+
+Verse 12
+
+מעל המזבח מלפני ה, “off the altar before the Lord;” which is the altar that is described here as being “before the Lord?” According to the prefix letter מ in front of the word מעל, this is the copper altar in front of the Temple, only part of which is directly in front of the entrance of the Temple/Tabernacle.
+
+Verse 13
+
+ונתן את הקטורת, “he will place the incense, etc.” this incense has been mentioned in verse 2 where G-d explained that he will be making an appearance above the lid of the Holy Ark, beyond the dividing curtain. At that point, Aaron, and of course, anyone of lower rank, is not to go there on pain of death unless commanded to do so by G-d. G-d had made clear that no human being while inside a body can ever have a visual image of His essence. In order to make this point quite clear the Torah writes that the cloud of the smoke from the incense will fill that area so that nothing can be seen.
+
+Verse 14
+
+ולקח מדם הפר, “he will take some of the blood from the bull;” he takes it from the priest who had kept stirring it.
+על פני הכפורת קדמה, “onto the top of the lid, eastward;” on the side of the ark facing east.
+על, according to our sages the word על means “upwards.” as in the reciting of the counting by the High Priest, recited in our liturgy on the Day of Atonement.
+שבע פעמים, “seven times.” This number is reminiscent of the Torah in Leviticus 26,24 speaking of G-d punishing us sevenfold for our sins.
+
+Verse 15
+
+אשר לעם, “intended for atonement of the people,” and not for other ordinary priests, not of the High Priest’s family. The question then arises by what means did those priests receive their atonement? Answer: by the bull that brought atonement of Aaron’s sins.
+
+Verse 16
+
+
+
+Verse 17
+
+.וכל אדם, “not any human being, as non-priests never allowed into those precincts, but this is a warning to other priests not to be in these holy precincts during the period that the High Priest performs these functions.
+לא יהיה באהל מועד, “he must not be within the precincts of the Tent of meeting;” the reason why they were forbidden to be there was so that they would not become suddenly ritually impure, as the priest officiating would not be able to atone on their behalf on the same day.
+
+Verse 18
+
+
+
+Verse 19
+
+
+
+Verse 20
+
+והקריב את השעיר החי, “then he will present the live goat;” that goat had required to remain alive until this point. The first time (in our verse) the Torah had written about this goat, the vowel under the letter ה had been a segol, whereas subsequently (verse 21) it is a patach.
+
+Verse 21
+
+את שתי ידיו, “both of his hands;” once the word שתי has been used here with the word for hands being in the plural, this is to teach us that whenever the word appears in the plural mode both hands are meant, without the word שתי needing to be written.
+והתודה עליו, “and he will confess over him;” how precisely does he word his confession? He recites the following words: אנא השם חטאו ועוו ופשעו בני ישראל, “the Children of Israel committed inadvertent sins, deliberate sins as well as sins reflecting their obstinacy against the Lord;” the people in turn will respond by saying that this was all true, and that they now blessed the glory of the Lord G-d. Thus far they had only confessed sins that they knew they had been guilty of. How do we know that their confession included sinful acts committed against their will through circumstances beyond their control, as well as possible sins that they had not even been aware of? This is covered by the word: כל עונות, “ail manner of sins.”The scapegoat that is thrown off the rock on the Day of Atonement results in atonement for sins committed by trespassing on holy grounds and abusing for personal use holy objects or foods reserved for consumption by the priests, etc.. It covers all manner of sins committed regardless of how severe the penalty for these sins if not repented. (Sifra)
+ביד איש עתי, “by the hand of a man especially (temporarily) appointed for this task.”According to a Midras (which I have not found) the word: עתי could be translated as: “whose time had come,” that is someone who was destined to die before this year is out. This would account for the fact that it was noticed that the man who had been entrusted with this task never lived out that year. [A well known commentator, author of K’lee Yakar, written several hundred years after that of our author, by the name of Shlomoh Efrayin ben Aharon, quotes this commentary, but attributes it to our author. Ed.] We must assume that in those days people used astrology to determine who was not destined to live out the year.
+
+Verse 22
+
+אל ��רץ גזרה, “into the wilderness.” Basically, the meaning of the word גזרה, is “radically different from other lands.” We encounter it in this sense in Isaiah 53,8: כי נגזר מארץ החיים, “for he was cut off from the land of the living.” The reason for the choice of such earth to throw the scapegoat into was that if it had been thrown into productive soil it would have made that soil unproductive
+ושלח את השעיר במדבר, “and he shall dispatch the goat into the desert.” We find a similar construction in Leviticus 14,7 where our author commented on the meaning of the word.ושלח
+
+Verse 23
+
+ובא אהרן אל אהל מועד, “and Aaron shall come into the Tent of Meeting;” Rashi, in his commentary on the tractate Yuma folio 32, comments on these words by asking why, after having completed the service of the day in the Sanctuary the High Priest has to come to the Sanctuary once more, especially when the Torah does not even spell out what he is to do there. He answers that Aaron had to bring out the spoon and the censer that he had used during the performance of his duties there. These had been used for the sprinkling of the blood and the depositing of the incense. If you were to ask why did he have to make a return trip to the Holy of Holies for no real purpose, seeing he could have left these tools for the Day of the Atonement of the following year when the ashes in the censer would have cooled off in the meantime?Actually, this was not an unnecessary return, as it would have been discourteous in the extreme to leave behind items that had become useless and probably offensive looking and smelling in G-d’s palace. Rashi adds further that this was not the place where we would have expected the Torah to refer to this, seeing that up until now the Torah had described the entire service in the Tabernacle on that day in the order in which it had taken place. [I am summarizing now. Ed.] If we follow what took place in the Tabernacle, there would have been no need for the High Priest to immerse himself five times and wash his hands and feet ten times as the Talmud had explained, i.e. once for the daily morning sacrifice, followed by the special service required on that day, and again before the offering of the daily evening service. The extra trip into the Sanctuary for retrieving the spoon and the censer necessitated the need for additional immersions in the ritual bath. This is the reason why Rashi pointed out that here was not really the proper place to mention this, had it not been for the need to explain why five such immersions were indeed necessary. The removal of these items took place after the offering of Aaron’s burnt offering, a ram, and that of the ram offered on behalf of the people (verse 24). Offering a sacrifice at each service, i.e. the morning service, the Mussaph service, the evening service, and, on that day the sin offering on behalf of Aaron and his family and again on behalf of the people, according to the Talmud there, required an immersion in a ritual bath, etc.
+
+Verse 24
+
+ורחץ את בשרו במים , “he shall wash his flesh with water. Here the Torah does not speak of an immersion in a ritual bath but of washing hands and feet as we have mentioned earlier on verse 4.
+
+Verse 25
+
+ואת חלב החטאת, “and the fat of the sinoffering;” Onkelos translates this verse in the plural mode, i.e. וית תרבי דחטווא, seeing that the Torah speaks of both the fat parts of bull and the male goat offered inside the Sanctuary on the Day of Atonement.
+
+Verse 26
+
+ורחץ את בשרו במים, “and he shall wash his flesh in water.” This was sufficient as his state of ritual defilement does not last longer than until the evening. (Ibn Ezra)
+
+Verse 27
+
+ושרפו באש, “and there they shall burn it with fire;” the priests will burn their hides and their flesh and their excrement. Just as the hide, flesh and excrement mentioned in Leviticus 4,12 had been cut up before being burned, so here too they had to be cut up.
+
+Verse 28
+
+
+
+Verse 29
+
+תענו את נפשותיכם, “you are to subject your bodies to discomfort;” according to Sifra on this verse he understands the word נפשותיכם as “the house of your soul,” i.e. your body. One subjects one’s body to discomfort by denying it food and drink.
+
+Verse 30
+
+כי ביום הזה יכפר עליכם, “for on this day he will atone for you, et.;” a reference to the rituals performed by the High Priest. Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah interprets the words: מכל חטאותיכם לפני ה' לפני ה' תטהרו, as meaning that G-d will forgive sins committed directly against Him, but not including sins committed against our fellow human beings unless we had obtained those people’s forgiveness first. (Compare Leviticus 23,28).
+
+Verse 31
+
+שבת שבתון היא, “it is a Sabbath of solemn rest;” the word היא, here is spelled with the letter י, not as frequently elsewhere with the letter ו. On the other hand, the same word in the same context in Parshat Emor, (Leviticus 23,32) is spelled with that letter ו. Both words are read in accordance with the way they are spelled. If we want to remember this easily we can try and remember Kings I 17,15: ותאכל הוא והיא, “he and she ate;”
+לכם, “for you (pl. masc.)” this is a reference to the day of Atonement, which has been sanctified for your sakes. On the other hand, the Sabbath of creation is known simply as שבת לה', “a Sabbath to be devoted to heavenly concerns.”
+
+Verse 32
+
+
+
+Verse 33
+
+
+
+Verse 34
+
+
+
+Chapter 17
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+
+
+Verse 2
+
+דבר אל אהרן ובניו, “speak to Aaron and his sons;” they were the slaughterers during all the years that the Israelites were in the desert.
+ואל כל בני ישראל, “and to all the Children of Israel.” The reason why this paragraph is inserted here is that it deals with the procedures for slaughtering animals that are to serve as sacrificial animals. As long as the Israelites were in the desert and they all dwelled around the Tabernacle, it was no hardship for them to eat meat only after the animals had first been sanctified as sacrifices, and as a byproduct of getting used to this they were weaned from the practice of offering animal sacrifices to satyrs, as they had been doing in Egypt.
+
+Verse 3
+
+
+
+Verse 4
+
+ואל פתח אהל מועד לא הביאו, “and he had not first brought it to the entrance of the Tent of meeting;” as long as Moses had not erected the Tabernacle, slaughtering of animals could be done anywhere, (compare Tanchuma on this portion, section 10) as we find in fact when the Torah described in Exodus 24,5: וישלח את נערי בני ישאל ויעלו עולות, “and Moses sent the young men of Israel, and they offered burnt offerings.”As soon as the Tabernacle had been erected and became functional, the people were warned not to offer any sacrifices of animals that had not been brought to the entrance of the Tabernacle first and been approved. דם יחשב, “it will be considered as if he had shed innocent blood;” the Torah speaks here of slaughtering animals for profane use, just eating their meat, and it wishes to warn people not to consider the slaughter of animals as an act of worshipping idols, as will be explained forthwith, (verse 7) when it continues with: ולא יזבחו עוד את זבחיהם לשעירים, “and they shall no more sacrifice their sacrifices to the satyrs.” The Jewish people had been deeply involved in idolatrous practices. The Torah now commands that when the time comes when they will use animals for profane purposes, this must be just that, without a tinge of idolatry.
+דם שפך ונכרת, “such a man has shed blood and he will be erased, etc.” The reason why this would be considered more serious an offence than murder, is that if that animal were not used for food, it should only have been killed as an offering to his Creator.
+דם שפך ונכרת, so far we have only heard of the penalty; where did the Torah write the warning not to commit this offence? We find it in Deuteronomy 12,13: השמר לך פן תעלה עולותיך בכל מקום אשר תראה, “take heed not to offer your burnt offering in any place of your choosing.”
+
+Verse 5
+
+וזבחו זבחי שלמים, “and slaughter them as meat offerings;” this verse has been written in an abbreviated mode as the word 'לה, “in honour of the Lord,” has been left out.
+
+Verse 6
+
+
+
+Verse 7
+
+חקת עולם, “this shall be a statute for ever.” These words must not be understood as connected to what is written in verse 5 about people who offer sacrifices on altars other than the altar in front of the Tabernacle/Temple who are guilty of the most serious penalty but rather about people who offer their sacrifices to the demons as they did in Egypt. [This editor has failed to understand all his life how the people could have ignored this warning not to offer sacrifices on private altars until about 100 years before the destruction of the first Temple, under the rule of King Yoshiyahu, (Kings II chapter 23) i.e. for close to eight hundred years after they had come to the Holy land. In spite of all the prophets warning and even the Kings loyal to the Torah’s injunctions this law had been consistently ignored. Ed.]
+
+Verse 8
+
+
+
+Verse 9
+
+
+
+Verse 10
+
+אשר יאכל כל דם, “who eat any blood;” the Torah has repeated its warning not to eat blood on many occasions as it is something that will be absorbed by our tissues whereas fat and tendons are not so absorbed.
+
+Verse 11
+
+כי נפש הבשר בדם היא, “for the life of the flesh is in the blood;” the word הוא has the vowel chirik under the first letter where it is spelled with the letter ו, and the last time it appears in this paragraph in verse 14, it is also read as if it had been spelled with a ו as if it had been written with the letter י i.e. feminine. The two times in between when the word appears it is read as masculine, and it is spelled both times with the letter ו as appropriate.
+בנפש יכפר, and it can therefore atone for someone else’s life. (Ibn Ezra)
+
+Verse 12
+
+על כן אמרתי, “therefore I have said, etc;” this is a reference to Leviticus 3,17.
+
+Verse 13
+
+ציד חיה, “this is an all-inclusive term, including all free roaming beasts that are kosher.”
+או עוף, “or fowl;” regardless if few or many; from this expression our sages derived that if one killed 100 or one beast or bird in one location the covering of their blood can be combined into a single operation. (Sifra)
+חיה או עוף, “four legged free roaming beasts or birds;” the two categories of creatures are lumped together to teach that they share a common denominator, i.e. this legislation applies to creatures that are not acceptable as potential sacrifices on the altar. But some birds are acceptable for some sacrifices; their blood need not be covered.
+וכסהו בעפר, “its blood is to be covered,” so that it will not be fit to be eaten.
+
+Verse 14
+
+כי נפש כל בשר דמו בנפשו הוא“ for the life of any flesh is all one with its blood;” Lest you say that it is proper that the blood of sacrifices is prohibited since their blood provides atonement. And similarly that the blood of all animals is prohibited because some of these animals become sacrifices and their blood atones. But the blood of free-roaming animals and fowl should be allowed since their blood is never offered as an atonement on the altar. Therefore the Torah says to cover the blood of fowl and free-roaming animals. The verse has been somewhat abbreviated, and should really have read בדמו נפשו, “its life is inextricably bound up with its blood.” Another example of a similarly abbreviated verse would be Psalms 65,5: היכלך, apparently: “Your Sanctuary,” but in reality: “the Sanctuary of Your holiness.”
+ואמר לבני ישראל, this line must be understood as: ואמר הבר לבני ישראל, “as I have already said to the Children of Israel.”
+
+Verse 15
+
+וכל נפש, “and any person,” i.e. even minors.
+אשר תאכל נבלה וטרפה, “that eats either dead fowl that has died by natural causes or by having been fatally wounded;” this was repeated as seeing these are not acceptable on the altar I might have thought that they are permitted as an ordinary part of our diet. Seeing that this was the point where the Torah enlarged on a number of forbidden foods it was appropriate not to neglect mention of these last two categories.
+
+Verse 16
+
+
+
+Chapter 18
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+
+
+Verse 2
+
+
+
+Verse 3
+
+כמעשה ארץ מצרים וכמעשה ארץ כנען, Rabbi Yossi the Galilean, raised the point that seeing the Torah had compared the cultures of Egypt to that of the Canaanites, and that of the Canaanites to that of the Egyptians, [why were we commanded to wipe out the Canaanites and to replace them in their former homeland, while the Torah did not command us to destroy the Egyptians and their culture? Ed.] The Canaanites were granted to live on their land for 47 years longer than it took for G-d to punish the Egyptians as we know that Chevron was founded seven years earlier than its counterpart Tzoan in Egypt? (Compare Numbers 13,22) The answer to his question is that they had the merit of burying Avraham in the cave of Machpelah going for them. (Sifra) Our paragraph was written at this juncture because the satyrs to whom the Egyptians sacrificed and whom the Israelites while there copied, have been mentioned immediately before this paragraph.
+
+Verse 4
+
+
+
+Verse 5
+
+וחי בהם, “and live by them;” the implication is that failing to perform the commandments will bring about those people’s deaths, i.e. their souls will be wiped out, their connection to the Jewish nation will cease. (as spelled out more specifically in verse 29 of this chapter.)
+
+Verse 6
+
+לא תקרבו, “do not approach;” this expression is a simile for describing carnal relations. An example of the use of this expression elsewhere is in Genesis 20,4: ואבימלך לא קרב אליה, “Avimelech did not approach her,” or Isaiah 8,3: ואקרב אל הנביאה, “I was intimate with the prophetess;”
+לא תקרבו, the reason this line is used in the plural mode is to warn both parties not to indulge in such carnal relations. The normally more passive partner is considered equally guilty.
+
+Verse 7
+
+
+
+Verse 8
+
+
+
+Verse 9
+
+ערות אחותך, “the nakedness of your sister;” this part of the verse concerns carnal relations without the benefit of marriage. [she is your sister from a an illicit relationship that your father indulged in. Ed.]
+בת אביך, “the daughter of your father;” the result of your father having raped a woman, or seduced her, as a result of which she bore that daughter. This is why the Torah added the words: מולדת בית “born at home,” to describe this relationship. On the other hand, the expression מולדת חוץ, ���born outside,” refers to the result of a stranger having raped or seduced your mother as a result of which she bore an illegitimate daughter.
+
+Verse 10
+
+ערות בת בנך או בת בתך, “the nakedness of your son\s daughter, or your daughter’s daughter, etc.;” how do we know that the “nakedness of your daughter” is also included although the Torah has not spelled this out? We derive this from the expression: הנה, both at the end of this verse as well as in verse 17. The Talmud in Sanhedrin folio 76, elaborates on this. [Actually logic dictates that if it is forbidden to have carnal relations with one’s grandchild, it is certainly forbidden to have such relations with one’s child. However, the sages preferred to find a hint of this in the written text of the Torah, also. Ed.]
+
+Verse 11
+
+אחותך היא, “she is your sister.” Here the Torah speaks of a “sister” who is the result of an official union, whereas previously, in verse 9 it spoke of the result of a casual relationship. The same is true when the Torah spoke of “the daughter of your mother by marriage, all the more so the daughter, i.e. a sister who is the result of your father or your mother.
+
+Verse 12
+
+
+
+Verse 13
+
+
+
+Verse 14
+
+
+
+Verse 15
+
+
+
+Verse 16
+
+
+
+Verse 17
+
+
+
+Verse 18
+
+ואשה אל אחותה, “and a woman (as a wife) in addition to her sister;” this construction is also found in “ אל חלליהם, in Joshua 13,22, where it means: “together with the others who had been slain.”
+לא תקח לצרור, “you must not marry to become a rival;” the result would be that both these women (the sisters) would be widows in the house of their husbands while the husband is alive, as he is forbidden to have marital relations with either one of them.
+לגלות ערותה, “to reveal her nakedness;” to the second one while both are alive.
+עליה, “with her;” we find the expression על used in the sense of “with,” also Leviticus 25,31 על שדה הארץ יחשב, “they will be considered as belonging with the fields of the country.
+
+Verse 19
+
+לא תקרב לכלות ערותה, “you must not indulge in marital relations with her at the time when she has her menses.” He must refrain until she has become purified.
+
+Verse 20
+
+
+
+Verse 21
+
+ולא תחלל את שם אלוקיך “so that you do not desecrate the name of your G-d.” Who is this G-d of yours? None other than the G-d we revere as the tetragram, the One Who referred to Himself as 'אני ה.
+
+Verse 22
+
+תועבה היא, “it is an abomination;” the letter ו in the word הוא is vocalised with a chirik״ i.e. it is read as such, it is feminine. [I have not understood the author’s reference to Job 36,33 here. Ed.]
+
+Verse 23
+
+לרבעה, “to defile herself;” the letter ה at the end has a dot in it, indicating that it is not the beast that becomes defiled, but the woman who committed this perversion. On the other hand, the same letter in the same word in Leviticus 20,16 is “weak,”
+תבל הוא, “it is a perversion. The letter ו, here has the vowel shuruk, i.e. the word תבל is a masculine noun. [Our author points this out as in other places the word תבל, meaning “universe,” is feminine, as in Psalms 24,1; 98,7; 50,12; etc., etc. [The author may wish to see in this treatment of the word here as masculine, proof that the Torah always considers the male human being as the initiator of these kinds of perversions. Ed.]
+
+Verse 24
+
+
+
+Verse 25
+
+ותקיא הארץ “The land spewed out;” anything a person vomits becomes repugnant to him, and he does not want to have a second look at it. [In other words, he does not even long to return to his former homeland. Ed.]
+
+Verse 26
+
+ושמרתם אותם, “you will observe them (not to violate them).” Seeing that you have already learned to keep G-d’s commandments while in the desert, you will not feel doing so as a hardship when you take possession of your inheritance, your own land. Our author compares this to the poetic manner in which Solomon describes the chastity of Jewish women in Song of Songs 4,12, where he likens them to a securely locked garden. Seeing that Jewish girls guarded their virginity before marriage, they will not find it difficult to observe fidelity once they are married.
+את חקותי, the laws governing incest and chastity that were the principal subject of this portion.
+ואת משפטי, “and My social laws; you will be careful not to violate them.”
+
+Verse 27
+
+
+
+Verse 28
+
+ולא תקיא הארץ אתכם, “and the land will not spew you out.” If you do violate My commandments, not only will the land vomit you, but many of the sins you will become guilty of will carry the additional penalty of severing your souls from the Jewish people and their potentially eternal afterlife.
+כאשר קאה, “as it had already vomited;”we find here that the same land had already once spewed out its former inhabitants. The word קאה in the masculine mode suddenly, [as compared with תקיא at the beginning of this verse, Ed.] reminds us of a previous time when the Torah used it in the masculine mode in connection with the noun ארץ, which is usually a feminine noun. The other time it was described as performing something in the masculine mode was in Genesis 13,6 when the land of Canaan was described as incapable of supporting both the herds and flocks of Avraham and his nephew Lot, as they had become too numerous. Our author quotes several other examples of this as in: Isaiah 9,18, Zecharyah 14,10, and Genesis 29,6.
+
+Verse 29
+
+הנפשות, “the souls,” the Torah employs the plural mode to teach us that both parties, i.e. also the woman will be subject to the same penalty from heaven, i.e. G-d will see to it that they will be totally severed from their celestial origin, seeing that our sages basically guarantee that every Jew who did not forfeit it, will have a share in eternal life. [Compare: introduction to first Mishnah of “Ethics of our Fathers.” Ed.]
+
+Verse 30
+
+לבלתי עשות מחקות התועבות, “not to become guilty of indulging in these abominable acts described previously.” Here the Torah refers to preliminary erotic acts which will eventually lead to violating the basic laws of chastity. They are kissing and hugging the members of the opposite sex, ogling, etc.
+אשר נעשו לפניכם, which were performed in this country before you inherited it. You must not argue that since it was the accepted norm in this land for many hundreds of years and the people got away with it, we the Jewish people can also adopt their lifestyle.
+אני ה' אלוקיכם, “I, the Lord, Am Your G-d.” You must not argue with Me, even when you do not understand the why’s and wherefore’s of My commandments. (Ibn Ezra)
+
+Chapter 19
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+
+
+Verse 2
+
+דבר אל כל עדת בני ישראל, “speak to the entire congregation of the Children of Israel;” This verse teaches that this legislation was revealed to the whole people while they were all assembled. What is the reason for this? Because so many laws are contained in it that address all the people in their daily lives. Our author enumerates a synopsis of all these laws contained in the 37 verses of this chapter showing how even the Ten Commandments were repeated here also. This chapter follows immediately after the chapter on prohibited sexual relationships so that the Jewish people should not think that in order to remain in the Promised Land they need merely to abstain from these prohibited relationships, when there are indeed many other commandments that they need to observe to stay in the Land.
+קדשים תהיו “be holy” by observing all the commandments that I give you in this chapter.
+
+Verse 3
+
+איש אמו ואביו תיראו, “everyone is to revere his mother and father.” Whereas in the parallel commandment in the Ten Commandments, the father is mentioned first, here the mother is mentioned first; the reason is that a baby becomes familiar with his mother before it becomes familiar with his father. When it comes to the observance of the laws governing the Sabbath, and how it is to be observed, the father is addressed first as it is he who has to train his young sons in observing it.
+The essence of Sabbath observance is to imitate G-d the Creator, Who took time out on that day. The commandment to observe the Sabbath as a holy day of rest appears in the Ten Commandments immediately prior to the commandment to honour one’s parents. One of the reasons that the commandment to observe the Sabbath appears before that of obeying one’s parents, is to remind us that when the parents’ orders conflict with G-d’s commandments, the commandment to honour one’s parents by desecrating the Sabbath is automatically overruled. One might at first glance have thought that it was not necessary for the Torah to make this point, as we have a rule that a positive commandment, which generally is considered as overriding a negative commandment, does not do so when the negative commandment had also been expressed as positive commandment, as is the case with the commandment to observe the Sabbath, in the first set of the Ten Commandments. Someone might have interpreted the line of כבד את ה' מהונך, “honour the Lord by using part of your wealth,” (Proverbs 3,9) as imposing limits on the fulfillment of that commandment when compared to honouring one’s parents where no such limiting factor is built in. These arguments are discussed in the Talmud, tractate Baba Metzia, folio 32. This still leaves the possible argument that the commandment to honour high ranking individuals, i.e. political heads etc., has been provided with an escape clause when the Torah wrote in Exodus 22,27: ונשיא בעמך לא תאור, “and do not curse a high ranking political figure amongst your people,” where the prefix letter ב implies that this commandment only applies to such figures as long as they conduct themselves as upstanding citizens of your people. This could have been applied to a father and mother who do not observe the laws of the Torah as not deserving your respect. Our Rabbis therefore limited the need to disregard parents’ commanding their children to disregarding orders to disregard Biblical prohibitions of the Sabbath, but to carry out orders from father or mother of requests which “only” violate Rabbinical restrictions. (This last line does not appear in the handwritten manuscripts of the author.)
+
+Verse 4
+
+אל תפנו אל האלילים, “do not turn unto idols;” the Torah does not refer to worshipping such idols, but it refers to feasting one’s eyes on the architectural extravagance lavished on their temples, and their esthetic appeal, by admiring them. [This author is reminded of what he has seen, unavoidably, in Thailand, for instance. Ed.]
+ואלהי מסכה, “and idols of cast metal (do not construct);” although this commandment has already been written in Exodus 22,27, there it was expressed as addressed to an individual, here it is addressed to the people in the plural mode.
+
+Verse 5
+
+לרצונכם תזבחוהו, “when you slaughter it demonstrate that you are bent of pleasing the Lord.” How does one do this? You do so by not being stingy when choosing the animal to be slaughtered. [Most of which will serve as meat for the person and family offering it. Ed.] Furthermore, there are people who when offering such sacrifices do not do so from the depth of their heart, but do so as to be seen to have done so by their fellow Jews. This too will not result in G-d welcoming such sacrifices as coming from the heart of the donor. An alternate explanation: How must such an offering be presented in order to qualify as man’s generosity vis a vis his Creator?Answer: “do something that is bound to please G-d.” What, for instance? “Consume the parts of the meat of that animal as soon as possible, i.e. within the first 36 hours.” This demonstrates that you love to eat sacrificial meat while it is still fresh.
+תזבחוהו, “slaughter it.” You must not slaughter two animals in a single procedure, [with a long knife. Ed.]
+
+Verse 6
+
+
+
+Verse 7
+
+
+
+Verse 8
+
+כי את קודש ה, “for he defiled something that had been sacred to the Lord.” Once the parts that were destined for the altar have been presented the remainder of the meat is of a holy character. (Ibn Ezra)
+
+Verse 9
+
+ובקוצרכם, ”and when you reap the harvest;” just as you tender the appropriate parts of the animal peace offerings to the Lord on the altar, so you must set aside the appropriate parts of your agricultural products for the needy of your people as an expression of your honour of the Lord. (Sifra)
+ובקוצרכם, “this law is applicable only to Israelites, i.e. those who have been Jewish when they reaped the harvest, not if they converted after they have harvested the crop. (Sifra)
+את קציר ארצכם, “the harvest of the field of your land.” This teaches that the legislation following also applies to kitniyot, to corn, lentils, rice, beans peas, etc.; not only to the crops that could become chametz on Passover.
+לא תכלה פאת שדך, “do not completely reap the corner of your field;” Rabbi Shimon holds that as long as the farmer set aside some grain during the various stages of reaping he had fulfilled his obligation, as long as the total is not less than 1/60th of the field’s total yield.
+לקצור, “to reap,” this 60th is to include all manner of plucking, cutting by hand, or with the tools designated for harvesting. (Sifra)
+
+Verse 10
+
+
+
+Verse 11
+
+לא תגנובו, “do not steal;” here too the Torah repeated by using the plural mode what had already been part of the commandment not to steal in the Ten Commandments, when it was phrased as if only addressed to an individual. The Torah implies that if someone observes theft and is silent, he is no better than the thief himself. (Ibn Ezra) Now that we have read the warning not to steal, whence do we know the penalty for violating this commandment? It says שנים ישלם: “he has to repay twice the value.” (Exodus 22,3.) The commandment not to steal, in the Ten Commandments, dealt with stealing human beings, kidnapping.
+לא תכחשו ולא תשקרו, “do not deal falsely nor lie to one another.” The prohibition is spelled out here; where do we have the penalty for violating this commandment? According to the (Sifra) we find it in Leviticus 5,22 in the words: וכחש בה וחמשיתו יוסף עליו, “if he denies it he will have to add a fifth of its value when making good.”After G-d had commanded us to give some of what we own to Him, he also warns us not to deprive our fellowman of what is rightfully his. (Ibn Ezra, worded slightly differently)
+
+Verse 12
+
+ולא תשבעו בשמי לשקר, “and do not abuse My name to swear a false oath;” the reason why this prohibition appears at the end of this string is that when someone is suspected and accused of having lied, stolen, etc., it is likely that in defending himself against the accusation he will add the additional sin of swearing his innocence when knowing that this is not so. All three of these prohibitions, though already written once in singular mode, have been repeated so as not to give a group of people an excuse to commit same by claiming that each one of them had only had a miniscule share in participating in that sin.
+וחללת את שם אלוקיך, “and by so doing you have desecrated the name of your G-d.” Swearing a false oath is proof that one does not consider G-d’s name as being sacred, or even worse, that he does not know what is in your heart. (Ibn Ezra)
+
+Verse 13
+
+פעולת שכיר, “the wages of a day labourer;” this expression in the same sense occurs also in Job 34,11, כי פועל אדם ישלם לו, “for He pays a man according to his actions.”
+פעולת שכר, “this includes any type of compensation, for human beings, vessels borrowed, animals borrowed and land borrowed or rented. (Sifra)
+
+Verse 14
+
+
+
+Verse 15
+
+
+
+Verse 16
+
+לא תלך רכיל, “do not walk around as a talebearer;” do not tell people who have been found guilty at court that if you had been the only judge in that litigation you would have declared the party found guilty as innocent. Seeing that you were in the minority, you regret that your voice was not heard. (Sifra) An alternate interpretation: [according to the interpretation that follows the absence of the letter ו before the word לא is of decisive significance. Ed.] Talebearing and standing by idly while your fellow Jew’s blood is being shed are part of the same sin. The Torah warns against talebearing as the next step would result in standing by idly while another Jew’s innocent blood is being shed. What started out as being “only” words, is liable to wind up as complicity in murder. The prophet Ezekiel 22,9 writing: אנשי רכיל היו בך, “there were talebearers amongst you, continues that verse by writing: “for the sake of bloodshed.” In other words: talebearing is no better that bloodshed. Still another interpretation of our verse: ordinarily the rule of not to go around and bear tales applies. However, if you became privy to a plot being hatched to kill an innocent person you must not plead this law as an excuse not to have warned the endangered party, or have reported it to the police.
+לא תלך רכיל, “do not spread evil tales that have come to your attention, but be the one where this practice stops from gaining further ground.”Onkelos renders this commandment as: לא תיכול קורצין, do not make evil gossip public;” the root of the word קורצין, is קרץ, blinking with one’s eyes i.e. instead of mouthing bad comments about people doing the same covertly. The term is found in that sense in the Book of Daniel, (3,8) [which is written in Aramaic, i.e. Targum, Ed.] ואכלו קרציהם דיהודאי, “they defamed the Jews by blinking with their eyes.”The meaning of the word: הכריזו, is to defame from heaven. In the Targum Yonatan on Samuel II 22,14 אכלי מן שמים, “G-d thundered from Heaven.”
+
+Verse 17
+
+לא תשנא את אחיך בלבבך, “do not hate your brother (fellow Jew) in your heart.” If it has come to your attention that that Jew made negative comments about you, accused you falsely behind your back of wrongdoing, do not bottle your resentment up in your heart by hating him.” You should rather הוכח תוכיח את עמיתך, “remonstrate with your colleague about having wrongly accused you,” asking him what prompted him to badmouth you. Perhaps, once matters are in the open you can demonstrate to your colleague that he completely misinterpreted one of your actions. Alternately, you will become aware that what had been reported to you as having said by him about you was misrepresented, and not meant detrimentally at all. (B’chor Shor) You are to act in this manner even if you are convinced that your remonstrations will not help at all. In fact, your failure to make an attempt at reconciliation will be held against you by the heavenly tribunal. This is why the verse concludes with the words: ולא תשא עליו חטא, “so that you will not burden him with a sin.”
+עליו “on his account;” this would be parallel to Psalms 44,23: כי עליך הורגנו כל היום, “for it is for Your sake that we are being killed every day.” Compare also: Psalms 69,8: כי עליך נשאתי חרפה, “for I have been reviled for Your sake.”
+
+Verse 18
+
+לא תקום, “do not take revenge;” your inability to conquer your anger would reflect poorly on your personality. G-d is able to suppress His desire to take vengeance, as we know from: נוקם ה' ובעל חימה, “The Lord passionate and able to take revenge but He controls His anger.”
+ולא תטור, “and do not nurse a grudge.” The Torah speaks of matters involving money. When it comes to physical harm experienced by the victim, he does not need to become conciliatory until the offending party has made the first move in that direction. Alternate interpretation: 
+לא תקום, “do not act vengefullv: ולא תטור, and do not hold a grudge: i.e. in your mind.
+לא תקום, Rashi explains this by providing us with a parable: if someone had asked a neighbour to lend him his scythe, and had been refused, and on the day after that refusenik asked him to lend him his spade to dig with, the second person not only refusing but adding as a reason that he was refused the loan of the first person’s scythe, this is an example of revenge, i.e. לא תקום. What then is the meaning of לא תטור, “do not bear a grudge?” Answer: if the second person does lend his spade to the one who had refused him his scythe, but he added when giving him his spade: “I am not like you who refused me his scythe just yesterday.” The second person still feels vengeful even though he did not act vengefully. If you were to ask why it is that the Torah did not specifically forbid the first person to refuse to lend the second person his scythe, but referred with obvious displeasure to the second person who did lend his tool as having committed a violation of a commandment? Surely the Torah should have criticized the first person for being so miserly as not to lend his tool to his neighbour?We must give the first person the benefit of the doubt for refusing to lend his tool because he may have been afraid that his neighbour would treat his scythe, which he treasured greatly, carelessly, and that would explain his refusal. The Torah does not command us to lend our tools against our better judgment as to whom we entrust it. On the other hand, the second person made it clear that he bore the first person ill will for his refusal and he wanted to impress him as being a better person than his neighbour. Therefore the Torah commanded us to allow our goodwill towards our neighbor to outweigh our disappointment over his having refused us without giving an adequate explanation which would have been acceptable and which would have avoided any ill feeling between these two people. By practicing this kind of goodwill we would have contributed to making this a more peaceful world.
+.ואהבת לרעך כמוך, “if you (and everyone else) will practice this virtue you will contribute to peaceful relations between man and his fellow.” The prefix letter ל before the word רעך, “your fellowman,” is superfluous. Other examples of the Torah using such a letter ל as an unnecessary prefix can be found in Exodus 14,28: לכל חיל פרעה, “of the whole army of Pharaoh;” compare also Exodus 27,3: לכל כליו תעשה נחושת,” “all of its appurtenances you shall construct out of copper. An alternate interpretation: the Torah was careful not to write ואהבת רעך כמוך “love your fellowman as you love yourself,” as this is something impossible for human beings to do. It is however, possible to love things that belong to your fellow human being as much as you love the things that are your own. You are to put yourself mentally into the position of your fellow human being, and therefore not to do anything to him that you would not have others do to you. By the same token you should love as much to do favours for him as you would have others do favours for you. The same interpretation also applies to verse 34 in our chapter where we are asked to love the convert to Judaism כמוך, “just like yourself.”
+
+Verse 19
+
+את חקותי תשמורו, “you are to observe My statutes;” previously when the Torah commenced a paragraph with this introduction, what followed were the laws about family purity, chastity, incest etc. (18,5) Now it introduces laws of a similar nature applying to different categories of vegetation, and their derivatives, i.e. mixing wool and linen. Fruitbearing trees must not have branches of other types of fruit grafted on to their trunks.
+בהמתך לא תרביע כלאים, “you must not try to crossbreed different categories of mammals.” After the Torah had warned us to be holy, i.e. [not to forcibly violate natural norms, as well] as not to violate personal freedom of your fellowman by violence, now the Torah expands the subject matter to include the animal kingdom. In other words, we are not to tamper with what the Creator had seen fit to create as a separate species, i.e. למינו, למינה, למיניהם, “according to their respective species.”
+ובגד כלאים, “and a garment made of two kinds of fabrics mixed together;” according to some commentators (B’chor Shor) the reason behind this prohibition is to distinguish the garments worn by the priests from those worn by ordinary Israelites, the priests having been specifically ordered to wear some garments containing a mixture of wool and linen (as mentioned already in the Talmud tractate Yevamot folio 4. It is stated there that the word שש in the Torah refers to a type of linen, whereas the word תכלת refers to wool dyed blue). We find something similar with regard to the prohibition of certain fat parts offered on the altar, and all kinds of blood, as well as the oil used for anointing the kings of the house of David, or incense in certain proportions; all of the aforementioned are for the exclusive use in the service of the Lord by the priests. Anyone making personal use of them is as guilty of severe trespass as someone making personal use of the King’s scepter.
+
+Verse 20
+
+ואיש כי ישכב את אשה, “and any man who lies carnally with a woman who is a bondmaid, etc.” Rabbi Elazar, son of Azaryah, says that seeing that all the various forbidden categories of carnal unions have already been recorded, we must conclude that here we deal with a woman whose legal status is subject to doubt, i.e. a woman owned by two masters jointly, only one of them has already released her into freedom. (Sifra)
+נחרפת, betrothed, i.e. promised, to a man (as soon as she will have been released by her other owner) This status can be compared to Job, 29,4 בימי חרפי, “when I was in my prime, i.e. in a transitory stage. An alternate interpretation: the word נחרפת means something similar to מופקרת, “abandoned;” Compare Judges 5,18: עם חרף נפשו, “a people left at the threshold of death.”
+חופשה, “freed;” the letter ה at the end is weak, (without adot, )
+בקורת תהיה, an expression describing examination due to suspicion; the examination is designed to find a legal reason not to sentence her to death, as Rashi explained.
+
+Verse 21
+
+איל אשם, “a ram for a guilt-offering.” We have had this expression already in Leviticus 5,18. Our sages use this similarity of expression, g’zeyra shaveh to say that the value of that ram in both instances is to be the same, two shekels.(On verse 19 in that chapter our author speaks of a two-year old ram, not of its value in shekels. Rabbi Chavell)
+
+Verse 22
+
+
+
+Verse 23
+
+וכי תבואו אל הארץ, “when you will come into the land;” after the Torah had discussed “seed” in connection with both the woman and the earth, it now discusses seed of a tree that has been planted.
+ונטעתם, “when you will plant;” this expression teaches that the laws about orlah do not apply to branches only grafted onto a tree, nor do they apply to trees that grew as a result of someone having discarded a kernel or seed that had been dropped onto the earth unintentionally and had taken root. When this tree had grown in a region that is inhabited by people, it is considered as if it been planed intentionally, and is subject to the rules following. (Jerusalem Talmud, tractate Orlah 1,1)
+כל עץ מאכל, “every fruitbearing tree.” This excludes trees that bear no fruit, and trees planted as potential firewood or building material. (Sifra) The various shrubs that grow wild and provide us with their berries are also excluded from this legislation.
+שלש שנים יהיו לכם ערלים, “for a period of three years they will be for you as if “uncircumcised;” (forbidden) anything that matured during these years from these trees after they had been planted may not be stored and eaten even after the three years have expired. It would be bad manners if they would be eaten before the firstling fruit had been offered as an offering to G-d in the Temple first. [It would be equally bad manners to bring such an offering only several years after that fruit had ripened, even if it could have been preserved in prime condition. The laws governing such firstling fruit limit their being offered in the Temple later than by Chanukah following their being harvested. Ed.] Seeing that the fruit grown during that period is not of prime quality, it would be insulting to offer it to G-d. לכם, “for you (plural mode);” this is to include fruit trees grown for the benefit of the community as opposed to fruit grown for the benefit of the individual owner (Sifra).
+
+Verse 24
+
+
+
+Verse 25
+
+
+
+Verse 26
+
+לא תאכלו על הדם, “you must not eat the flesh of an animal until it has been ritually slaughtered. This would be supported by Samuel I 14,32: ויעש העם את שלל ויקחו צאן ובקר וישחטו ארצה יאכל העם על הדם, “the people (who had been described in the previous verse as being famished) pounced on the spoils; they took the sheep and the cows and calves and slaughtered them on the ground and they ate with the blood.” [When King Saul heard about this he was terribly upset and chided them for having sinned against G-d. Ed.] An alternate interpretation: the words לא תאכלו על הדם are a variation of the commandment not to practice necromancy. Seeing that the survivors of slain people are charged with avenging their dead, they may feel inclined to sit on the graves of the dead to assuage their dead relatives’ anger at not having been avenged. The dead are apparently credited with some power in this respect. (According to Rash’bam, the Emorites believed this, especially about witches who had been murdered. Seeing that the uncircumcised gentiles do eat blood, the Torah would have addressed this subject at this point also.)
+
+Verse 27
+
+
+
+Verse 28
+
+ושרט, “and an incision in your skin or flesh as a sign of mourning,” the word שרט is written in the singular mode although these incisions are usually multiple incisions, in order to warn us that we would be guilty for a separate sin for each such incision, even if they had all been made at the same time.
+לנפש, “on account of a dead;” if you were to do this on account of some other misfortune suffered, such as a house collapsing in an earthquake, or the loss of your cargo by the boat carrying it having sunk, this would not be punishable. (Sifra)
+
+Verse 29
+
+אל תחלל את בתך להזנותה, “do not profane your daughter by letting her become a harlot.” This is a warning to a father not to put off marrying off his daughter before she reaches the age of 12 and a half.[Seeing that the Torah does not address itself to fathers who use their daughters’ bodies as a source of income, the sages did not interpret the verse literally. Ed.
+ולא תזנה את הארץ, “do not let the land become full of harlots!” The warning implied is that the land itself will copy your perversity if the people on this land will tolerate and practice this also. How does this work in practice? You seeded wheat and the earth produces thorns. An alternate interpretation: the word ארץ is not meant literally but refers to the inhabitants of that earth. We have an example of the word ארץ meaning that in Ezekiel 14,12: ארץ כי תחטא לי ,, “when the land sins against Me,” where it is impossible to understand the word ארץ as “a land,” but it must refer to the people on that land.
+זמה, this word may be understood as an acronym, i.e. זו מה היא?, “what is this?” Who is the father of that mother’s child? (Talmud, tractate Nedarim, folio 51).
+
+Verse 30
+
+את שבתותי תשמורו, “you are to observe My Sabbaths;” this is to be understood in accordance with Rashi’s interpretation, i.e. even though in Exodus 31,13 we have been warned concerning this in connection with the construction of the Tabernacle, i.e. that that commandment does not override the prohibitions in place on the Sabbath, it needs to be repeated as that structure is most holy and permanent. ומקדשי תיראו, “and you must revere My Sanctuary;” as a result of this, אל תפנו אל האובות ואל הידעונים, “you must not turn (for help) to ghosts or unfamiliar spirits; seeing that you have access to G-d through the Temple, what possible use could you have to address yourself to such unreliable sources of information?” [Even after Moses’ death you have access to G-d through the breastplate on the chest of the High Priest and the jewels on it, to receive answers to your (the High Priest’s) enquiries.] An alternate interpretation of ומקדשי תיראו; you are to consider My commandments as sacred. All the commandments are associated with the concept of holiness, sanctity. If we needed proof of this, all we have to do is look at the next paragraph 20,3: למען טמא את מקדשי, where G-d’s commandments are referred to as His “Sanctuary,” followed by ולחלל את שם קדשי, “and to desecrate My Holy Name.” If the word מקדשי were to be translated literally as “My Sanctuary,” we would have a duplication in that verse. Hence it is clear that it refers to “My holy people,” for what desecration of the Temple could be performed if someone had worshipped the Molech by making his children walk through fire.
+
+Verse 31
+
+
+
+Verse 32
+
+
+
+Verse 33
+
+וכי יגור אתך גר, “if someone lives amongst you who claims to be a convert, I might have thought that he must be accepted as such on his own testimony; therefore the Torah adds the word: אתך, “with you,” i.e. you are familiar with him and he has behaved in a manner which lends support to his claim. He needs to support his claim by witnesses. (Sifra)
+
+Verse 34
+
+כאזרח מכם, “as if a natural born Jew.” Just like a natural born Jew is expected to observe all the laws of the Torah, so is this convert expected to do so. This verse is the reason why the sages ruled that if a convert is prepared to accept all the laws of Judaism with the exception of one, he is not accepted as a convert. Rabbi Joseph son of Rabbi Yehudah said that even if the prospective convert refuses to accept any of the nonbiblical protective clauses of the Torah he is not to be accepted. (Sifra)
+כי גרים הייתם בארץ מצרים, “for you were treated as strangers while in Egypt.” Rashi comments on this phrase that we must not be critical of a shortcoming of a stranger and treat him as second class, as we did not like it when we were treated as second class during the hundreds of years we were in Egypt. While there we worshipped the same idols that the Egyptians had worshipped, so that we have nothing to feel superior about. Joshua reminded the people of this shortly before his death in (Joshua 24,14)
+
+Verse 35
+
+ובמשורה, “or in measure.” Our sages used this expression when they said that water should be drunk “in measured quantities (sparingly);” (Ethics of our Fathers 6,4) 
+
+Verse 36
+
+
+
+Verse 37
+
+ושמרתם את כל חקתי, “you are to meticulously observe all My statutes;” this was repeated here once more as it sums up the chapter.
+
+Chapter 20
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+וידבר ה, “the Lord spoke;” the reason why this chapter begins with G-d speaking in strong language, i.e. דבר, is because what follows are a series of death penalties for people who have deliberately ignored the warnings of the laws enumerated in the previous two chapters.
+
+Verse 2
+
+באבן , “using a stone” The use of the singular for the word “stone” means that only if the first stone has failed to kill the convicted sinner the public is going to throw any further stones. (Sifra)
+
+Verse 3
+
+ואני אתן את פני, “and I will turn My face against that man;” G-d will do this if he cannot be brought to court as there were no witnesses, or if he had not received legal warning of the consequences of committing the sin he had been warned not to commit. (Ibn Ezra)
+
+Verse 4
+
+
+
+Verse 5
+
+
+
+Verse 6
+
+
+
+Verse 7
+
+
+
+Verse 8
+
+ושמרתם את חקתי, “you are to observe My statutes;” this is a repetition, as previously the subjects covered had only been incest and the mixing of species in order to create new strains, etc. Now the statutes mentioned were types of idolatry.
+
+Verse 9
+
+כי איש אשר יקלל את אביו, “for the man who curses his father, etc.” this refers to the warning issued previously. The Torah is saying that if I had warned you not to curse father or mother or belittle them, how much more so does this warning apply to Me, Who have been a partner in creating your father and mother.
+את אביו, “his father,” but not his grandfather. את אמו, “his mother,” but not his grandmother.
+אביו ואמו קלל, “he had cursed his father;” the reason this has been repeated (apparently) is because the Torah wants you to know that seeing the son is the product of both father and mother, i.e. of two strains of blood, he is treated even if he only cursed one of them as if he had cursed both of them. 
+This is reflected in the plural mode of the words דמיו בו, “he is guilty of having cursed their blood,” at the end of our verse.
+
+Verse 10
+
+ואיש אשר ינאף, “and a man who becomes guilty of adultery, etc.” the Torah repeats all the prohibitions listed already in the previous portion in chapter 18, and spells out the respective penalties for each type of transgression. Some of them are arrived at by the use of the g’zeyrah shaveh, one of the 13 tools used by Rabbi Yishmael in linking the written Torah to the oral Torah. [marrying, or sleeping with two sisters at the time when both are alive. (Sifra)]
+והנואפת, “and the woman who is a partner in the adultery.” If you were to ask where the warning was written concerning the woman adulteress, the answer is “the seventh of the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20,12.”
+
+Verse 11
+
+אשר ישכב את אשת אביו, “who engages in carnal relations with the wife of his father;” the reason for this choice of words is that it includes both the guilty person’s mother and a woman that at one time was his father’s wife, totally unrelated to him. How do we know that it also relates to his mother who had never been his father’s wife? When discussing the penalty for such a sexual union, the Torah writes here: ערות אביו גלה, “he revealed the nakedness of his father,” and it writes chapter 18,7 that he must not reveal the nakedness of his father;” it is clear therefore that just as there, by repeating that the prohibition is applicable to his mother as well as to his stepmother, so the same is true here by describing her as his mother; here too the same rule applies. According to the Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin folio 54 what is meant is a woman whom his father had raped, as a result of which she had become his mother.
+את אשת אביו, it says here: “he had uncovered his father’s nakedness [by sleeping with that woman, Ed] and it had said in chapter 18,8: “you must not reveal the nakedness of your father’s wife;” just as there “his father’s wife,” included carnal relations with his father’s widow (sleeping with here after she had become widowed) so in our verse it also includes such a scenario, i.e. legal execution of both parties involved, (Sanhedrin 54)
+
+Verse 12
+
+
+
+Verse 13
+
+משכבי אשה, intercourse in the full sense of the word, not fondling or premature withdrawal of either party’s male organ.
+תועבה מעשה שניהם, both parties are guilty of an abomination (perversion), unless one party had been raped.,
+
+Verse 14
+
+ואיש אשר יקח את אשה ואת אמה, זמה היא, באש ישרפו .“if a man takes his mother in law as a sexual partner in addition to his wife, this is a perversion; they shall be executed by “burning;” (having molten lead poured into their throats.) How do we know from the wording of this verse that the same penalty applies to someone who engages in sexual relations with both his daughter and his granddaughter (by this daughter)? The sages use the principle known as g’zeyrah shavah, one of the 13 principles of valid interpretation expounded by Rabbi Yishmael in Torat Kohanim, [and recited in our daily morning prayers. Ed.] that when (for no otherwise compelling reason) the Torah used the same wording in discussing different subjects, it was in order to teach us that the details of these subjects have something in common halachically. In this case, it is the word: זמה, used for perversion here, and the same word used in chapter 18,17, where the subject was “mother, daughter, and granddaughter,” (including her son’s daughter) becoming the sexual partners of the same male. In other words, violating the laws expounded in either verse are punishable by the same type of death penalty, burning. How do I know that it does not matter in this respect if the biological relationships discussed here are based on the male or the female respectively? We find the expressions הנה, “they are,” and the expressions זמה, “perversion” both in18,17, where it describes the biological relationships of the parties involved by the word שאר, which loosely translated means “family relation.” The subject is elaborated on in the Talmud tractate Sanhedrin folio 76, where different methods of legal executions are discussed, with emphasis on the penalty of “burning.” (B’chor shor, also)., “perversion
+
+Verse 15
+
+ואת הבהמה תהרוגו, “and the beast (involved in this perversion) you have to kill.” The reason is in order to prevent it to be used in the same manner again and thus cause another Jew to commit this sin.
+
+Verse 16
+
+לרבעה, “and lie down with it (the beast);” the letter ה at the end of this word does not have a dot, [which would have had significance as a pronoun, Ed.]
+מות יומתו, דמיהם בם, “they will both be put to death, their blood shall be upon them.” The animal in question also acted in a perverted manner, as it has been equipped with an instinctive feeling for what is appropriate for it and what not. Man’s perversions during the antediluvian period, eventually resulted in the perversions of the beasts, and this is why they all had to die together with the human beings. After all, the woman surely did not rape the beast!. She could easily have avoided this experience. On the other hand, when discussing a male committing a sexual act with a female beast, the Torah does not describe the beast as bearing blood guilt, since no doubt the beast had been passive and unable to resist. (verse 15) [In that instance the reason why the beast is also killed is that otherwise the disgrace of a human being treated as inferior even to a beast would have reflected negatively on the whole human race. Ed.]
+
+Verse 17
+
+ואיש אשר יקח את אחותו, “and if a man takes his sister as a wife, etc;” from verse 18,9, the sages derived what kind of sister and from what kind of mother is prohibited on pains of what penalty. The subject is dealt with in detail in the Talmud Yevamot folios 22 and 23.
+והיא תראה את ערותו, “and she sees his nakedness;” the word והיא is written with the letter י to make certain that there can be no misunderstanding as to who is meant.
+תראה את ערותו, “the relationship is consensual.”
+חסד הוא, “it is a shameful thing;” The word הוא, is spelled with the vowel shuruk; this vowel reveals that it is the male in that relationship who is guilty. The first section of the verse speaks of consensual perverse relationship between brother and sister, a relationship both try to keep concealed; hence the Torah adds that their punishment will be very public, an example of how the punishment fits the crime. The second part of the verse assumes that the brother had raped his sister, hence the punishment is confined to the brother, 
+עונו ישא, “he will have to carry the burden of his guilt.
+
+Verse 18
+
+
+
+Verse 19
+
+כי את שארו הערה, “for he has made naked his nearest kin,” if he had raped her.
+If the relationship had been consensual, both will have to carry the burden of their sins,עונם ישאו.
+
+Verse 20
+
+
+
+Verse 21
+
+נדה היא, “it is equivalent to sleeping with a woman during her period.” The comparison with a woman during her menses is that just as his wife is permissible to her during certain periods and not others, so a brother’s wife if she had become a widow and had never had any children would not only be permissible to him, but he would fulfill a commandment by marrying her in a levirate ceremony.
+
+Verse 22
+
+ושמרתם את כל חקתי, “and you are to observe all My statutes.” You must not violate any of the commandments involving sexual restrictions and incest. (bn Ezra)
+ואת כל משפטי, “and all My instructions concerning penalties for transgressing these laws,” by your judges seeing to this.
+ושמרתם את כל חקתי, “the reason why the Torah has repeated this phrase once again, is to remind the people that G-d’s statutes apply in the Diaspora as well as in he Holy Land. In this verse only the statutes applicable in the Holy Land are meant.
+
+Verse 23
+
+ולא תלכו בחקות הגוי, “you must not adopt the statutes of gentile nations.” The reason why this too has been repeated here is so that you could not claim that these statutes are only the ones that apply to the Israelites as a community, but not to statutes that apply to them as individuals.
+
+Verse 24
+
+אתם תירשו את אדמתם, “you are about to inherit their land.” You are going to be their heirs as you preceded them in observing My commandments even before being ordered to do so, as our author had explained on chapter18,26.
+ואני אתננה לכם, “and I will give it to you;” seeing that as the children of Shem, son of Noach who was older that Cham, from whom they have descended, your claim is older. All they (the Canaanites) did while occupying that land was to preserve it for the time when it would become yours. (Sifra)
+אני ה' אלוקיכם, “I am the Lord your G-d.” Anyone who has Me as his G-d, needs none other.
+
+Verse 25
+
+והבדלתם בין הבהמה הטהורה לטמאה, וגו, “you must distinguish between the ritually pure beasts, and the impure ones, etc.;” it is well known that the ritually pure beasts are far fewer in number than the ritually impure ones; this is why the Torah had mentioned them first as not so many need to be enumerated. The same applies to the ratio of ritually pure birds and those that are birds of prey. The reason for the warning here is that it is usual for the minority to eventually become assimilated to the majority and to lose their identifying traits. The Israelites therefore had to be warned to insure that this did not happen. Our author adds a warning to the teachers not to be overly long when explaining matters to their pupils so that they remain alert to concentrate on the essence rather than the more trivial parts. (Talmud, tractate Pesachim folio 3), [but prior to this, Solomon, in Kohelet, 12,12. Ed.] 
+
+Verse 26
+
+
+
+Verse 27
+
+
+
+Chapter 21
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+אמור אל הכהנים, “say to the priests;” after the Torah had warned the Israelites to become “holy,” it warns the priests to be especially careful not to incur ritual impurity. Seeing that they have to perform duties in and around the Sanctuary, incurring ritual impurity would prevent them from being able to carry out their duties, considering they are the members of G-d’s “household” on earth. This paragraph had been addressed to the priests on the day when the Tabernacle had been erected, seeing that on that day they were already required to perform some duties therein. The reason why this paragraph follows immediately after the warning not to indulge in divining the future by consulting people practicing any kind of witchcraft, is to inform them that from a legal point of view anyone doing so should be stoned to death, as Israelites have no need for such people; if anyone felt the need, they should turn to the priests who in turn would consult G-d about their problems by means of the urim vetumim in the folds of the breastplate of the High Priest. 'Parrshat Emor
+בני אהרן, “the sons of Aaron,” including minors;”
+לא יטמא בעמיו, “he must not defile himself on account of any Israelite that had died, i.e. although they are all of “his people.”
+
+Verse 2
+
+הקרובה אליו, “who is related to him;” she is related to him only as long as she has not married. As soon as his sister is betrothed this relationship has ended, halachically. (Talmud tractate Yevamot folio 29)
+לאביו ולאמו, to his father or his mother;” the letter ו before the word לאמו means: “or,” instead of “and.” The same applies in לבנו ולבתו, or in ולאחיו ולאחותו. In each of these words the prefix ו means “or” instead of “and. As to the question why the word ולאביו, “or to his father,” was needed to permit the son to defile himself at his father’s funeral, seeing that the relationship is of a lower level as that of the mother, [being only presumptive as we do not know for sure that he is the father, Ed.], we might have thought that on account of this the Torah would not have allowed the son the priest to defile himself at the funeral; on the other hand if the Torah had only mentioned that the son could defile himself at his father’s funeral, we would have taken for granted that if even this was allowed, attending his mother’s funeral would certainly be allowed. However, I could have argued the reverse: if I cannot defile myself on account of my father’s funeral when he had disgraced himself and lost his status as a functioning priest, I can certainly not defile myself on account of my mother’s funeral, if my mother had lost her status as legitimately married to a priest. In light of these problems, the Torah decided to mention father and mother separately. לאמו ולאביו, “to his mother or father;” when the Torah speaks of an ordinary priest, it mentions the mother before the father, whereas when speaking of the prohibition for the High Priest to defile himself for the death of his parents, it mentions first the father and then the mother. (verse 11) The logic runs as follows: if an ordinary priest may defile himself at his mother’s funeral, seeing that we are certain that she is his kin, the Torah broadens this to also include the father, though he is by no means definitely a blood relative. When speaking of the prohibition for the High Priest to attend even his closest relative’s funeral, it mentions the father first, seeing that he is not definitely a blood relative. It continues by saying that this High Priest may not defile himself even for the sake of his mother’s funeral, although we know definitely that he is her son. ולבנו ולבתו, “and on account of his son or his daughter,” (he may defile himself) if the Torah had only written about either son or daughter, why would this not have been enough to tell us that the priest may defile himself at the funeral of any of his children, G-d forbid? Not only that, but we could have reasoned that if the priest may defile himself on account of children’s death neither of whom he was obliged to honour during their lifetime, is it not logical that he has to do the same on account of his parents whom the Torah commanded him to honour and revere? Answer: if the Torah had not spelled out both son and daughter, I might have thought that for preemies who did not survive their birth, the priest would also be permitted to defile themselves; therefore the Torah spelled out that only children who qualify for the title son or daughter, are a legitimate cause for the priest to defile himself. Another reason why the Torah had to write: לבנו ולבתו, “to defile themselves on account of his son or daughter,” is that son and daughter do not have the same relationships to their respective parents. A son is obligated to perform the commandment of honouring and revering his parents throughout his life, whereas a daughter’s obligation to do this takes second place to her honouring her husband upon marriage, as is evident that while her father could invalidate certain of her vows before marriage (depending on her age) after marriage only her husband has the right to do this. Therefore, the fact that they rank equally concerning the rights of their parents to defile themselves at their funerals had to be spelled out.
+ולאחיו ולאחותו, “and concerning his brother or his sister, in case either of them died; this too could not be derived from the Torah having written this concerning son and daughter. Neither brother nor sister was obligated to perform acts by which to honour the other. We could have assumed therefore that the family ties to one another was therefore weaker than the other relatives mentioned by the Torah which would have prohibited them defiling themselves at each other’s funeral. The Torah also had to make a distinction between a sister who is still a virgin, i.e. too young to have been married, and one who has left her father’s house already to live with her husband.
+
+Verse 3
+
+ולאחותו הבתולה הקרובה אליו “and in respect of a sister, a virgin, and therefore still closely bound to him by family ties; regardless of whether she is a sister through a common mother or a common father; when Rashi commented here on the sister including one who is already betrothed to a husband to be, he does not refer to some priest’s betrothed but not yet married fiancee. Similarly, when the Torah wrote about a sister who is a virgin, it is understood that she is below twelve years of age at the time of her death. Had she been married already she would have been part of her husband’s family, not that of her father. This is why the Torah used the expression לשארו, “to his family.” (verse 2).
+אשר לא היתה לאיש, “who had never belonged to a man.”According to Sifra, this somewhat clumsy wording implies that if that sister had lost her virginity through a cause other than being penetrated by a man’s genital organ, she is considered as still a virgin with regard to the prohibition of her brother defiling herself at her funeral. If she lost her virginity through marital relations with her husband, he (her brother) may not do so.
+לה יטמא, “he will defile herself on her account;” not only may he defile himself at her funeral, but he is commanded to do so. If he declines to do so, the court forces him to do so. The Sifra relates that a certain priest by the name of Joseph whose wife had died on the eve of Passover, and he did not want to defile himself at her funeral as then he would not be able to fulfill the commandment of eating from the paschal lamb on the night following, was forced by the sages to do so nonetheless.
+לה יטמא, but he must not additionally engage in burying other people seeing that he is already ritually impure. [It is always forbidden for a priest even nowadays when all priests (and non-priests) are ritually impure, to add impurity unnecessarily to their bodies seeing that they cannot purify their bodies in the absence of the ash of the red heifer. Ed.] The Rabbis derived this from the word לה, understanding it as restrictive, i.e. he may only defile himself through her body, not through anyone else’s that happens to be nearby. He may also not defile herself through contact with her limbs, if, for instance, she had been mutilated, and only parts of her body are available for burial.
+
+Verse 4
+
+לא יטמא בעל בעמיו, “a husband (who is a priest) may not defile himself for his wife corpse (of a wife who has been forbidden to him and disqualified him for priestly duties);” if there are other people available who can do this without delay. According to the Targum, there is a letter ב missing here at the beginning of the word בעל which should be understood as if it had been written בבעל. The reference then would be to the High Priest not being allowed to bury his wife as he is the highest ranking priest. According to our author, this construction is not unique, and he cites Genesis 38,11 שבי אלמנה בית אביך, where Yehudah tells his daughter-in-law to spend the period of her widowhood in her father’s house pending his son Shelah becoming of age so that he could marry her. In other words, the word בית there should really have been: בבית, “in the house.” Our author claims that there are numerous such constructions to be found elsewhere. According to Ibn Ezra, the verse speaks of an ordinary priest not being allowed to defile himself on his wife’s body, as she is not a blood relative.
+
+Verse 5
+
+לא יקרחה קרחה בראשם, “they shall not make a bald spot on their heads.” Although the word יקרחה is spelled with the letter ה at the end, it is read as if it had been spelled with the letter ו and the vowel shuruk.
+
+Verse 6
+
+והיו קודש, “therefore they shall be holy.” This “holiness” also includes priests suffering a physical handicap which disqualifies them from performing service in the Temple.” (Sifra)
+
+Verse 7
+
+אשה זונה, “a woman who had engaged in a sexual relationship with a partner forbidden to Israelites;” (Rashi) If so, why would she on account of that be forbidden to marry an ordinary priest? We find only one single Rabbi in the Mishnah who rules that if an unmarried male Israelite had intercourse with an unmarried Israelite woman that she becomes forbidden to be married to a priest! The opinion of that Rabbi was never accepted as halachah. (Talmud, tractate Yevamot folio 61) The only woman who is known by the stigma zonah, as a harlot, is the one who had had sexual relations with someone disqualified as a priest, as Rashi himself pointed out in his commentary on Ketuvot, foIio 30.ו
+חללה, “a woman who has been profaned;” the letter ו at the beginning of this word means “or,” and substitutes for או. The same applies to the letter ו in ואשה גרושה, “or a woman who had been divorced;”
+גרושה מאישה, “divorced from her husband;” and not someone who is not her husband. According to Rabbi Elazar ben Matya, this must be understood as distinct from someone no longer her husband, as he had abandoned her and emigrated overseas and has not been heard from. In the meantime this woman had remarried, and after a while her first husband turns up and claims her as his wife. Our verse comes to tell us that she can return to her former husband although in the meantime she had received a divorce decree from her second husband, and in the event that her first husband is a priest, she has not lost her status as being legally a priest’s wife. All this the sages derived from the otherwise superfluous words: “from her husband,” as who else could have divorced her? In the scenario just described her “marriage” to her second husband would not have been recognised as a marriage, hence her “divorce” from the second “husband,” was not a divorce at all.
+
+Verse 8
+
+קדוש יהיה לך, “he will be holy as far as you are concerned;” here too the adjective “holy” also applies to physically handicapped priests. (Sifra)
+
+Verse 9
+
+את אביה, “she profanes her father,” seeing that being a priest he is holy. (legally) and she also causes her father to become belittled in the eyes of his friends who know that he failed miserably in the way he raised his daughter, her guilt is therefore twofold. This is why the Torah decreed the harsher mode of execution by having molten lead poured down her throat.
+היא מחללת, the word היא is spelled with the letter .י
+באש תשרף, “she will be burned by fire” (as explained.). Only she has to suffer this harsher mode of execution, not her partner. Her partner dies by the sword. (decapitation)
+
+Verse 10
+
+את ראשו לא יפרע ובגדיו לו יפרום , “he must not let hishair grow wild, nor must he rend his garments” (as a means of showing the world that he is in mourning). He must not neglect his dignified appearance, even when in mourning.
+
+Verse 11
+
+ועל כל נפשות מת לא יבא, “he shall not go to make contact with any corpse.” This is a warning to the High Priest not to be in the same covered airspace with any corpse. Seeing that this could have been derived already from the previous verse, it is clear that here the Torah includes ordinary priests in this legislation also. The linkage known as g’zeyrah shava, is established by the word יבא which is used here in connection with the High Priest, followed by the unnecessary 
+ולאביו ולאמו לא יטמא “he must not defile himself on the bodies of either his father or his mother.” This was included in the previous part of the verse that was all inclusive, by the words: כל נפשות מת, “any dead bodies.” By repeating it, apparently, the sages learn that if a corpse is abandoned and has no one to arrange for his burial, the High Priest is commanded to defile himself on his account. (Sifra)
+
+Verse 12
+
+
+
+Verse 13
+
+
+
+Verse 14
+
+אלמנה וגרושה, “a widow or divorced woman;” seeing that the High Priest is not allowed to marry a widow, is it not obvious that he may not marry a divorced woman? Why did the Torah have to spell this out for us? Answer: I might have thought that seeing a widow is permitted for the ordinary priest to marry, a divorcee who is also forbidden to an ordinary priest and who is certainly forbidden to the High Priest, that if the High Priest had contravened this law, the son from such a union is not only no priest but has the status of a mamzer, someone who is not allowed to marry a Jewish woman. By phrasing it as it does, the Torah limited the fallout from such a contravention to demoting the issue to be like an ordinary Israelite, not a priest. Or, if the Torah had written only that the High Priest must not marry a divorced woman, I would have thought that the son of a marriage between a High priest and a divorced woman would indeed not be a priest, whereas the son of a union between a High Priest and a widow would be considered as a normal priest; therefore the Torah has to state that the consequences are more serious than we would have thought. In short, the unnecessary word גרושה is interpreted as lenient, whereas the unnecessary word אלמנה is interpreted as additional severity. (Sifra)
+וחללה זנה, “or a profaned woman or a harlot;“ the missing letter ו in the word זונה is comparable to the missing letter ו in Chabakuk 3,11, “their habitation” in the word זבלה which should have been זבולה, “its respective habitation (orbit)” or as in Deuteronomy 32,42: וכפר אדמתו עמו, where the ו is missing at the beginning, so that it will be understood: “and His people.”
+את אלה לא יקח, “these (who have been mentioned) he must not marry.” (publicly, in a ceremony of a wedding)
+כי אם בתולה מעמיו, “but he must marry a virgin of his own people.” If she is not a virgin he would have transgressed a positive commandment. (The transgression is not punishable by lashes. If you were to ask what is different here from the commandment that the Passover lamb must only be eaten broiled on the fire, not boiled or steamed, where the sages interpreted this not as a positive commandment but as a negative commandment (Talmud tractate Pessachim folio 41) and they decreed that someone not doing so would receive lashes on account of having transgressed two negative commandments, one for having eaten it raw, the other for not having eaten it broiled? Here too the commandment of marrying a virgin is a positive commandment? Answer: the words: כי אם בתולה, “only a virgin,” refer to the part of the verse that began with the words, and refer to what follows; whereas in the verse speaking of how to eat the Passover lamb, the words כי אם צלי אש, refer to what had already happened, something which is not followed by another positive commandment, i.e. יקח אשה.
+
+Verse 15
+
+ולא יחלל זרעו, “so that he will not profane his seed,” by marrying these profaned people secretly.”
+
+Verse 16
+
+
+
+Verse 17
+
+איש מזרעך לדורותם, “any of your descendants (afflicted with a physical deformity;)” Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah uses the wording of this verse to rule that a minor,son of a priest is unfit to perform service in the Temple, even if he is physically perfect. As to the question of from what age such a minor is qualified to perform service in the Temple, he rules that when he has grown 2 pubic hairs since this demonstrates that he is sufficiently developed physically. In spite of this ruling, his colleagues, the adult priests do not admit him to perform such service until he has reached the age of 20 years. [They imply that spiritual maturity is required also. Ed.] (Sifra)
+אשר יהיה בו מום, “who is afflicted with a physical blemish;” after the Torah had made an overall statement regarding the holiness of the priests, it begins to list blemishes which will disqualify individual priests from performing service in the Temple. (Ibn Ezra)
+
+Verse 18
+
+ 'כי כל איש וגו, “for any man who is afflicted with a blemish” the Torah lists the reason that such priests may not perform service in the Temple as being that seeing that they represent the whole Jewish community, it would not seem appropriate that this community dispatches blemished people as their representatives at the Court of the King of Kings. (B’chor shor)
+אשר בו מום, “even if he had been born with the physical abnormality;”
+חרם, an expression similar to חרם or שבירה, “disgraceful, something to be avoided.” (Ibn Ezra)
+שרוע, asymmetrical, too long or too short. Compare Isaiah, 28,20, השתרע.
+
+Verse 19
+
+
+
+Verse 20
+
+גבן, “hunchback;”דק, “a dwarf;”
+תבלול, “malformed eyes.”
+מרוח, “psoriasis"
+
+Verse 21
+
+
+
+Verse 22
+
+מקדשי הקדשים, ומן הקדשים, “both of the most holy and the holy.”(he may eat) This poses the question of why we have to be told that he may eat of the ‘holy,” seeing that the Torah had already permitted him to eat from “the most holy?” Answer: if the Torah had only written that he may eat of the קדשי הקדשים, I might have thought that what is meant by this is only the קדשים, “the holy things of a lower level of holiness.” The logic behind such a thought would have been that these קדשים, “holy” things, could be consumed also outside the sacred precincts of the Temple which are also permitted to be eaten by non priests. (Example: Passover lamb) In order to prevent such a misunderstanding, the Torah added the extra words.
+
+Verse 23
+
+אך אל הפרכת ואל המזבה, “but to the dividing curtain inside the Sanctuary, and to the altar he must not come near.” (on account of his blemish); if the Torah had only quoted the example of the dividing curtain I might have thought that seeing that the dividing curtain is inside the Sanctuary, the blemished person could also not approach the golden altar whereas it would be all right to approach the copper altar outside the Sanctuary. On the other hand, if the Torah had only forbidden the blemished priest to approach the altar, I would have thought that the reason is because the sacrificial animals are slaughtered in it. Seeing that the dividing curtain did not have anything to do with the actual slaughtering of the offering, I might have thought that even a blemished priest could approach it; in order to prevent such faulty reasoning on our part the Torah added a few words.
+כי אני ה' מקדשם, “for I the Lord, sanctify them.” The Torah is speaking about sanctifying the dividing curtain and the altar, and that is why a priest with a blemish is not fit to approach them. (B’chor shor)
+
+Verse 24
+
+ואל כל בני ישראל, “as well as to all the Children of Israel.” They are warned not to entrust their offerings to priests who are afflicted with blemishes.
+
+Chapter 22
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+
+
+Verse 2
+
+ולא יחללו את שם קדשי, “so that they will not profane My holy Name.” The whole purpose of a sacrificial offering is to honour My holy name; anyone presenting such while in a state of ritual impurity will desecrate it instead of honouring it.
+אשר הם מקדישים, “which they are sanctifying;” and do not profane. The heading of this verse applies to both My holy name and the offerings sanctified in its honour.
+
+Verse 3
+
+
+
+Verse 4
+
+והוא צרוע או זב, and he is afflicted with tzoraat, or has had involuntary seminal issue;” The Torah here uses a form of construction known as lo zu af zu, “not only this but even that,” meaning that not only the more severe affliction but even the relatively minor affliction is also a cause for the prohibition described, i.e. not to eat holy things. Not only a ritual impurity originating in one’s own body is the cause of the prohibition but merely coming into contact with a corpse are similarly a cause for this prohibition. On the other hand, not only contact with a corpse but even a seminal emission from one’s own body that can be purified by immersion in a ritual bath on the same evening, is also included in this legislation. Conversely, even a ritual impurity due merely to an external cause such as touching a corpse, is similarly triggering this prohibition.
+עד אשר יטהר, “until he will become purified.” A process completed by the setting of the sun. (Compare verse 7 in our chapter)
+
+Verse 5
+
+אשר יטמא לו, “whereby he may become ritually unclean;” the word לו in this verse means בשבילו, “on its account,” on account of the creeping animal. It is parallel to Exodus 1,10, where Pharaoh exerted his people to outsmart the Israelites since he could not outnumber them and said: הבה נתחכמה לו, “let us instead try to be smarter than it,” i.e. “on account of its numerical superiority.” It is also similar to Esther 6,4: אשר הכין לו, “which he had prepared on his account.” (On Mordechai’s account, in order to hang him from that gallows). Our author cites more parallels.
+
+Verse 6
+
+כי אם רחץ בשרו במים, “unless he has first washed his body in water.” (ritual bath) In case we understood this as piecemeal washing of the limbs of one’s body, [the Torah adds the word: במים in water (all at the same time). Ed.] This is why the words (in the next verse): “when the sun sets he will be ritually clean,” are of importance here. Just as sunset is not a gradual process but it occurs at the same time, so the whole body has to be washed at the same time. (Sifra)
+
+Verse 7
+
+ובא השמש וטהר ואחר יאכל, “when the sun has set and he has become ritually pure, he may eat, etc.” It is the setting of the sun which causes the purified person to be allows to eat t’rumah, second degree holy matters, not the immersion in the ritual bath preceding that, although that had been a prerequisite. On the other hand, the line:
+ואחר יאכל מן הקדשים, “and afterwards he may eat from the holy matters,” i.e. holy matters of the first degree. If as apparent in some manuscripts the order were to be reversed it would not make sense if he could already eat holy things of the first degree, why would he have to await sunset to be allowed to eat t’rumah, which is inferior in its degree of holiness?On the other hand, one may argue that seeing that a non priest is not allowed to eat t’rumah even when ritually pure, this requires additional steps when purification is required for the priest. Still another consideration is the fact that when something holy has been allowed to become piggul, unfit to eat because it has not been eaten during the time prescribed for it, a restriction unknown in respect of t’rumah, this could be a reason why the Torah had to mention both separately. (Sifra)
+
+Verse 8
+
+נבלה וטרפה, “that which dies of itself, or has been torn;” the Torah refers to the carcass of a pure bird, (one that could be eaten if it had been ritually slaughtered) and of flesh from sacrificial meat of mammals which could have been eaten, had it not been removed, but which because it had been removed from the sacred domain within which it could have been eaten had now become treif; or similarly since such a bird had at one point been fit to eat, it is compared to something that had died of its own accord. The priests are not to eat of it as it would confer ritual impurity on them. (Compare Ezekiel 44,31)
+
+Verse 9
+
+
+
+Verse 10
+
+תושב כהן ושכיר, “a tenant of a priest or a hired servant;” you could have thought that if a tenant or physically owned slave of a priest is forbidden to eat of these holy things, it is only logical that a hired hand whose has been hired for a limited period only cannot eat from it either, so why did the Torah have to spell this out for us?; The reason is that if the word תושב alone had been written, I would have thought that it refers to someone hired only for a limited period; (Sifra)
+
+Verse 11
+
+
+
+Verse 12
+
+.ובת כהן....ובת כהן, why does each verse have to be written separately and have to be introduced by the words: ובת כהן, “and the daughter if a priest?” We must understand these verses as follows: “if this daughter of a priest gets married to someone who is not a priest, i.e. someone who had actually not qualified for marrying a priest’s daughter, as described in the Talmud, tractate Yevamot folio 68, where the subject is the widow of a High Priest; seeing that this woman had married someone forbidden to her, she has forfeited the right to eat t’rumah something that had been her right from birth until such time. [If the Torah had not written that after becoming divorced or widowed such a woman if she returned to her father’s house could resume eating trumah, if she was still childless, I would not have known that while married to a non priest she had been forbidden to do so. Ed.]
+
+Verse 13
+
+כי תהיה אלמנה או גרושה, “the daughter of a priest who after having married a non priest had become widowed or divorced; the Torah speaks of a woman divorced or widowed from an Israelite or a Levite;
+אלמנה וגרושה, why does the Torah not only write: גרושה without adding: אלמנה widow;? I would then have reasoned that if even a divorcee would be permitted to revert to the status of being single in her father’s house, a widowed woman surely would be able to do no less; this is why it says: אלמנה וזרע אין לה, “a widow who has no child.” By the same token, if the Torah had only written: אלמנה, “widow,” and had not mentioned a divorced woman, I would have reasoned that a widow who did not have a child could return to her father’s house and her former status as belonging to a priest would be reinstated, but a divorced woman would be reinstated even if she did have children from her ex husband who is not a priest. This is why the Torah had to write: גרושה וזרע אין לה “divorced but childless.” In the case of the widow the addition of “without child,” was a restriction for the widow, whereas the same words were an easing of the rules for the divorcee.
+ושבה אל בית אביה, “when she returns to live in the house of her father.” This excludes the case where because she had no children she is awaiting a levirate marriage to the brother or one of them, of her late husband. This is not called: “returning to the house of her father.”
+כנעוריה, as when she was less than 12 years and 6 months old, i.e. when she was not yet pregnant. (Sifra) 
+
+Verse 14
+
+ויסף חמישיתו, “and he shall add one fifth to the value of the forbidden holy food that he has eaten.” What is meant is that after having added the penalty, the total will represent 20% more than the original, i.e. the sinner had actually added 25% to the original value.
+
+Verse 15
+
+
+
+Verse 16
+
+.והשיאו אותם עון אשמם, “and so cause them to bear the guilt brought on by their iniquity.” This is a reference to the people who desecrated holy things by feeding them to non priests. They will have to bear the burden of their sin, not the people who ate them, who were unaware of their status as being holy.
+את קדשיהם, ”their holy things.” This teaches that the farmers can give their t’rumah to any priest of their choosing.
+מקדשם, “who sanctify them.” This refers to holy matters that had been sanctified by Israelites
+
+Verse 17
+
+
+
+Verse 18
+
+איש איש וגו, from the repetition here of the word איש איש, meaning: “anyone,” we learn according to Rashi, that the donations to the Jewish Temple by gentiles are acceptable. If you were to ask why Rashi needed this verse to learn this from indirectly, when we could have inferred this from a very specific verse in verse 25 of our chapter, where the Torah writes: ומיד כל בן נכר לא תקריבו את אלו, “and when donated from any gentile you must not offer on the altar any of these,” it is clear that the only kind of offerings from gentiles we must not present on the altar of our temple are blemished beasts, but beasts that are not blemished but are perfect specimens of their respective categories, may certainly be offered on behalf of the gentiles, the answer is that from that verse we could have derived that if a Jewish priest presented a perfect specimen donated by a gentile he would transgress only against an ordinary negative commandment, but if he presented a blemished animal he would transgress also a positive commandment at the same time. At the same time, if the Torah had only written our verse here, I would have thought that gentiles may even present animals that are blemished as sacrifices on the altar of the Jewish Temple. Not only that, I would have thought that if gentiles wanted to offer sin offerings on the altar of the Jewish Temple this would also be acceptable; this is why the Torah had to approve only nedarim and nedavot, free will offerings of the category of gifts to G-d, by writing what it did.
+
+Verse 19
+
+לרצונכם תמים זכר, “without blemish, male, that you will be well received,” earlier in the portion of Vayikra, 1,3, the Torah spoke of mandatory offerings, when mentioning that the offering needs to be such that G-d will look at the donor with fondness. No mention was made there of any blemishes in the animal offered. The author wonders why the Torah here did not mention other categories of sacrifices.
+
+Verse 20
+
+
+
+Verse 21
+
+ואיש כי יקריב, “and when an individual will bring a peace offering, etc.;” only individuals can offer this type of peace offering.
+לפלא נדר, “in fulfillment of a vow;” there are two diametrically opposite ways of explaining the word לפלא. One is the one we just used, the other we find in a verse in Deuteronomy 17,8: כי יפלא ממך דבר, where it means “if something is concealed from you;” another example where the same expression is used in a similarly contradictory manner is the word דשן, and לדשנו, in Exodus 27,3 which can mean to remove ashes and dross, and which can mean: to saturate, to have a surfeit of, (in the positive sense, such as when applied to a harvest.) Also, in Zachariah 3,4 מחלצות, where it means fancy priestly robes, whereas in Psalms 7,5, ואחלצה צוררי, it means: “I stripped my oppressors, (removed their protective clothing)” The author quotes another example or two of the same phenomenon.
+
+Verse 22
+
+או שבור, “or broken;” just as we have the expression שבר יד, and ,שבר רגל, describing a broken hand or a broken foot as examples of blemishes seen by all, so here too it describes a very visible blemish due to a fracture of a bone, that is not visible to all.
+חרוץ, “maimed,” as in Kings I 20,40: משפטך אתה חרצת, “you yourself have released (decreed) it.”
+יבלת, scabbed;
+
+Verse 23
+
+[the next four verses detail certain blemishes which disqualify animals as sacrifices to be offered on the altar, regardless of whether they have been donated by Israelites or gentiles; in the case of the latter, they must not even be accepted by the Temple treasury as gifts while still alive so that they could be sold by him and the proceeds be used for repairs of the Temple. The Torah also forbids us to inflict these kinds of blemishes on human beings deliberately; one of the most serious such disfigurations would be castrating either animals or human beings. I have just summarized this. Ed.]
+
+Verse 24
+
+
+The author raises the question of whether the prophet Samuel castrated Agag, King of the Amalekites before killing him, and concludes that under the circumstances prevailing that was justified. (Samuel I 7,9, Midrash Shmuel on the subject. Ed.) Apparently, the prohibition was limited to when it was done inside the boundaries of the Land of Israel, as stated in verse 24.
+
+Verse 25
+
+
+
+Verse 26
+
+
+
+Verse 27
+
+.שור או כשב או עז, “a bullock or sheep or goat;” these animals are named here to remind us that animals that have the distinctive features making them pure, as stated in Leviticus chapter eleven, are nonetheless not fit as sacrifices if they are the product of crossbreeding, or even if they were born by caesarean birth as opposed to being born from the womb. This is why the Torah added the words: כי יולד, “when born.” The word עז in our verse but not in verse 28, is meant to exclude any animal that does not look like its mother, i.e. cannot easily be identified as the same species though we witnessed by which animal it had been born. Such animals do not qualify for ritual slaughter. (Sifra)
+כי יולד, the restriction of caesarean birth do not apply to human beings, who are treated in all respects as if born normally. [The exception being that a son born by caesarean incision does not qualify as “firstborn,” the father not having to redeem such a son. Ed.] Such a person born by caesarean incision may offer an animal as a sacrifice, just like a person born from the womb.
+והיה שבעת ימים, “it has to remain for a period of seven days;” these seven days are applicable to an animal after it had gone through five or nine full months of pregnancy (depending on what species it is) in its mother’s womb; if it had been born prematurely, or we have reason to think so, seven days are not enough before it qualifies as a potential sacrifice. Another explanation, any person or animal who emerges from a place of spiritual impurity requires seven days of separation before it can enter the Divine compound, like a leper or one who had been in contact with a corpse. תחת אמו, “with its mother;” the legislation does not apply to an orphaned calf. This commandment had already been written in Parshat Mishpatim, 22,29, in connection with the firstborn.
+ומיום השמיני, “and commencing on the eighth day of its life;” in the same legislation in Mishpatim, the version is slightly different, i.e. “on the eighth day,” instead of “from the eighth day onward.” The reason is that there the Torah speaks of the first day of its life that that animal is subject to be sanctified as being a sacrificial animal.
+ירצה לקרבן, “it becomes welcome as a sacrificial offering;” after the Torah dealt with offerings that are not welcome due to certain circumstances, it now deals with those that are welcome, for instance from the eighth day onwards of the life of the animal in question.
+
+Verse 28
+
+, ושור, “and a bullock,” as opposed to a free roaming mammal;
+או שה, “or a lamb,” as opposed to a bird.
+אותו ואת בנו, the older generation, i.e. the “mother” or “father;” the one who models itself after the mother, i.e. a female calf. This would exclude a male lamb. According to Rashi, slaughtering a male animal and its male offspring on the same day is not prohibited. Let us agree that there is no penalty of lashes for slaughtering both “father” and “son” on the same day, nonetheless there is a prohibition to do so. This has been spelled out in the Talmud tractate Chulin, folio 79. [Rabbi Chavell, in his annotations, shows that later authorities are all agreed on this. Ed.]
+
+Verse 29
+
+
+
+Verse 30
+
+
+
+Verse 31
+
+ועשיתם אותם, אני ה, “you will carry them out, I am The Lord.” G-d uses this expression when He wants to impress the reader with the fact that He examines our minds and hearts. Here it is treated as separate.
+
+Verse 32
+
+
+
+Verse 33
+
+
+
+Chapter 23
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+
+
+Verse 2
+
+דבר אל בני ישראל, “speak to the Children of Israel;” this is a call for them to assemble in order to hear what he has to say to them. Once they had assembled, the Torah tells Moses what he is to say to them, ואמרת אליהם, and say to them: אלה הם מועדי, “these are My appointed seasons.” The verse speaks of the Sabbath. The plural mode in the word מועדי, is used, as there are so many Sabbaths every year. (Ibn Ezra)
+
+Verse 3
+
+בכל מושבותיכם, “in all your dwellings.” The Sabbath laws apply regardless of whether you are in the Holy Land or in exile. Up to now the Torah had dealt with different kinds of vows made by people, resulting in those being offered as animal sacrifices on the altar in the Temple. On those days everybody is required to offer sacrifices in the Temple regardless of having vowed to do so or not. It also describes the type of work that must not be performed on these festivals.
+
+Verse 4
+
+
+
+Verse 5
+
+בין הערבים, פסח, “at dusk, a Passover;” on the eve of the first day of Passover. The afternoon of the fourteenth and the night of the fifteenth of that month are called “Passover.” The reason is that during that time the people were busy slaughtering and consuming the meat of the Passover offering. The remaining days of that festival are called: חג המצות, “the festival of the unleavened bread.”
+
+Verse 6
+
+שבעת ימים מצות תאכלו, “you will eat unleavened bread for seven days.” The unleavened bread a person eats during those seven days are accounted as his fulfilling this commandment on Passover, the exception are the thanksgiving offerings, part of which are chametz, leavened bread, and mostly unleavened wafers which may not be offered on these days.
+
+Verse 7
+
+
+
+Verse 8
+
+
+
+Verse 9
+
+
+
+Verse 10
+
+...
+ראשית קצירכם, “the first fruit of your harvest;” it would not be good manners to eat of this harvest before your bringing a gift to the Lord acknowledging His share in your successful harvest.
+
+Verse 11
+
+ממחרת השבת, “on the day following the first day of Passover.” We have one verse in which we are commanded to eat unleavened bread for seven days (here), and another in which we are commanded to eat leavened bread during six days. (Deuteronomy 16,8) How do we reconcile these two verses? During years when you are unable to eat from last year’s harvest (because there is none left) after the sh’mittah year, you are allowed to eat from the new harvest during the last 6 days of this festival. How do we fulfill the commandment of “on the day following the Sabbath?” We understand the word Sabbath here as the first day of the festival. (If we were to wait until after the whole of the festival has elapsed, we would have ignored the commandment contained in this verse. Annotation by Rabbi Chavell)
+
+Verse 12
+
+
+
+Verse 13
+
+ומנחתו שני עשרונים סלת, and its gift offering, “two tenths of fine flour, etc.;” this was double the usual amount as it was the first offering presented from the new harvest. The additional amount of flour presented symbolizes that the harvest has been bountiful. Seeing that we do not find a parallel when it comes to the number of sheep offered on this occasion in addition to the breads, we mention in our mussaph prayers on the festival the respective components of each of these offerings. Some opinions hold that the one “tenth” of fine flour mentioned here was the “omer,” and they bring as proof that the libation accompanying that offering was not commensurate with the two “tenths” of fine flour mentioned here. This argument is without merit, as the two “tenths” mentioned here were wheat flour, whereas the “omer” consisted of barley. The expression סלת for finely ground flour is used exclusively with flour made from wheat.
+ונסכה יין רביעית ההין, “and its accompanying libation, one tenth of a measure known as hin, of wine." Rabbi Eliezer, in the Talmud, tractate Menachot folio 89, points out that the Torah uses the feminine mode for the word ונסכה, i.e. it is read as if it had been spelled with the masculine pronoun ending ו, although spelled with feminine ending ה. What is the reason for this strange phenomenon? The libation appropriate for a gift offering, known as מנחה in Hebrew is appropriately referred to in the feminine mode, seeing that the noun מנחה, gift offering, is a feminine noun. On the other hand, normally the libation accompanying the gift offering consists of oil, whereas here it consists of wine, יין. It is therefore not correct to speak of a doubling of the libation, as only the amount of flour has been doubled. Moreover, libations consisting of oil were a later addition in the history of the Jewish people in the desert, having been introduced only in Numbers chapter 28.
+ומנחתו ושני עשרונים, ונסכו יין, “and its gift offering, two tenths of fine flour and its libation, wine. Seeing that this libation was not introduced until Numbers 28, the reference to it here is grammatically ambiguous; we find another example of such an ambiguity in verse 18 of our chapter: שבעת כבשים ופר אחד ואילים שנים, “seven male sheep and one bullock and two rams,” which are offered on account of the two loaves representing the firstling fruit of the new wheat harvest on the festival of Shavuot; The Torah adds here: “and their respective gift offerings and libations,” (without spelling out what the latter consisted of.) All the other sacrifices offered on the festivals, mentioned here without specifics, are all described in the feminine mode, as only in Numbers chapter 28 they are considered as complete, as there the libations accompanying them are spelled out.
+
+Verse 14
+
+ולחם, “and the bread etc;” five species of grain when baked, qualify for the description “bread,” they are the ones that are liable to become chametz, leavened, if their dough are allowed to rise. “Baked dough” made from kitniyot, legumes, such as rice, maize, lentils, etc., the dough of which does not become leavened, does not qualify for the definition “bread” in the Torah. (Sifra)
+
+Verse 15
+
+וספרתם לכם ממחרת השבת, “you will begin to count for yourselves, commencing with the day after the first day of Passover;” seeing that there are seven weeks between the beginning of the barley harvest and the beginning of the wheat harvest, periods when the commandment of sh’mittah is observed in earnest, the prophet (Jeremiah, 5,24) has already categorized them as: שבועות חוקת קציר ישמר לנו, “Who keeps for our benefit the weeks appointed for the harvest.”Rashi comments: “seven weeks during which G-d decreed for us two laws, that of the harvesting of the “omer and the presentation of the first two loaves of the new wheat harvest.” He sees to it that we can harvest these two species at the appropriate time of the year. Seeing that such an important part of our livelihood depends on these two harvests, it is easy to understand that the Torah expects us to keep the counting of these days meticulously. Just as we have to count days we also have to count weeks, at the end of which period we sanctify the fiftieth day after completing the seventh week. We have to do the same concerning counting for the sh’mittah year and the arrival of the yovel year. The emphasis of this whole paragraph is on the respective concepts of sh’mittah and yovel. There are a total of 49 potential disasters that the Torah warns us of if we fail to observe these two basic positive commandments. [Thenumber 49 symbolizes the number of days we fail to assimilate the social significance of those laws to ensure that no extremes of rich and poor will become permanent features in our land. [My choice of words. Ed.]
+ממחרת השבת, if you were to say that these words refer to the day following the original Sabbath, i.e. the first day of the week, you would on occasion have to count fifty two days instead of forty nine days or even fifty four days or fifty six days, neither less nor more. This is why the first day of Passover cannot occur on either: Monday, Wednesday or Friday. How then could I fulfill the commandment implied in the words “on the day following the Sabbath?” This can only be done by understanding the word שבת, as referring to the first day of the festival.
+
+Verse 16
+
+תספרו חמשים יום, “you shall count fifty days.” We need to recite a blessing when we count, as opposed to when a woman after her period counts seven days of her purification days. Her count is not necessarily consecutive, as if she sees a drop of blood that emanated from her vagina, this invalidates the count. She has no control over this, whereas we, who are counting consecutive days, know beforehand that the sun rises every day consecutively. (Compare commentary of our author on Leviticus 15,28)
+
+Verse 17
+
+
+
+Verse 18
+
+על הלחם, “with the bread.”
+
+Verse 19
+
+ועשיתם שעיר עזים, “you shall offer one he-goat;” Rashi comments here: I might have thought that the seven male sheep and the male goat mentioned here are the same as those mentioned in Numbers 28,27. However, when you look at the bullocks and rams, you will note that they are not identical, as there we read about two bullocks and one ram. Furthermore, if you were to assume that what is described here is part of the mussaph offerings presented on the festivals, what is the difference between the offering presented on Shavuot from the ones recorded in Parshat Pinchas?
+ושני כבשים בני שנה, and two male sheep less than a year old. Rabbi Shimon, quoted by Sifra, asks for what sin these two sheep are supposed to atone? He answers that they are to atone for inadvertent ritual impurity incurred in the Temple or in connection with the service in the Temple. He adds that if the first animal achieved atonement, what was the second one in aid of? He answers that it would atone for additional impurity incurred in the interval. He adds that according to strict rules such offerings should therefore be offered around the clock, as inadvertent impurity is liable to occur at any moment; however, G-d decided to save His people the additional expense. [There appears to be a misprint somewhere because while the male goats served for atonement, the male sheep were peace offerings, not sin offerings. The interested reader who finds this “misprint” incredible, is referred to Malbim’s commentary on this Sifra. Ed.]
+
+Verse 20
+
+והניף הכהן אותם, “the priest will wave them;” the two sheep for the Shavuot festival.
+על לחם הבכורים, “with the bread of the first fruit of the wheat harvest;”
+על שני כבשים, “with the two lambs.” Not literally with, but “next to,” as explained by the Talmud in tractate Menachot folio 62.
+קדש יהיה לה' לכהן, it will be holy to the Lord;” for the priest.” No non priest may eat any parts of them, as opposed to other types of peace offerings.
+
+Verse 21
+
+וקראתם בעצם היום הזה מקרא קדש, “and you will proclaim a holy convocation on this very day.” The reason why the Torah does not spell out in which month this occurs, and on what date of this month, as it does with all the other festivals, is if it had done so, the people would not have been counting weeks and days, but would simply have contented themselves with observing the festival on its appropriate date. The counting was an important feature of these weeks as we have pointed out on verse 15. Nowadays, in the absence of the Temple, our being in exile, and having adopted (therefore?) a permanent calendar, the fiftieth day after the first day of Passover automatically occurs on the same date in the month of Sivan, the date on which the Ten Commandments (orally) were given to the Jewish people at Mount Sinai. In light of the fact that the counting is no longer associated with the date of Shavuot as that date was known, the benediction commencing with שהחיינו וקימנו לזמן הזה, “Who has kept us alive and well until this point in time,” is not recited.
+
+Verse 22
+
+ובקוצרכם את קציר ארצכם, “when you reap the harvests of your land, etc.;” seeing that the principal period of harvesting commences around the time of Shavuot, the Torah chose to speak of this season first, when discussing special laws of benefit to the poor connected with the act of collecting the harvest. Examples are: leaving a corner of the field uncut for the poor to help themselves, and not gleaning anything the reapers had dropped by mistake. (B’chor shor)
+
+Verse 23
+
+וידבר ה' אל משה, “the Lord spoke to Moses;” The reason why this sequence has been interrupted by telling us that G-d addressed Moses separately about the days of New Year and the Day of Atonement, something He had not done when speaking about Shavuot, is because each one of those festivals is something in its own right, as distinct from Shavuot which is inextricably linked to Passover as the reaping of the beginning of the barley harvest begins on the second day of Passover and the counting of the seven weeks links Passover to Shavuot.
+
+Verse 24
+
+באחד לחדש השביעי, “on the first day of the seventh month, etc.” you observe a festival, שבתון on the first day of that month and it occurs on a Sabbath, you are to observe a symbolic act as the substitute for blowing the shofar, called here זכרון תרועה, in accordance with the rules established by our sages. On account of this absence of blowing the shofar on the Sabbath, the sages added the extra words יום זכרון תרועה, in the relevant portions of the principal prayer known as עמידה, the prayer to be recited while standing. In the portion known as Pinchas, where all the sacrifices offered especially on the festivals are listed in detail, the word: זכרון, “in memory of,” is missing, the Torah describing that day only as יום תרועה, “the day on which the t’ruah sound of the shofar is to be blown. (Numbers 29,1) In other words, in regular years when that date does not occur on a Sabbath, the shofar is to be blown. The day is referred to in our relevant prayers as yom hazikaron, a day of remembrance, the means of that remembrance, the shofar not being stated. The purpose of the blowing of the shofar in all parts of the world, regardless of whether we are in exile, is to bring ourselves to favourable consideration by the Creator, Who, on that day decides which of us are going to survive the year about to commence. Moses was instructed about such a concept already when told to make two trumpets for himself in Numbers 10,9.
+
+Verse 25
+
+
+
+Verse 26
+
+
+
+Verse 27
+
+אך בעשור לחודש, “however on the tenth of that month, etc.” whenever the Torah uses the word: אך, it is meant to exclude something. All of the other festivals have been called: מקראי קודש, “holy convocations;” this implies that on these days we would celebrate also by eating more and better food, drink some wine, etc.; and generally enjoy pleasurable experiences. This day has been called מקרא קודש, the last letter being missing. The Day of Atonement is an exception to all this. Instead of a day of enjoyment, we are to deliberately cause ourselves discomfort, i.e. ועניתם את נפשותיכם. Prior to the giving of the first set of Tablets which Moses had smashed, the Torah had written that the elite of the people when accompanying Moses before he ascended the Mountain to receive them, had “seen” G-d, had eaten and drunk,” (Exodus 24,11). It was stated there that G-d had not punished them for this on that occasion, a clear indication that they had deserved to be punished. As a consequence, when they made a golden calf and treated it as a deity and danced around it and ate and drank, the result was that at least some ended up treating that calf as a deity by prostrating themselves in front of it. (Exodus 32,6) As part of the atonement, a process completed on the 10th of Tishrey when Moses brought them the second set of Tablets, eating and drinking was absolutely prohibited on that day.
+
+Verse 28
+
+וכל מלאכה לא תעשו, “and you must not perform any manner of constructive work on that day.” This day is equal to an ordinary Sabbath, when all manner of constructive work is also prohibited. Careful examination of the text will show that on all other festivals the work prohibition is termed מלאכת עבודה, i.e. the kind of work reflecting our dependence on physical, demeaning labour, in order to earn our livelihood. On those days we are allowed to perform most of the kind of work necessary to prepare our food. (verse 7 here and Exodus 12,16). The penalty for violating the work prohibition on the Day of Atonement is spelled out in verse 30, והאבדתי את הנפש ההיא מקרב עמה, “I will destroy that soul from membership among its people.”
+
+Verse 29
+
+כי כל הנפש אשר לא תעונה, “for every person (soul) that does not afflict itself;” we have heard the warning previously; now we hear the penalty for disobedience, what is it? ונכרתה, “it will be cut off from the future of its people.” (Sifra)
+
+Verse 30
+
+
+
+Verse 31
+
+כל מלאכה לא תעשו, “you must not perform any activity defined as m’lachah; the Torah has repeated this on account of what follows, i.e. חוקת עולם לדורותיכם, “a permanent statute throughout your generations.”
+
+Verse 32
+
+שבת שבתון הוא, “it is written (spelled) as is and read as is, as I explained on Leviticus 16,31. [The word שבת is generally in the feminine mode and we would have expected the pronoun referring to it as being spelled in accordance with that, i.e. היא. Compare how it is treated in the commentaries and in the Talmud. Ed.]
+ועניתם את נפשותיכם התשעה לחדש בערב, “you are to afflict yourselves on the ninth of the month in the evening;” our sages query how it is that we have to afflict ourselves on the day before the Day of Atonement, when the date set by the Torah for that day it the tenth? They conclude that what is meant here is that by eating and drinking on the day prior to the Day of Atonement we can fulfill the “festive” aspect of that day, which is after all part of the list of festivals. (Talmud Rosh Hashana, folio 9) they go as far as to state that treating the ninth day of that month as a festival, is equivalent having afflicted oneself with total abstention from food and drink on the tent of that month. On the other hand, when the Torah demands of us to eat matzot in the evening of the 14th15th of Nissan, Exodus 12,18) we cannot interpret that line in a similar manner, as in our verse the eating of food on the ninth day is linked to afflicting oneself, something that is not so in connection with Passover.
+בתשעה לחדש בערב, it is clear from the cantillation marks, i.e. the strongly dividing mark etnachta on the previous word: לנפשותיכם, makes it clear that the word בתשעה introduces a new subject, nothing to do with the words ועניתם את נפשותיכם. It clearly refers to the evening following part of the shabbat which lasts until the evening following.
+מערב עד ערב, “from this verse we have proof that the day follows the night.
+תשבתו, “you will observe spiritual rest; the entire period is part of the Day of Atonement, which is a festival so that you have to add a little time extra at its beginning and at its official ending.
+שבתכם, “your Sabbaths.” This day has been given to the people of Israel as a Sabbath and as a holy convocation. It says: 'שבת לה, “as a Sabbath for the Lord,” and it also said: “a special Sabbath for you.” The former is the Sabbath on which G-d had rested from the creation. The יום השביעי part of the Sabbath is never referred to as being Israel’s, it is always the Lord’s
+
+Verse 33
+
+
+
+Verse 34
+
+
+
+Verse 35
+
+
+
+Verse 36
+
+עצרת היא, “it is a day of special assembly;” this is a parable describing a king whose children came to visit him for the first time; at that time the king said to them: “when are you going to visit me again?” they said to him: “in about a couple of months. ”Thereupon the king took his leave of them. When the children came again to see their father the king, he asked again when they would come to see him again. When they said that they would come again in about four months, the king again thanked them for their visit and bid them farewell. When this story repeated itself a third time and on that occasion the children told him that they would not visit him again until after about seven months, the king begged them to delay their departure for at least one additional day. They agreed and did so. He gave them a special blessing for having spent the extra time with him. This parable is supposed to explain why there is no day called עצרת after Passover and after Shavuot, but only after Sukkot, seeing that it is over six months until the next Passover. The reason there is no pilgrimage festival during the winter is to save the people having to travel to Jerusalem during the inclement winter months.
+
+Verse 37
+
+אלה מועדי, “these are the appointed seasons, etc,” the reason why the Torah had to repeat this once more is because we do not find the verse והקרבתם אשה, “you are to present a fire offering” in connection with the offerings on the festival of Shavuot, (called Atzeret by the Torah). This verse is a reminder that it applies to all the festivals. The Torah had also not used that expression in connection with the Sabbath, at the beginning of the chapter dealing with the festivals. This is why in verse 38 it specifically exempts the Sabbath from this commandment.
+להקריב אשה לה' עולה ומנחה זבח ונסכים, “to bring an offering made by fire unto the Lord; a burnt offering and a mealoffering a sacrifice and libations ;” on all the מועדים, these four categories of offerings are to be presented; the expression זבח applies to meat offerings parts of which are to be consumed by the priests, who are allowed to eat parts of the communal sin offerings offered on these festivals.
+
+Verse 38
+
+
+
+Verse 39
+
+אך בחמשה עשר יום, “but on the fifteenth day, etc.” the word אך, as usual, is meant to exclude something;” in this instance it refers to the fact that the Passover which must be eaten on the night of the 14th to the fifteenth of Nissan does not require the owners of these animals to spend an additional night in Jerusalem, seeing that the whole offering had already been consumed. The reason for this relaxation of the Torah’s standards is that the farmers are preoccupied with harvesting the barley in their fields at that time. The same is true on the festival of Shavuot. which occurs during the period of the wheat harvest. However on the fifteenth day of Tishrey, when all the harvests of the fields had already been brought into the barns, the pilgrims are required to rejoice for eight days in Jerusalem. (B’chor shor)
+
+Verse 40
+
+ביום הראשון, “on the first day, etc.; ”how can this day be described as the ‘first’ day seeing it is the fifteenth of the month? According to a well known Midrash, this is a hint that the count of our sins committed after the Day of Atonement on the tenth of the month, had been suspended until that day. Seeing that most people had been preoccupied with preparing for the festival of Sukkot during these four days, if inadvertent sins had been committed, they are “overlooked” on those days but from now on they will be counted.
+פרי עץ הדר, “both from the type of trees that produce fruit and from those which are pleasant to look at and which provide pleasant fragrance.” They are all to be tied together into one bunch. The moral lesson of this instruction is that both the pious people and those less pious but generally observant, are to join in carrying out G-d’s will.
+ושמחתם שבעת ימים, “you are to rejoice for seven consecutive days.” The reason for this is that each day is to be considered as a festival in its own right. The fact that the number of sacrifices offered during these days vary, is proof of this, compared with the offerings on the seven days of Passover.
+
+Verse 41
+
+
+
+Verse 42
+
+בסוכות תשבו שבעות ימים, “you are to dwell in huts for seven days.” This is to remind us that in the desert our forefathers relied on the clouds of G-d’s glory to protect them against nature and its inclemency, instead of relying on a man made roof. (Talmud Sukkah folio 11)
+כל האזרח בישראל ישבו בסוכות, “all homeborn Israelites are to dwell in such huts.” The Torah did not need to remind the convert to do so as that was the only “home” he knew, not having one to move out of. Homeborn Israelites, however, who owned not only one house, but palaces and summer and winter homes, are commanded to vacate those during seven days of this festival. In light of the fact that the season of this festival was to be immediately after ingathering of all the harvests had been completed, the farmers were reminded by this symbolic act not to feel secure that no harm could befall them during the six months until Passover, i.e. that they had to rely on the Lord’s goodwill on a daily basis. By complying with the instructions to move out of their homes for seven days, these Israelites demonstrated their faith in the Lord, and their loyalty to His Torah. There is no more practical gesture that they could make of the fact that they did not take credit for their successful farming methods, but gave credit to the Lord’s benevolent supervision of nature for their benefit.
+
+Verse 43
+
+
+
+Verse 44
+
+
+
+Chapter 24
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+
+
+Verse 2
+
+ויקחו אליך שמן זית, “that they will bring you olive oil;” the reason that this verse, i.e. the instructions it contains, was repeated is that in this Book of the five Books of Moses, the one containing most of the instructions connected with the service of the priests in the Temple, was that the time had come to list in the appropriate order the rules surrounding the function of the Lampstand, Menorah, and the Table, which are interdependent on one another. The incense had already been dealt with at length in Leviticus chapter 17,12-13. By rights we could have expected to read about the presentation of the showbreads before reading about the function of the Menorah which was not a sacrificial act, and was subservient to the presentation of the show breads as had been made plain by the words: ואת המנורה נוכח השלחן, “and the Lampstand opposite the Table,” (Exodus 26,35). The reason that the Torah did not write matters in that order was that it wanted to write the report about the blasphemer next to the portion of the showbreads, as Rashi has explained. Rashi quoted a sage as saying that the blasphemer had made fun of the showbreads ridiculing a law that offered the Lord bread that was on occasion a whole week old, as these breads were only exchanged for new ones every Sabbath.
+להעלות נר תמיד, “to kindle a lamp to burn continually;” it was kept burning also on the Sabbath, and even if it had become ritually contaminated.
+
+Verse 3
+
+מחוץ לפרוכת העדות באהל מועד, “outside of the curtain of testimony of the tent of Meeting.” The wording is to teach that the position of the Menorah inside the Sanctuary was relatively closer to the dividing curtain than to the entrance of the Sanctuary.
+יערוך אותו, “he is to arrange it.” (the olive oil)
+
+Verse 4
+
+על המנורה הטהורה, “upon the pure Menorah according to Rashi, as he understood the Sifra, seeing that the priest kindling the lamps on the Menorah did so without using tools such as matches, etc., it was important to make certain that no material was used that could potentially confer ritual impurity on the lampstand which was made of metal and therefore liable to such contamination.
+לפני ה׳, “before the Lord;” the fire was not to be lit outside the Sanctuary and then to be transferred to the wicks in the oil on the lampstand.
+
+Verse 5
+
+שתים עשרה חלות, “twelve loaves,” corresponding to the number of the tribes. (Ibn Ezra) They are the loaves known as “showbreads.”
+החלה האחת, “the one loaf;” the kneading, making the dough, etc., should be a single operation.
+
+Verse 6
+
+[ושמת אותם, “you shall place them;” the sudden switch to the plural mode, אותם, ”them,” means that when it came to baking, 2 loaves each were put in the oven at one time. (Sifra) Ed.] ושמת אותם, there were three sets of moulds; one to shape them when they were dough; one while the dough was in the oven; and the third when they were finished baking to arrange them in such a manner that they would not deteriorate between one Sabbath and the next. (Sifra) שתים מערכות, “two rows;” one at each end of the Table;
+שש מערכות על השלחן הטהור, “six rows upon the pure Table;” six loaves would be placed one above the other on either side of the Table the sides of the loaves would face the side of the Table, as I have explained in Exodus 25,29.
+
+Verse 7
+
+ונתת על המערכת, “you are to place next to each row, which were one handbreadth apart, frankincense.” The word על here is to be understood as in Number 2,20 עליו where it mans “next to” (the next tribe).
+על המערכת, “frankincense would be placed on the surface of the table next to each row.”[The reader will find an illustration at the end of the last volume. Ed.
+והיתה ללחם אזכרתה, ”so that the frankincense may serve the loaves as a symbol of it.” Rabbi Shimon states that the expression אזכרה here, as well as in Leviticus 2,2, refers to the partial fistful used. In other words, two partial fistfuls of frankincense were required, one for each row of six showbreads.
+
+Verse 8
+
+ביום השבת, ביום השבת, “Every Sabbath day;” while new breads were replacing last week’s breads, the frankincense of last week’s breads was burned up at the end of the week on the Sabbath.
+יערכנו, “he shall arrange it;” the subject is the showbreads, not the branches described in Exodus 25,32. The latter were not arranged on the Sabbath but on the Sabbath eve. All the furnishings in the Tabernacle were arranged so that their length was parallel to the long walls of the structure, with the exception of the Holy Ark.
+
+Verse 9
+
+
+
+Verse 10
+
+ויצא בן אשה ישראלית, “the son of an Israelite woman went out, (became involved in a serious argument) the word יצא is used in this sense also in Numbers 16,27: יצאו נצבים, “they went out in a challenging posture;” as well as in Proverbs 25,8: אל תצא לריב מהר, “do not be in a hurry to start a quarrel; this is the plain meaning of the line. Rashi on this line comments that this man whose father was an Egyptian, went to pitch his tent among the tents of the tribe of Dan, his mother’s tribe, as stated by the Torah. The Danites rejected him as tribal allegiance is based on the father and not on the mother. When he came to Moses complaining, the court upheld the opinion of the Danites. As a result of being frustrated, he cursed the G-d Who had so discriminated against him. The Torah had ruled that the tribes should each take up positions in camp in the vicinity of their respective tribal flags. Numbers 2,2. This man then ridiculed a religion which sees fit to offer its G-d bread that had been baked as long ago as a whole week ago, instead of presenting Him daily with fresh bread. This had come to his attention on a Sabbath. According to tradition, the incident with the blasphemer and that with the person who had collected kindling on the Sabbath occurred about the same time. This seems difficult to accept as the incident with the person collecting firewood on the Sabbath occurred in the first year of the Israelites’ wandering. Any incident involving tribal allegiance could not have happened until the second year when the order in which the Israelites took up their positions relative to the Tabernacle in their midst was established during the second month of the second year.
+והוא בן איש מצרי, “and he was the son of an Egyptian man.” Even though at that time he was not yet a bastard as that law had not yet been publicized, he was adjudged as guilty of blasphemy by the court as if he were a bastard. [He would be guilty of violating one of the seven Noachide Commandments that apply universally, bastard or no bastard. (law #2) Ed.]
+בתוך בני ישראל, according to Rashi, who quotes Torat Kohanim, these words mean that he had converted to Judaism. [Why he should, seeing that his mother was Jewish, I fail to understand. Ed.] If you were to ask that we read in Exodus, Rashi explained on the words: וירא כי אין איש, that Moses had made sure that no one had seen him killing the Egyptian (Exodus 2,12), that these words mean that Moses foresaw in a prophetic vision that no potential descendant of that Egyptian would ever convert to Judaism, we would have to assume that at that moment this man’s mother was already pregnant with him. What Moses had seen prophetically was that in the future no one would ever descend from this man who had the potential to convert to Judaism. Hence by killing him, he had not committed any ethical crime, especially seeing that the man had murdered a Jew. Furthermore, there is nothing in our scriptures that asks us to look for extenuating circumstances before executing a blasphemer. At this point, our author raises the question about the relevancy of conversion, seeing that any child born by a Jewish mother, be the father a slave or a pagan, is automatically Jewish from birth. The only answer to this question could be that this automatic Judaism came into force only after the Torah had been given at Mount Sinai. Seeing that this man had been sired at least about 60 years prior to the giving of the Torah, he had not qualified as a Jew automatically, but of course could have converted at any time. [Remember he had been sired before Moses even escaped to Midian. Ed.] Due to these considerations this blasphemer had been a convert. A different approach to the scenario involved here: the plain meaning of the words: בתוך בני ישראל, the blasphemer had been an Egyptian, due to his father having been an Egyptian; going back to the times when the Israelites had still been enslaved. After the Exodus, he converted and therefore ever since he was viewed as a Jew due to his mother having been a Jewess. He felt that seeing he had no father who also having been a Jew belonged to one of the tribes, he was entitled to belong at least to his mother’s tribe.
+
+Verse 11
+
+ויקוב בן האשה הישראלית ויקלל, “the son of the Israelite woman blasphemed the Name and cursed;” as a result of the quarrel he began to curse;
+ויקוב, ויקלל, the Torah does not use the expression ויברך which is traditionally used someone who curses the name of G-d, as for instance in Kings I 21,13, where Navot had been accused (falsely) of cursing the King and G-d, in order for the King to have a pretext to have him executed for not selling him his vineyard. It uses the word: ויקלל, instead, which refers to someone cursing without using the tetragram as the Lord’s name, a sin not punishable by the death penalty. (Sifra)
+את השם ויקלל, he also used the tetragram when cursing. Rabbi Yossi is on record as saying that the Egyptians who were ritually contaminated, also conferred their ritual contamination on the Israelites. His colleagues claimed that the wife of Neriah, a grandson of Dan, was Shlomit, daughter of Divri, and that during the night following the day when Moses slew the Egyptian who was one of the supervisors checking the number of bricks delivered by the Jewish slaves, raped her. History has a way of repeating itself. According to Tanchuma, Emor 24 as well as Vayikra Rabbah 32,4 when the quarrel broke out, and a Jewish man accused this man to be a bastard, this man asked the accuser where his father had been on the night when he claimed that his mother had been raped. The night he referred to was the night when his mother had supposedly been raped by an Egyptian overseer, who had used a pretext to send her husband on an errant. The reason why this blasphemer used the tetragram when cursing G-d, was that he had overheard how Moses had used that name as a means to kill his father. [I do not follow this, because if he had not been born yet, and his mother became pregnant with him as a result of the rape, how could he have overheard Moses? Ed.][This is why the Torah in Exodus 2,14 has one of the two quarrelling Israelites ask Moses whether he planned to kill him also by using the tetragram to curse him, so that he would fall dead. (הלהרגני אתה אומר: “are you going to utter a word which will kill me?”)]
+למטה דן, “from the tribe of Dan.” He had been the one causing the quarrel. He had justified his action by saying that he would now rectify an injustice done to him. This may also have been hinted at when in Genesis 49,16, according to the Talmud in Pessachim folio 4, Yaakov on his deathbed, using prophetic vision had said דן ידין עמו, “Dan will judge his people.”
+
+Verse 12
+
+ויניחהו במשמר, “they placed him in custody;” according to Rashi, they did not place the man who had collected kindling on the Sabbath in the same cell with him, although both incidents occurred at about the same time. If you were to ask that Rashi had interpreted the word ויצא, “he went out,” in Leviticus 24,10 by quoting Rabbi Levi who said that “he left his world,” whereas Rabbi Berechyah is quoted as saying that the word means that this blasphemer first ridiculed the legislation about the showbreads (as we already explained), something that could not have occurred until the second year when the Tabernacle was functioning, whereas the person collecting the kindling had done so on the second Sabbath, i.e. at Marah, or at the latest immediately after the giving of the Torah only 49 days after the Exodus in the first year, even before the Torah had given, so how could they possibly have been placed in the same cell as that person had long since been executed? (see Rashi on Parshat S’hlach lecha) We are therefore forced to answer that the tribes had taken up positions in the desert in accordance with the sequence in which Yaakov had blessed them, already before there had been any mention of the erecting of a Tabernacle, so that the incident with the blasphemer could have occurred much earlier than the impression given in our portion. We have explained repeatedly that the author of the Torah did not feel restrained to report events in their chronological sequence. The blasphemer ridiculed the legislation of the showbreads as soon as it was taught, though the Tabernacle had not even been built yet. [he was not driven to do so because he had been refused to put up his tent with the Danites. Ed]
+לפרוש להם על פי ה, ”in order to receive instructions from the Lord how to proceed.” They assumed that the sinner had to be stoned to death as is evident from Leviticus 20,9. If stoning is the penalty for cursing one’s parents, how could the penalty for cursing the Lord be more lenient? We have a rule that penalties cannot be based merely on our judgment, i.e. our logic, but must have been ordained from heaven.
+
+Verse 13
+
+
+
+Verse 14
+
+וסמכו, “and all who heard the curse are to place their hands, etc.;” what was the reason for this procedure which had to be performed on the bodies of all people about to be executed legally? The reason is that when judgment was passed, the witnesses on whose testimony this sentence was based had been forced during the proceedings to literally quote the words used by the blasphemer in doing so. This had made them perform this symbolic act by means of which they transferred any guilt that they had been burdened with through that to the blasphemer before the latter was executed. כל השומעים, “all who had heard it;” seeing that he would be executed by stoning due to their testimony.
+ורגמו אותו, “and they (all) have to stone him.” This was because that person had converted to Judaism. If he had not converted, he would still have been guilty of the death penalty, but, like all gentiles, he would have been executed by the sword, following the appropriate warning of what he was risking by committing that sin, and, of course by eye witnesses testifying against him. We have now heard of the penalty for blaspheming, but where did we read about the warning not to commit this sin, especially that it applies also to gentiles? It is found in Genesis 2,16-17, according to the Talmud Sanhedrin, folio 56, and the warning for a Jew is found in Exodus 22,27, “you must not curse G-d.” אותו “him,” he shall be stoned but not his clothing. (Sifra)
+
+Verse 15
+
+כי יקלל אלוקיו ונשא חטאו, “whosoever curses his G-d, shall bear the burden of his sin.” When reading this verse superficially, we gain the impression that the guilty person must simply live with the burden of his sin, i.e. that the matter is between him and his G-d, and that the human tribunal on earth is not charged with carrying out the penalty. After all, how did the court know which of his deities that person had had in mind? Not only that, but in the Torah even judges are also described simply as ‘elohim!’”
+
+Verse 16
+
+כגר כאזרח וגו, “both convert and natural born Jew, etc;” we might have expected the Torah to mention the natural born Jew first; but the Torah wanted to teach us that the convert who had been born as a pagan, and had had to overcome many obstacles to convert, is given additional credit for having made this effort by being named here before natural born Israelites.
+
+Verse 17
+
+ואיש כי יכה כל נפש אדם, “and any person who strikes another human fatally (deliberately), etc.” since the Torah had just dealt with people who started quarrels, something that may have fatal results, it reminds us once more of the seriousness of starting quarrels, the results of which are beyond one’s original intention.
+
+Verse 18
+
+
+
+Verse 19
+
+
+
+Verse 20
+
+כן ינתן בו, “so shall be done to him;” Rashi on this verse comments that the text is not to be understood literally, but what is meant is that financial compensation must be paid to the victim. This is perfectly logical, as in many instances it would be impossible to carry out the literal meaning of the text, and it would even be totally unfair, for instance, for a one eyed person to have to lose one eye if he had gouged out the eye of a person who had two good eyes with which to see. Our sages’ interpretation of this verse is therefore clearly the correct one. (Ibn Ezra) If the aggrieved party should take issue with this by arguing that he is not to blame that the person who had gouged out one of his eyes had only had a single eye, and that he insists on the literal application of this verse, he is told that the Torah was written in order to address normal situations, not exceptional situations, for if it had intended to provide in its text for every imaginable contingency, the Torah would be far too long. Moreover, even assuming after the exceptions the Torah sometimes made for a person’s financial circumstances, this would not necessarily be fair, as who knows whether a person who is poor today may not become rich next week or vice versa? The overriding consideration for compensation if a life had been taken deliberately is spelled out by the Torah when it wrote that financial compensation for taking a life is absolutely inadmissible, as who can determine the value of a person’s life in terms of money? (Numbers 35,31) Individual limbs, however, are subject to the judges’ evaluation
+
+Verse 21
+
+ומכה בהמה ישלמנה, “someone who had deliberately struck his fellow man’s animal must pay compensation.” The Torah has repeated this legislation, as originally it had used the expression: נפש, “lifeforce,” implying that the attacker had aimed at a part of the body that is most vulnerable, whereas here it did not restrict itself to when an especially vulnerable part of the animal had been struck. Compensation is payable even if the animal had not died as the result of being struck.
+
+Verse 22
+
+כגר כאזרח, “be it a convert or a natural born Israelite;” just as the Torah is concerned with the wellbeing of a natural born Jew, it is concerned with the wellbeing of a person who has converted to Judaism or to his animal. (B’chor shor)
+
+Verse 23
+
+וירגמו אותו אבן, “they stoned him to death with stones.” The use of the word אבן “stone,” in the singular mode, teaches that if one stone had been enough to kill the sinner, no more stones are to be hurled at him. (Sifra)
+ובני ישראל עשו, “and the Children of Israel had done;” from this day onwards the legislation of how to deal with people who injure others was practiced. An alternate interpretation of this line: the words: “they did,” refer not only to the last verse preceding this, but state that all the steps of the legal proceedings of carrying out an execution were performed dutifully by all the people whenever the need arose to do so.(Sifra)
+
+Chapter 25
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+בהר סיני, “at Mount Sinai.” Whenever the expression: “at Mount Sinai,” is used in the Torah, it refers to a point in time before Moses descended after his third lengthy stay on it in the month of Tishrey. In other words, the legislation described here had been revealed to Moses before the Tabernacle had been built. If these laws were recorded in the Book of Leviticus, and not in the Book of Exodus, seeing that Moses had descended the third time before events described at the end of the Book of Exodus, this is because the laws applied only after the Israelites had settled in their homeland, especially the laws governing Sh’mittah and Yovel, that are prominent in this portion; they are all laws applying also to the priests (although they were not real landowners) about whom most of the legislation in the Book of Leviticus revolves. When we consider that numerous laws were recorded in the second third and fourth Book of the Torah and repeated in the fifth Book by Moses, it is clear that laws that were not repeated by Moses in the fifth Book, must have been given to him already at Mount Sinai. The laws concerning the Sabbaths of the land in the seventh year, and the Sabbath of the land, and the freedom to be granted to the slaves, and the restoration of lands that had been sold under financial duress by their owner during a particular 50 year cycle known as yovel, belong to such categories. The laws about inheritance of the land and those that could be applied only after the Israelites had taken possession of the lands on the east Bank of the Jordan as well as a number of laws pertaining to land ownership were repeated once more. It appears therefore that if the Torah had to make a point here to emphasize that the laws had been given to Moses at Mount Sinai, we must assume that the general outline was given at Sinai to the people and the details were not revealed to them until realization of keeping them would draw near.
+
+Verse 2
+
+כי תבואו, “when you will come;” what follows will be applied after the land has been conquered, and distributed to the tribes who have settled there. If this were not so, what would be the meaning of such words as: “your vineyards, your fields,” unless the ownership of these fields and vineyards had already been established and each one of the people addressed knew the boundaries of their land?
+ושבתה הארץ, “the land is to observe a rest, ‘Sabbatical;’” seeing that we might understand this term as referring only to a prohibition not to dig in the land for treasure, not to dig irrigation canals, etc., the Torah spells out that we must not plough, put seed in the ground, nor dig for wells, either. Neither must we perform work for the betterment of orchards or vineyards, which do not need to be ploughed every year.
+שבת לה, “a Sabbath for the Lord;” the legislation is not because the land is tired after producing crops six years in a row, but the Sabbath of the land is to remind you that the land belongs to Me, though you are its tenants.
+שבת לה; Rashi understands these words as meaning: “a Sabbath in honour of My name;” what he means is that you are not to understand this law as designed to teach you how to farm efficiently by giving the land a breather every seven years, but you are to demonstrate that you observe the Lord’s commandments.
+
+Verse 3
+
+שש שנים וגו, for six consecutive years you are to sow, etc;” this verse proves once again that the Torah is not bound to relate matters in a chronological order, else it would have written this verse before the verse about abstaining from agricultural activity during the seventh year. Actually, this paragraph has already appeared in Exodus 23,10, in the chronological order that we would expect. It is only being repeated here on account of the addition of the olive groves that were omitted here.
+
+Verse 4
+
+
+
+Verse 5
+
+ואת ענבי נזזירן, “and the grapes of your undressed vine;” these are grapes which grew without any physical input by you. They correspond to what the Torah called ספיח קצירך, grain growing by itself during the seventh year of the sh’mittah cycle when you did not sow any seeds. Proof that this interpretation is correct, can be found in verse 11 in our chapter where ססיחיה and נזיריה, are mentioned side by side. Onkelos also understands לא תבצרו את נזיריה, as a prohibition to pluck those grapes.
+שבת שבתון יהיה לארץ, “it shall be a year of solemn (complete) rest for the land.” The reason for this is that the land is not in your possession during that year.” (Ibn Ezra)
+
+Verse 6
+
+והיתה שבת הארץ לכם לאכלה, “what the earth produces during that year is for all of you to serve as food.” You are not obligated to tithe any part of it, nor to set it aside for the poor, as it is not yours to distribute. Neither is what it produces to be converted into libations to be offered in the Temple. (Sifra)
+
+Verse 7
+
+
+
+Verse 8
+
+וספרת לך שבע שבתות שנים, ”you are to count for yourself 7 seven year cycles, seven times;” seeing that the Torah speaks of counting in the singular mode, i.e. by a single person, it addresses the High Court which will proclaim the start of the Jubilee year. There is no need to recite a benediction as is the case in Leviticus 23,15 when counting the omer; there two separate counts had been mentioned, days and weeks. This had been repeated also in Deuteronomy 16,9. One was meant for the individuals and one for the High Court.
+
+Verse 9
+
+תעבירו שופר בכל ארצכם, “sound the shofar throughout your land,” at all major highway junctions.
+
+Verse 10
+
+שנת החמישים שנה וקראתם דרור, “the fiftieth year, when you will proclaim freedom.” We find something similar with the Levites who retired from active service at the age of fifty, and they could not perform physical service anymore. (Numbers 8,25)
+לכל יושביה, “for all its inhabitants;” seeing that the Torah wrote: ושבתם איש אל אחוזתו, “each man of you is to return to his ancestral heritage,” it would have sounded as if women did not possess ancestral land in Israel. Therefore the Torah also had to write: לכל יושביה, to all of its inhabitants no matter which sex. According to Sifra, this meaning has been derived from the word: תשובו, [which is a repetition. Ed.] לכל יושביה, “for all its inhabitants.” This is why as soon as even when only parts of the tribes had been exiled, this law could no longer be observed.
+
+Verse 11
+
+יובל היא, “it is a Jubilee year,” the expression יובל from the root יבל “to bring home,” reflects the extraordinary function of this year, namely to release slaves and to enable them to return to their original homes. Compare the use of this root in the transitive mode in Isaiah 23,7: יובילוה רגליה, “her own feet shall carry her far off”, or Psalms 60,11: מי יובילני עיר מצור?, ”would that I be brought to the fortified city!” Compare also Isaiah 18,7: ביום ההוא יובל שי, “on that day a gift will be brought from a people far removed.”[What follows really belongs to verse 10, the author may have had his reasons why he decided to place this here. Ed.]
+לכם, “for to you Israel, exclusively.” (Ibn Ezra).
+יובל היא שנת החמישים שנה, “it, i.e. the fiftieth year is a Jubilee;” on the face of it the meaning of this line is not clear, nor why it is needed, seeing that the Torah had written the same words already in verse 10. We therefore need to understand this as follows: seeing that the Torah had written in verse 10 that we are to sanctify this year, that the meaning was that we should do so from the beginning of the year already, and that at the end of that year its special sanctity would continue for ten days until the Day of Atonement, as it is a custom to always add to, and thereby include, something secular, so that it also becomes something holy, the Torah, by repeating this line, teaches that the sanctity of that year does not extend beyond the end of its calendar year, i.e. Rosh hashanah. (Talmud, tractate Rosh Hashanah folio 8)
+
+Verse 12
+
+ מן השדה תאכלו, “you will eat from whatever the field yields on its own.” Nothing had been planted during that year, of course. The Torah promises that there will nonetheless be a harvest. However, we are not to bring that “harvest’’ home to our barns for storage., exclusively.” (Ibn Ezra).
+
+Verse 13
+
+
+
+Verse 14
+
+,וכי תמכרו ממכר, “and if you sell something to your neighbour, etc.” this includes the selling of chattels. How do we know that the law concerning overcharging does not apply to real estate transactions?The Torah continues with או קנה מיד עמיתך, אל תונו, “or you buy something from your neighbour’s hand, do not overcharge;” things that are passed from hand to hand are subject to the laws governing overcharging. Real estate which stays put, does not fall into that category.
+אל תונו איש את אחיו ,“do not cheat one another.” How does one “cheat? By selling a piece of land for more than its worth, seeing that it is going to have to be returned to the seller in the Yovel year. If it is a property that is not subject to return to its original owner in the Jubilee year, then the term “overcharging” cannot be applied, as what he had sold was not a fixed amount of harvests expected. This is the meaning of the Rabbis having said that the law of overcharging does not apply to real estate.
+
+Verse 15
+
+
+
+Verse 16
+
+
+
+Verse 17
+
+
+
+Verse 18
+
+ועשיתם את חקותי, “You will keep My laws;” this is a reference to all laws pertaining to land in the Holy Land and any laws subject to being performed only in the Holy Land as much as they apply during the sh’mittah and Yovel years.
+ואת משפטי, “and My ordinances;” for instance the prohibition to overcharge.(verse 14)
+וישבתם על הארץ לבטח, “if you do this you will live in this and securely.” Your security will be bound up with your loyalty to G-d’s Torah.
+
+Verse 19
+
+וישבתם לבטח עליה, “you will dwell safely in it.” The land itself will provide you with its strength so that your enemies cannot consume you. \compare Judges 6,3: ועלה מדין ועמלק, “and the Midianites and the Amalekites would come up (and raid them.) During serious times of hardship, they would not only raid you but would exile some of you and not leave any food for you to be able to subsist on.
+
+Verse 20
+
+
+
+Verse 21
+
+לשלש שנים, “ the three years. The three years are the sh’mittah year, the yovel year, and the year following it.
+
+Verse 22
+
+
+
+Verse 23
+
+לא תמכר לצמיתות, “do not sell with a clause to override the yovel year, i.e. for always. The expression צמיתות, means something absolute, complete separation. Compare Psalms 94,23: 'יצמיתם ה, “the Lord will destroy them utterly, (beyond chance of recovery)
+לצמיתות, the vowel under the prefix ל sometime is a chirik, not a patach as in verse 30, to show that the vowel in that verse refers to the purchaser, whereas here it refers to the seller.
+
+Verse 24
+
+גאולה תתנו לארץ, “you shall grant redemption to the land,” so that it is clear that it had not been sold but only mortgaged as a loan. (Rash’bam)
+
+Verse 25
+
+וגאל את ממכר אחיו, “he shall redeem what his brother had been forced to “sell,” i.e. his body, immediately. When referring to the seller, who had “sold his land,” because of financial distress, however, according to the (Sifra), the Torah adds a proviso, (verse 32) that the law of redemption applies only after a number of years had elapsed, as the interests of the purchaser had to be considered, seeing that he had acted in good faith.
+
+Verse 26
+
+והשיגה ידו, “and he had again become wealthy;” either because he inherited wealth, or because he found a treasure, for instance. He is not however, permitted to secure a loan in order to buy back his property with some else’s money. (Sifra)
+כדי גאולתו, “sufficient in order to redeem it.” This teaches that the redemption process cannot be exercised piecemeal.(Sifra) This would have implied that he resents the person who at the time when the seller had been in need, had bought the property from him.
+
+Verse 27
+
+
+
+Verse 28
+
+
+
+Verse 29
+
+בית מושב עיר חומה, “a dwelling house in a fortified (walled) city;” seeing that the city is walled, the land inside it clearly was not meant ever to be used for agricultural purposes. This being so, G-d did not decree that if sold it had to revert to its original owner in the Jubilee year. The Jubilee legislation refers only to land that serves as its owner’s basic source of making a livelihood. An alternate interpretation: when someone buys himself a house in a walled city, he may be presumed to have done so with the intent of keeping it permanently. Most people do not feel comfortable when living in rented homes as they are always worried that the owner would not renew their rental contract at a price they could afford. This is why the Torah adds: לא יצא ביבל, “it will not revert in the Jubilee year.” However, fields and houses bordering on fields, not walled in, are all subject to the rules of the Yovel legislation, being given back to the original owner free of any charge to be paid by that owner. Both of these kinds of property are more often leased than purchased.
+שנת ממכרו, “not the calendar year, but the year relevant to the 50 year cycle of the Yovel, which repeats itself as if moving in a circle.” (Sifra).
+ימים, “years.” In other words, a year is not complete until the sun reverts to its original position in the following year.
+
+Verse 30
+
+שנה תמימה, “a full year.” In the event that this particular year was declared a leap year, this works to the advantage of the person wishing to redeem it. (Sifra)
+בעיר אשר לא חומה, the word לא here is read as if it had been spelled לו, “his.” The reason for this is that it refers to the word ואיש at the beginning of the paragraph. At the beginning of that year that house had a wall around it. The word שדה is masculine, as we know from Leviticus 27,21 והיה השדה בצאתו, “and the field will be when it (he) goes out etc.”
+לו חומה לצמיתות, “which (city) has a wall will be his (the purchaser’s) in perpetuity.” The vowel under the letter ל in לצמיתות is a patach, just as the vowel under the letter ל under the word לקונה אותו, at the end of the verse.
+
+Verse 31
+
+ובתי החצרים, “but the houses of the villages;” seeing that such houses are frequently transformed into fields, they are considered as an integral part of the legislation as it applies to fields, which means that they revert to the original owner in the Jubilee year. (Compare Ibn Ezra in his abbreviated commentary).
+
+Verse 32
+
+גאולת עולם תהיה ללוים, “the Levites will have an unlimited period during which to redeem their houses.” It does not matter if these houses are part of a walled city or of open villages, they are never sold in perpetuity, seeing that they are the only ancestral property the Levites own in the Holy Land as spelled out clearly in Numbers 35,3: והיו הערים להם לשבת ומגרשיהם יהיו לבהמתם ולרכושם ולכל חיתם,” and they shall have these cities to dwell in, and their open land shall be for their cattle and for their substance and for all their beasts.”
+
+Verse 33
+
+ואשר יגאל מן הלוים, “and if he redeems (buys) it from the Levites;” there is a special reason why purchase is called “redemption” by the Torah. The reason is that whatever the Levites sell originated with the ordinary Israelites from whose tithes, etc., they made their living. After all, they never had an ancestral share of land in the land of Israel. This means that whatever they sell had originally been owned by Israelites. The Levite therefore feels as if he had “redeemed” it from an Israelite.
+ויצא ממכר בית, Rashi had to choose between two different interpretations of these words, and it is clear that he chose the second alternative according to which: “then the house which has been sold will revert in the Jubilee year;”
+הוא אחוזתם, a masculine mode for possession, with the vowel shuruk. We find the same construction in verse 34 אחוזת עולם הוא להם, “it is a possession in perpetuity for them.”
+
+Verse 34
+
+
+
+Verse 35
+
+ והחזקתי בו,”you shall uphold him;” in case anyone thought that he should be supported even if he had turned to criminal activities, the Torah cautions: עמך, “only as long as he conducts himself legally correct.”
+
+Verse 36
+
+אל תקח מאתו נשך ותרבית, “do not accept from him any kind of interest or increase.” This paragraph has been repeated in the Torah when the Torah worded it in the inverted form as: “do not pay the lender interest or increase.” (verse 42, speaking of food.)
+
+Verse 37
+
+את כספך, “your money;” the emphasis is on the pronoun “your; it is perfectly legal to lend money at interest when it is a gentile’s money. (A Jewish bank administering funds deposited by a gentile, may charge a Jew interest for such loans.)
+
+Verse 38
+
+אשר הוצאתי אתכם מארץ מצרים, “Who has taken you out from the land of Egypt, while you had remained strangers there.” (Compare Ibn Ezra)
+
+Verse 39
+
+
+
+Verse 40
+
+כשכיר כתושב יהיה עמך, “as a hired servant and as a settler he shall be amongst you.” Both of these categories of people are hired hands; the difference between the first and the second category is that the first category consists of people hired on a day to day basis, while “settlers” have been hired for a year at a time. You are clearly not able to demand overly taxing work from a worker hired only for a day, as he would simply not come back on the next day if he felt taken advantage of; the Torah warns you not to take advantage of the fact that the “settler” does not have that legal option. (B’chor shor)
+עד שנת היובל יעבוד עמך, “he must serve you until the Jubilee year.” When the Torah had written earlier that you must proclaim liberty for all slaves in the Jubilee year, (verse 10), that had referred to a slave sold into slavery by the court. Here the Torah speaks of people who had sold themselves into slavery because of financial stress not because they had stolen and could not repay their victim.
+
+Verse 41
+
+הוא ובניו עמו, “he and his sons with him.” Generally speaking, people who sell themselves are destitute. This being so, it may be assumed that when the father sold himself he included his children in the sale and they had agreed to this as where would they find sustenance if not with the father’s master?
+ושב אל משפחתו, “and he will return to his family;” the first part of the paragraph dealt with people sold by the court, the latter half with people who sold themselves due to financial stress.
+
+Verse 42
+
+
+
+Verse 43
+
+לא תרדה בו, “do not force him to perform unnecessary tasks just to keep him busy.” The reason why the Torah repeats this warning is because, sadly, exploitation of slaves has become a common practice.
+
+Verse 44
+
+
+
+Verse 45
+
+
+
+Verse 46
+
+
+
+Verse 47
+
+או לעקר, this term is the reverse of a תושב, settler. The literal meaning is “someone uprooted;” such people have been uprooted from their land, their people, and they are literally “rootless.”
+
+Verse 48
+
+
+
+Verse 49
+
+
+
+Verse 50
+
+משנת המכרו לו עד שנת היובל, “from the year he had sold himself to him until the Jubilee year.” This is to remind you that this slave does not leave his master’s employ after six years. (Sifra)
+
+Verse 51
+
+
+
+Verse 52
+
+
+
+Verse 53
+
+
+
+Verse 54
+
+ואם לא יגאל באלה, “and if he is not redeemed by any of these means;” this is a reference to either the years remaining until the next Jubilee year, or to relatives of his;
+ויצא בשנת היובל, “he will go free in the Jubilee year,” but not after six years.
+הוא ובניו עמו, “he and his sons with him.” Release of the father automatically includes release of his children. This is a moral lesson to teach us not to act like the gentiles act with their slaves. (B’chor shor)
+
+Verse 55
+
+כי לי בני ישראל עבדים, “for the Children of Israel are My servants;” previously the Torah wrote: כי עבדי הם, “for My servants are they;” (verse 42) on that occasion G-d had added that they were His servants already in Egypt and He contrasted this to show that someone who is His servant could not possibly be sold legally to anyone else, i.e. one Jew to another as they are both G-d’s servants (slaves) [Jews cannot opt out of their people or religion which are tied up one with other. Ed.] If such a Jew had been sold to a gentile, a member of another nation, I might have thought that this is not objectionable. The Torah therefore makes the point that it is equally objectionable.
+
+Chapter 26
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+לא תעשו לכם אלילים, “do not make for yourselves idols;” this law is repeated as if a Jew is sold to a gentile the subject of making himself an idol out of frustration over what has befallen him is quite understandable. Compare Rashi and Sifra on this verse.
+
+Verse 2
+
+את שבתותי תשמורו, “You shall keep My Sabbaths;” according to the understanding of Targum Yerushalmi, the Torah here speaks about the sh’mittah years every seventh year. Those years are also called Sabbaths.
+ומקדשי תיראו, “and revere My Sanctuary;” keep the Yovel year as a holy year. (This is the interpretation of Midrash Tanchuma)
+
+Verse 3
+
+אם בחקתי תלכו, “If you will walk in My statutes;” if you will do what I decreed that you should do, also the clouds and the soil and the trees all of which have been created only for your sake, will do their share, as I have instructed them to do so.” (B’chor shor)
+
+Verse 4
+
+גשמיכם בעתם, “your rains at their appointed times.” If these rains would descend at the wrong time they would make your crops rot instead of ripen.
+
+Verse 5
+
+והשיג לכם דיש וגו, “and your threshing will extend, etc.;” just as you will be performing My commandments constantly without interruption, I will heap blessing after blessing upon you.”
+וישבתם לבטח בארצכם, “and you will live in your land feeling secure.” Previously, in 25,18, this has been worded slightly differently, when the Torah wrote: וישבתם על הארץ לבטח, “you will dwell on the land in security.” Here the Torah stresses the fact that G’d will consider the land as your land. However, during a famine, people will be exiled as it says: לא תוסף תת כחה לך. נע ונד תהיה בארץ, “the land will not continue to give you from its strength; you will be a nomad on earth wandering from place to place.” (Genesis 4,12) Or, as we find in Job 15,23: ?נודד הוא ללחם איה, “he wanders searching for bread, where is he?”
+
+Verse 6
+
+ונתתי שלום בארץ, “I will give peace in the land;” Rashi comments, paraphrasing Isaiah 45,7: עושה שלום ובורא את הכל, “making peace and creating the All.” [The best interpretation of why this is plausible, is that having created evil, the Creator is forced to establish peace, else the evil will ruin all that He had created prior to it. Ed.]
+והשבתי חיה רעה, “I will cause evil beasts to cease.” Isaiah has paraphrased this too, saying: Isaiah 65,25, “the lion will lie down peacefully next to the lamb.”
+
+Verse 7
+
+
+
+Verse 8
+
+ורדפו מכם חמשה מאה, ומאה מכם רבבה ירדופו “five of you will put one hundred 100 to flight, and one hundred of you will pursue ten thousand.” Because the merit of the numerous is greater.
+רבבה, “ten thousand;”
+
+Verse 9
+
+והקימותי את בריתי אתכם, “I will maintain My covenant with you.” This is the covenant I established with your forefathers that I will multiply you to become as numerous as the stars in heaven and the dust on the earth. (Genesis 26,4 and Genesis 28,14, Ibn Ezra)
+
+Verse 10
+
+ואכלתם ישן נושן, “you shall eat from stores long kept.” Seeing that you will have been blessed with abundant crops, so that at the end of the harvesting season you still have surpluses from the previous harvests, they will become mixed, and during each year you will eat from the proceeds of two harvests.
+
+Verse 11
+
+
+
+Verse 12
+
+והייתי לכם לאלוקים, “and I will remain your G-d;” the word elohim here is used as a simile for judge, the one who will avenge the wrongs done to you by your enemies. (B’chor shor)
+
+Verse 13
+
+מוטות עולכם, “the bars of your yokes.” This is a reference to yokes which force the bearer to incline his head and neck towards the ground. (B’chor shor)
+ואולך אתכם קוממיות, “I will enable you to walk upright with your heads held high.” This is reminiscent of Exodus 14,5 describing the Israelites as holding their heads high when leaving Egypt. (B’chor shor)
+
+Verse 14
+
+את כל המצות האלה, “all these commandments;” if you will fail to observe any of these commandments;” [it would be impossible to ignore all of these commandments. Ed.] We find a parallel expression to the construction in Exodus 20,10: לא תעשה כל מלאכה, “you shall not do any work,” or in verse Exodus 22,21: כל אלמנה ויתום לא תענון, “you are not to mistreat any widow or orphan.” [In both these verses the meaning of the word כל could not possibly be “all.” Ed.]
+
+Verse 15
+
+ואם בחקותי תמאסו, “but if you will despise My statutes;” this is the opposite of “if you will “walk” in My statutes, אם בחקתי תלכו, “when you will “walk” according to My statutes, because you find them appropriate.”
+ואם את משפטי תגעל נפשכם, “or if your souls despise My social laws;” this is the opposite of ואת מצותי תשמורו, “and you will observe My commandments.”
+לבלתי עשות, “by not performing (them);” this is the opposite of ועשיתם אותם, “and you will perform them” (in verse 3, of this chapter.)
+להפרכם את בריתי, “thereby breaking My covenant;” this is the opposite of והקימותי את בריתי אתכם, “I will maintain My covenant with you,” (in verse 9.)
+
+Verse 16
+
+אף אני אעשה זאת לכם, “I also will do this to you.” The Torah warns that the punishment will fit the crime. He had promised that if we observe His commandments He will protect us against any and all possible diseases, (Exodus 15,26), whereas if we will break His covenant (deliberately and in order to affront Him) He will actively expose us to them. Instead of acting as your physician, as I did when you observed My statutes, I will allow all kinds of diseases to afflict you.
+בהלה, “terror,” the opposite of when I allowed you to go to sleep without worry, as spelled out in verse 6.
+בהלה את השחפת וגו, “even consumption and fever;” this is to be understood as a special kind of terror caused by your being feverish. The word את in this verse is to be understood as של, “of, caused by.”[There follow detailed examples of diseases and afflictions, the author trying to explain their equivalent in our language. I have decided to skip this, as the principle has been established. Ed.]
+ומדיבות נפש, “and mental depression.” This is the opposite mental state of someone lording it over slaves as in verse 13, where the Israelites are reminded how they had had a physical and mental state of being enslaved while in Egypt. Their renewed state of mental depression is the second type of plague that G-d will employ if the people continue to despise and ignore His laws.
+וזרעתם לריק זרעכם, “you will sow your seed in vain.”
+ואכלוהו אויביכם, “and your enemies will eat whatever these seeds produce. This is the opposite of the promise made in verse 5 if we observe the Torah. This is the fourth of the seven plagues threatened in verse 21.
+
+Verse 17
+
+ונתתי פני בכם, “I will set My face against you.” This is the opposite of ופניתי אליכם, “I will turn to you with goodwill.” This is the fifth of the seven plagues.
+ונגפתם לפני אויביכם, “you will be smitten before your enemies.” This is the reverse of the blessing that “you will pursue and overwhelm those who hate you.” This is the sixth of the seven plagues.
+ונסתם ואין רודף אתכם, “you will flee even when no one pursues you.” This is the reverse of the blessing that five of you will put to flight a hundred of your enemies. (verse 8) This is the seventh of the seven plagues that will befall you.
+
+Verse 18
+
+ואם עד אלה, “if, as Rashi understands the word בעד, as בעוד, “still not,” we find a similar construction using this expression in Job 2,4: עור בעד עור, “skin for skin!” Compare also: ויסגור ה' בעדו, “G-d closed the door (of the ark) on his behalf.” (Genesis 7.16)
+ויספתי ליסרה אתכם, “I will continue to discipline you.”
+שבע, on account of the seventh year (sh’mittah) during which you did not release your hold on material possessions, especially by working the land. In the event you consider this interpretation far fetched, compare what the Torah writes in verse 34, where it describes the soil of the land of Israel making up during their exile for the years when its owners did not observe the shmittah legislation.
+על חטאתיכם, “for your (various) sins.” Compare Psalms 44,23 where the psalmist writes: כי עליך הורגנו כל היום, “since for Your sake we are being killed all day long.” (the word על being used in the same sense) Also compare Psalms 69,8:כי עליך נשאתי חרפה, “for on Your account I have been reviled.”
+
+Verse 19
+
+ושברתי את גאון עוזכם, “I will break the pride of your power;” this has to be contrasted with verse 13 where the Torah described G-d as breaking all the yokes that the Egyptians had used to keep the Israelites down. This is stage one in this process of humbling the Jewish people. Step two follows with: ונתתי שמיכם ברזל, “I will make your heaven as iron;” this is the contrast to verse 4 where rain was promised to fall at the appropriate time of the year.
+ואת ארצכם נחושת, “and your soil like copper.” This contrasts the word בעתם, “at their proper time” in verse 4 above. This was a separate blessing, i.e. the third one.
+The word נחושת, “copper,” is a noun, as in Psalms 18,35: ונחתה קשת נחושה זרועותי, “my arms can bend a bow of copper.”
+
+Verse 20
+
+ותם לריק כוכחם, “your strength will be spent in vain.” This is the opposite of verse 5, ובציר ישיג את זרע, “and the grape harvest will last until it is time to sew again.” We find the expression כח used in connection with harvest in Genesis 4,12 when G-d tells Kayin that the earth will not continue to give its strength to him as it had cooperated with him in hiding his brother’s blood. This is the fourth curse.
+ולא תתן ארצכם את יבולה, “your land will not yield its harvest.” This is the fifth curse.
+לא יתן פריו, “the trees will not yield their fruit.” This is the sixth curse. According to Rashi, this is a twofold curse. (as it refers both to the trunks of the trees and their fruit)
+
+Verse 21
+
+ואם תלכו עמי קרי, “but if you will walk with Me as if what happens to you is only coincidental;”
+שבע על חטאתכם, “seven plagues;” just as your sins were committed by ignoring the legislation governing activities in the seventh year.
+
+Verse 22
+
+והשלחתי בכם וגו, “I shall send forth against you, etc.;” this corresponds to the blessing in verse 6, where G-d promises to destroy or keep in check wild beasts as a reward for our keeping the Torah. Seeing that the positive virtues are always evident in greater measure than the negative ones, when speaking about the wild beasts in the blessings, when referring to the wild beasts in the curses, the Torah uses the whole species, חיה רעה, whereas when referring to them in the context of His blessings, He mentions only “free roaming animals of the field,” not the whole species.
+ושכלה אתכם,”He will cause you bereavement amongst your children;” this is the opposite of when in the blessings the Torah portrayed you as pursuing your enemies (verse 9). Now that you have suffered bereavements you will not have enough people left to pursue your enemies.
+והכריתה את בהמתכם, “it will destroy your cattle;” this corresponds to the blessing in verse 6 where wild beasts are destroyed, thus protecting your cattle against attack. The word מן הארץ, in verse 6, a second time is the link to the word from the land is the link to the והמעיטה, “it will diminish your numbers,” in our verse here. [The reader will notice to what length our author goes to demonstrate how the curses match the blessings throughout this chapter. Ed.] 
+The word והמעיטה is exactly the opposite of the words והרביתי, “I will make more numerous,” in verse 9 of the blessings in our chapter.
+ונשמו דרכיכם, “your ways will become desolate.” This is the opposite of ונתתי שלום בארץ, “I will grant peace in your land;” [when no one will be scared to walk alone on these ways. Ed.] This is the conclusion of the seven curses as explained by Rashi.
+
+Verse 23
+
+
+
+Verse 24
+
+ והלכתי אף אני עמכם בקרי, “and I too will walk with you as if what happens to you is only coincidental, and not related to your disloyalty to Me.” [This will make it harder for you to return to Me in penitence, as you cannot see cause and effect in your history. Ed.] This is another example of the punishment fitting the crime. 
+
+Verse 25
+
+חרב, “sword,” this is the opposite of the promise in verse 6, that no sword will cross the boundaries of your land. Regarding this “sword,” Isaiah 1,20, has said that you will be devoured by it. נוקמת נקם הברית “it shall execute the vengeance of the covenant (that has been broken by you.) The Torah had warned of this already in Exodus 24,8, when it was first described as a great blessing for you. In Vayikra Rabbah 35,6, the author, quoting Isaiah 1,18, אם תאבו ושמעתם טוב הארץ תאכלו, speaks of if you will agree and listen you will eat of the best the earth has to offer,” adding that “you will be devoured by the sword if you do not listen.”Rashi adds on our verse that there is also a vengeance that is not related to this covenant between the Jewish people and their G-d, citing the gouging out of King Tzidkiyahu’s eyes for having broken a covenant with King Nebuchadnezzar. (Torat Kohanim) This is a form of vengeance not mentioned in the Torah. [The first time we encounter it occurs with Shimshon, whose eyes were gouged out by the Philisitines, but in his caseaccording to our sages, it was actually retribution not for what he had done to the Philistines, but by what he had done to himself by following his eyes when repeatedly choosing Philistine women to cohabit with. The Torah, and Shimshon’s father, had warned him not to rely on what his eyes saw when choosing a wife. Ed.] There is yet another kind of vengeance not mentioned in the Torah, which is also described as violation of a covenant; When the Torah wrote in Deuteronomy 28,69, at the end of Moses’ version of the reprimands, Tochachah, אלה דברי בהרית, “these are the words of (warning) of the covenant concluded with the people at Mount Chorev,” the very word: אלה “these,” hints to us that in addition to “these,” there may be other contractual and mutual obligations, but not necessarily the ones entered into at Mount Sinai. [Keeping one’s solemn promise surely did not have to become part of morality only after the Jewish people accepted the Torah. Our forefathers already encountered this problem in their lives, Ed.]
+ונאספתם אל עריכם, “you shall be gathered within your cities;” you will have to take refuge within the walls of your cities from the swords of your enemies. Even this defensive measure will prove useless; because pestilence will break out amongst you within these cities, and you will be delivered into the hands of your enemies. This is the second curse contrasted with verse 13 where G-d promised that He will lead us in upright and selfconfident posture. The third plague follows when the Torah writes here that we will be delivered to our enemies as opposed to verse 8, when the Jewish people were described as so powerful and feared that a mere one hundred of them put to flight 10000 of their attackers. This is the third of the seven curses, the fourth being that you will fall before your enemies instead of at least being able to save your lives.
+
+Verse 26
+
+בשברי לכם מטה הלחם, ”when I break your staff of bread;” this curse is the reverse of the blessing in verse 5 that we will eat our bread and find that it satisfies our requirements and we will be sated. This is the fifth curse. והשיבו לחמכם במשקל, “and they shall deliver your bread again by weight;” the vowel under the letter is a patach. Dough which has been put inside the oven for baking will be found not to have increased in weight. The entire expression symbolises how even the little that is available will be measured minutely. This curse is contrasted with the blessing in verse 10 where the abundance of food is described as lasting well into the next harvest season. It is the sixth of the seven curses.
+ואכלתם ולא תשבעו, “even when you eat that you will not experience the feeling of having been sated.” This is the opposite of the blessing in verse 10 that you will eat from grain long held in storage.
+
+Verse 27
+
+
+
+Verse 28
+
+ויסרתי, “I will chastise;” the vowels here are: sh’va, followed by chirik. [strong conjugation piel. Ed.]
+
+Verse 29
+
+ואכלתם בשר בניכם, “you will eat the flesh of your children.” This curse corresponds to the blessing in verse 9 והפרתי אתכם, “I will make you fruitful.”Some commentators understand this as referring to children who are from highly respected families getting married to families of far lower social standing, by trading their superior ancestry for making an alliance with a wealthier family through marriage. If so, this would be the first curse.
+
+Verse 30
+
+והשמדתי את במותיכם והכרתי את חמניכם, “I will destroy your high places and cut down your sun pillars;” This is not part of the curses, as it refers simply to your idols being destroyed.
+חמניכם, from the word חמה, another word for “sun, שמש; the letter נ in this word is extraneous, just as the letter נ in the word נשים for “women” is extraneous in the expression: נשים רחמניות, (Lamentations 4,10)
+ונתתי את פגריכם על פגרי גלוליכם, “I will cast your carcasses next to the carcasses of your idols.” This curse corresponds to the blessing in verse 12: “I will be your G-d, and you will be My people.” This is the second curse.
+וגעלה נפשי אתכם, “My soul shall abhor you.” This corresponds to the blessing in verse 11 that “My soul will not abhor you.” This is the third curse.
+
+Verse 31
+
+עריכם חרבה, ”your cities will be waste;” this must be contrasted with the blessing in verse 5, “you will pursue etc.” This is the fourth curse.
+והשימותי את מקדשיכם, “I will lay waste your sanctuaries.” This is to be contrasted with the blessing of ונתתי משכני בתוככם, “I will set My Tabernacle amongst you in verse 11. This is the fifth curse.
+ולא אריח ברית ניחוחכם, “I will not smell the savour of your sweet odours.” This may be contrasted with the blessing in verse 12: והתהלכתי בתוככם, “I will go for walks amongst you.” This is the sixth of the curses.
+
+Verse 32
+
+והשמותי אני את הארץ, “I will bring the land into desolation;”
+ושממו עליה אויביכם, but your enemies will be amazed by the desolation in your country. Your cities will also become desolate, i.e. ארצכם שממה ועריכם יהיו חרבה. We find a repetition here.
+
+Verse 33
+
+How am I going to do this? ואתכם אזרה בגויים, “I will scatter you among the nations.” This is to be contrasted with verse 5 of the blessings where the Torah promised that you will dwell securely in your land. This is the seventh of the curses.
+
+Verse 34
+
+אז תרצה הארץ, “then the land be recompensed for the Sabbath (years) [during which it had been worked although it should have been allowed to rest. Ed.] After 6 of the evil decrees which we demonstrated as representing a measure for measure type of punishment have already been endured by you, i.e. you should work the land for six years consecutively and then let it rest during the seventh year, the land will finally enjoy a rest during the seventh year. It will make up for all the sh’mittah years you had not observed during the 70 years of your exile. [It will experience 70 consecutive such sh’mittah years. Ed.]
+תרצה; this expression also occurs in the sense in which we have translated it in Psalms 49,14: ואחריהם בפיהם ירצו, “and their descendants approve of them with what they have learned from their mouths.”A different approach to our verse: the word תרצה is to be understood as equivalent to תשלים, “will conclude.” Compare Job 14,6: עד ירצה כשכיר יומו, “until he finishes his day like a hireling.” Or: כי נרצה עונו, “for her sin has been expiated;” (Isaiah 40,2) A third interpretation: the meaning of the word is: “to become reconciled, to have made peace, settled a disagreement.” This would be reflected by Psalms 77,8: ולא יוסיף לרצות עוד, “and will He never again show favour?” Psalms 145,16, ומשביע לכל חי רצון, “and You feed every living creature to its heart content,” also reflects this sentiment.
+אז תשבת הארץ, “then the land will rest.” The letter ב has the vowel patach, [the word being a verb. Ed.]
+
+Verse 35
+
+כל ימי השמה, “during all the years of its being desolate;” it will be as if emptied out of its people.
+תשבות, “it shall have rest;” the word is spelled with the vowel cholem, on account of the cantillation mark etnachta under it. Compare Psalms 114,3: הים ראה וינוס, “the sea saw and fled;” and verse 34 that we just read: והרצת את שבתתיה, “and repay her Sabbaths.”
+
+Verse 36
+
+והנשארים בכם והבאתי מורך בלבבם, “and I will bring faintness into the hearts of those that are left of them;” I shall continue to heap more curses upon them until they have endured 49 curses corresponding to the yovel cycle of 49 years that they have ignored.
+מורך בלבבם, this is the first plague; ורדף אותם קול עלה, “and even the sound of a leaf fluttering in the wind will frighten them.” This is the second plague.
+ונסו מנוסת חרב, “they will flee from it as if fleeing from a sword.” This is the third plague.
+ונפלו ואין רודף, “they will fall even though there was no pursuer.” This is the fourth plague.
+
+Verse 37
+
+וכשלו איש באחיו כמפני חרב ורודף אין, “they will stumble upon one another, as if on account of a sword although there is no pursuer;” there is some repetition here.
+ולא תהיה לכם תקומה, “you will not have the strength to stand up to your enemies.” This is the fifth curse.
+
+Verse 38
+
+ואבדת בגויים, “you will perish among the nations.” This is the sixth curse. Exile is also called אובד, as we know from Psalms 119,176: תעיתי כשה אובד, “I have strayed like a lost sheep.”
+ואכלה אתכם ארץ אויביכם, “and the land of your enemies will eat you up." This is the seventh plague. What is meant here is that the frequent need for you to change your place of residence and to move to different climates, will not give you an opportunity to acclimatize to the climate and result in disease and death. (Ibn Ezra).
+
+Verse 39
+
+
+
+Verse 40
+
+
+
+Verse 41
+
+אף אני אלך עמכם בקרי, “also I will walk with you as if what befalls you was coincidental; even though by now the people had confessed that they had sinned, seeing that they had not taken the next step and done penitence, I cannot relent yet.”
+או אז יכנע לבבם הערל, “if perchance their uncircumcised hearts will be humbled;” then I will remember My covenant, etc;” I will continue to reciprocate then in their favour, as recognition of their penitence; as we know from Hoseah 14,4: ומודה ועוזב ירוחם, “[inaccurate quote, the prophet says there that when the people no longer treat their man made idols as deities, they will experience G-d’s mercy. Ed.]
+
+Verse 42
+
+וזכרתי את בריתי יעקב, “I will remember My covenant with Yaakov;” seeing that none of Yaakov's children were disloyal to his teachings, the Torah did not use the word “אף,” “anger,” in connection with Yaakov, as during all his 147 years he had been loyal to G-d, and that is also why the Torah here mentions the word: “My covenant,” first. [According to Ibn Ezra, not all the years that Avraham lived were lived after G-d had made a covenant with him. Yaakov also experienced prophetic insights at an earlier age than his father and grandfather. Ed.]
+והארץ אזכור, “and I will remember the land (fondly).” This statement annuls the two statements in verses 32 and 20 in which the bounty of the land was denied to the errant Jewish people.
+
+Verse 43
+
+ותרץ הארץ את שבתותיה, והם ירצו את עונם, “and the land will be paid her Sabbaths, and they shall be paid for their sins.” This is the retribution for 49 years of ignoring the yovel legislation during which also seven sh’mittah years were ignored. There will be reconciliation between the people and their G-d. They will be penitent, admitting that what they had been made to suffer was only because of their disloyalty to their G-d, and their totally negative attitude to His Torah. An alternate interpretation of this verse: “they will complete thee punishment for their sins”. A similar construction to this would be found in Samuel I 28,10: אם יקרך עון בדבר הזה, “if you would be punished for a sin on account of this matter.“ [King Shaul to the witch of Endor. Ed.]
+
+Verse 44
+
+ואף גם זאת בהיותם בארץ אויביהם, “and yet, in spite of their being in the land of their enemies, etc.;” what has been left for the surviving Israelites who have been deprived of all that had made their lives worth living?” G-d promises that the most precious of their possessions, the Torah, they had not been deprived of, and this will make them distinguished even when in exile and the nations look down upon them. This is what the famous liturgist had in mind when he composed the phrase: ואין שיור רק התורה הזאת, “there is nothing left except this Torah.” [zechor brit, recited as part of the selichot, near the end of the Ne’ilah prayer on the Day of Atonement.” Ed.
+
+Verse 45
+
+וזכרתי להם ברית ראשונם, “I will remember in their favour the covenant with the earlier generations;” from this verse we learn that the covenant was concluded with the different tribes [at the time when the people left Egypt]. The curses, i.e. admonitions, we have just read are referred to as the brit, covenant, as spelled out in Deuteronomy 28,69: אלה דברי הברית מלבד הברית אשר כרת אתם בחורב, “these are the words of the covenant, apart from the covenant He made with them at Mount Chorev.”
+
+Verse 46
+
+
+
+Chapter 27
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+
+
+Verse 2
+
+איש, “a man;” (adult) by the Torah’s use of the word איש, I might have been misled into thinking that what follows applies only to male adults, and not to female adults; in order to prevent such an error being made, the Torah adds the word: נפשות, ”persons,” regardless of which gender. (Sifra) יפליא, similar to the word יפריש, “he will set aside;” this is one of the words that have different meanings depending on in which context they appear. In fact, sometimes the same word may mean the opposite in one place from what it means in another place. For instance: in Deuteronomy 17,8 the line: כי יפלא ממך דבר למשפט, means “if a matter involving legal litigation is too difficult for you to decide,” in other words, the meaning of the root of the word is “something that is hidden;” on the other hand, here, it refers to something over and beyond your normal powers of perception. Other examples of words appearing as having a meaning opposite what they do elsewhere is the word דשן, which may mean: surfeit, abundance and it may mean useless leftovers of material that has been burnt. (Exodus 27,3, or being full of sap, (Psalms 92,15.) The author cites three or four more examples, making the same point.
+נדר בערכך, the Torah compares vows to the subject of ערכין in our chapter, seeing that both types of free willed undertakings must be honoured without undue delay. (Sifra)
+
+Verse 3
+
+
+
+Verse 4
+
+ואם נקבה הוא, “and if she (the subject of the valuation) is a female person;” ולנקבה שלשים שקלים, “and the valuation of a female during the same age group is thirty shekel.” Basically, the monetary value of a female person is roughly half of that of a male. This reflects the fact that the first woman, Eve, had been taken from the body of the first man, so that G-d’s work was only half that of what it had been when He created Adam, the first human being.
+
+Verse 5
+
+
+
+Verse 6
+
+
+
+Verse 7
+
+ואם מבן ששים שנה ומעלה, “and if the person whose valuation is being “donated to the Temple treasury is above the age of sixty at the time;” whence do we know that if that person at the time of the valuation is exactly sixty years old it is valued as if between twenty and sixty years of age? We derive this from the wording of “sixty or above.” <small>[That word is unnecessary unless it was meant to teach us something new. Ed.]</small> I might think that this rule applies only to the sixtieth year, and not to the fifth, twentieth, etc; we derive the rule for those years by the use of logic when comparing it to the valuation of the five year old. As to the reason why the females’ valuation is so much less that that of males of the same age, this is based on the fact that, generally, males perform heavier physical labor than women. When men age, their ability to perform heavy labor declines at a more rapid pace than that of females of comparable age who do lighter domestic tasks.
+
+Verse 8
+
+
+
+Verse 9
+
+כל אשר יתן ממנו, “all that he gives of it, etc.” the Torah employs the masculine mode here although the word בהמה, the subject here, is a beast in the feminine mode. This is not a unique occurrence, as other such examples are to be found in Leviticus 6,8, where the pronoun ממנו, which is masculine, is used in reference to the noun מנחה, which is feminine; two more such anomalies occur in Numbers 32,5 and Genesis 13,6.
+
+Verse 10
+
+טוב ברע או רע בטוב, “(substituting) good for inferior, or inferior for superior. The reason why the Torah had to write both alternatives is because the owner does so as he is not sure which is superior and which is inferior. In the case of the animals proving to be diseased and therefore at least one of them being disqualified as an offering, the donor did not know which of the sicknesses is the more serious one. (B’chor shor)
+
+Verse 11
+
+ואם כל בהמה טמאה, “he places a ritually impure animal before the priest (as a sacrifice) Rashi explains that this cannot be understood literally, as it is too obvious. He therefore understands the word טמאה here as referring to a blemished animal, the owner not knowing if that blemish was serious enough to disqualify said animal. The Torah teaches that such a decision must be left to the officiating priest. If it is a temporary blemish, said animal is fit as a sacrifice as soon as its blemish has disappeared.
+
+Verse 12
+
+
+
+Verse 13
+
+ויסף חמישתו, “he shall add a fifth part thereof;” actually 25%, so that when combined, the addition is a fifth of the total. (Talmud tractate Baba Metzia folio 57) The same ratio for penalties applies to houses that are ancestral properties or to ancestrally owned fields. The same ratio applies also when the second tithe has to be redeemed, as the owner cannot transport the original all the way to Jerusalem. The background to this legislation which applies only to the original owner, not someone who has acquired it, is that an original owner may use sanctifying this property by arguing that seeing it is all his anyway, he may thereby avoid leaving those parts of the harvest which the Torah wanted him to leave for the poor and the orphaned. If, however, the owner sanctified something, no part of which was intended by the Torah as a tithe (tax) that he had to give away anyway, Shmuel in the Talmud ruled that he can redeem the whole for an addition of the smallest coin of the realm.(Baba Metzia 57)
+
+Verse 14
+
+
+
+Verse 15
+
+
+
+Verse 16
+
+
+
+Verse 17
+
+
+
+Verse 18
+
+
+
+Verse 19
+
+
+
+Verse 20
+
+ואם מכר את השדה לאיש אחר, “but if he had sold the field to someone else;” the prefix ו in the word ואם is to be understood as if the Torah had written: או, “or.” This is one of many such places where the letter ו is to be understood as: “or.”
+
+Verse 21
+
+והיה השדה בצאתו ביובל, “but when the field goes out in the yovel year;” this verse teaches that the word: שדה in Hebrew is of the masculine gender.
+
+Verse 22
+
+
+
+Verse 23
+
+
+
+Verse 24
+
+לאשר קנהו אתו, “to the one of whom it had been purchased.” This purchaser had never been in a legal position that enabled him to sanctify the soil of that field. He could only sanctify the fruit that it produced while it had been in his possession. (B’chor shor)
+
+Verse 25
+
+
+
+Verse 26
+
+אם שור אם שה, לה' הוא, “be it ox or sheep, it is the Lord’s.” The original firstborn male animal must be offered, no substitute under any circumstances. (Sifra)
+
+Verse 27
+
+
+
+Verse 28
+
+אך כל חרם, “however no segregated matter that had been presented to the Temple treasury without any further specification;” Rashi quotes a disagreement between the sages as to who is the recipient of items sanctified without a specific address. According to one opinion such monies or goods become the property of the Temple treasury, meaning that they are to be used for repairs to the Temple, etc.; the other opinion is that such monies, etc. described here as cherem, segregated property, are to be distributed amongst the priests whose property they become. He also interprets the line at the end of our verse כל חרם קדש קדשים הוא, “every segregated matter is most holy,” in that sense.
+לא ימכר ולא יגאל, “it must not be sold (for secular use) nor is it subject to being redeemed,” In other words, the monetary value of such segregated items must be given to the priests. According to Rashi, this line also applies to segregated property without a specific address. Verse 29, according to the dissenting opinion the Torah speaks of items segregated by the priests without a specific address. If someone were to say “the value of this animal which had been destined for a sacrifice on the altar, shall be segregated for me,” he meant that instead it should be given to one or more of the other priests. If, however, he had said the same of segregated property of a non priest, he would have to give the value of the item he referred to the Temple treasury. [Rabbi Chavell, in his annotations, questions the premise that if you declare something banned that is not yours has any legal meaning at all, as it is an accepted rule that no one can declare someone else’s property as holy, segregated or changing its status at all. Ed.] According to the Talmud in tractate Erchin, folio 28, if someone, looking at an ox, were to say: “this ox shall become a burnt offering,” the treasury will decide on the market value of such an ox, and the person having made this vow would have to pay for a burnt offering of an ox in accordance with the amount of money the priest judges that he would have been willing to spend. He will have to give that amount to the treasury, although the animal is not being offered as a burnt offering, seeing it had not belonged to the person who made the vow.
+
+Verse 29
+
+כל חרם אשר יחרם מן האדם, “and any condemned person who has been banned from mankind; The Torah speaks of a person who has been sentenced to death by a Jewish court. The somewhat awkward wording of this verse is due to the four different types of death penalty that a Jewish court can impose for different types of capital offences. Our verse applies to any of these kinds of death sentences.
+
+Verse 30
+
+מזרע הארץ, “whether of the seed of the earth;” this wording is intended to include garlic, green mustard, and cress. (Sifra)
+מזרע הארץ, “seed that is normally planted in the earth.”
+
+Verse 31
+
+
+
+Verse 32
+
+העשירי יהיה קדש, every tenth (animal) shall be declared holy.” If someone while counting, erroneously called the ninth “tenth,” or called the eleventh “tenth,” he is taken by his word and that animal also becomes holy, and the animal is offered as a peace offering. (Sifra)
+
+Verse 33
+
+
+
+Verse 34
+
+אלה המצות, “these are the commandments;” no future prophet has the authority to either add to them or to cancel any of them. (Sifra)
+אל בני ישראל, “to the Children of Israel.” The word אל is to be understood as in Exodus 6,13: ויצום אל בני ישראל, “He commanded them to the Children of Israel.”Our author explains as a postscript that the reason that this Book is generally called: “Torat Kohanim,” the Torah for the priests, is that it deals mainly with the different laws that apply only to the priests and Levites. He points out that even the Christians called it: Leviticus, “Book of the Levites.’
+
+Numbers
+
+
+
+Chapter 1
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+במדבר סיני, “in the desert of Sinai;” at what location did G-d speak to Moses? From the Tabernacle; before the Tabernacle had been erected, G-d had communicated from the top of Mount Sinai. From the day the Ten Commandments had been given, G-d’s presence had not moved away from Mount Sinai until the day after the Tabernacle had been erected on the first day of Nissan of the second year, as we have been told in the Talmud, tractate Beytzah, folio 5.
+בשנת השנית לצאתם, (on the first of the second month) in the second year of the Exodus. Regarding all other matters, the first of Tishrey was considered as the first day of the New Year.
+
+Verse 2
+
+שאו את ראש, “take a count of the sum;” seeing that within twenty days the Israelites would break camp and start marching toward the Holy Land, as reported in chapter 10 verse 29 of this Book. There it has been spelled out: נוסעים אנחנו אל המקום, “we are about to set out on the journey to the place, etc;” (Moses speaking to his fatherinlaw Yitro).
+
+Verse 3
+
+מבן עשרים שנה ומעלה, “from twenty years old and up;” from that age and up the males were considered as mature enough to serve in the army. Based on this verse, our sages at the end of chapter 5 in Ethics of our fathers, made the well known statement: בן עשרים לרדוף, “when having attained the age of twenty, one is fit to join the pursuit.”
+כל יצא צבא בישראל, “all who are able to go to war on behalf of Israel;” the repetition of this word excluded the mixed multitude who had joined the people only at the Exodus.
+
+Verse 4
+
+
+
+Verse 5
+
+לראובן אליצור בן שדיאור, “of Reuven, Elitzur son of Sh’deyur. He was mentioned first, as the original Reuven had been Yaakov’s firstborn son.”
+
+Verse 6
+
+שלומיאל בו צורישדי, “Shlumiel son of Tzurishaday.” This was his name. He was also known as זמרי בן סלוא, (compare Numbers 25,14) or שאול בן הכנענית, “Saul, son theCanaanite woman.” (According to the Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin, folio 82 where this statement is elaborated on.)
+
+Verse 7
+
+
+
+Verse 8
+
+
+
+Verse 9
+
+
+
+Verse 10
+
+לבני יוסף, “of the Children of Joseph;” they are mentioned after the children of Leah as a sign of respect to their mother Rachel. The Torah mentions the younger son Ephrayim first, as this is what their father Yaakov did when he blessed them before his death. (Ibn Ezra) Ephrayim and Menashe, though grandsons of Yaakov, are mentioned before his son Binyamin, as combined they represented Rachel’s firstborn son Joseph.
+
+Verse 11
+
+
+
+Verse 12
+
+לדן, “of Dan;” he is mentioned first among the four sons of the concubines, as he was the firstborn among them. Asher is mentioned next to him, as his tribe was the leading one in the group of tribes encamped around his flag. (Numbers 2,27) This is followed by Gad, who was the firstborn son of Leah’s servant maid.
+
+Verse 13
+
+
+
+Verse 14
+
+
+
+Verse 15
+
+
+
+Verse 16
+
+אלה קריאי, “these are the elect, etc.” the word קריאי, is read as if it had been spelled ;קרואי
+ראשי אלפי ישראל, “the heads of the thousands of Israel.” Each of the people named here was the head of the thousands belonging to his tribe.
+
+Verse 17
+
+
+
+Verse 18
+
+ויתילדו, “they declared their pedigrees;” (according to Rashi). Another interpretation of this word: they asked their parents for details of when they had been born in order to determine if they had been twenty years old at the time of the Exodus. (Ibn Ezra)
+
+Verse 19
+
+כאשר צוה ה' את משה, “as the Lord had commanded Moses;” these words belong to verse 18, where Moses is reported as having assembled all the people. [I suppose our author found a sentence commencing with “as, כאשר,” as somewhat unusual. Ed.]
+ויפקדם במדבר סיני, “he counted them in the desert of Sinai.” The tribes were counted there, one after another in the order in which their respective flags had been arrangedHe commenced the count with the eldest son of Yaakov, Reuven.
+
+Verse 20
+
+ויהיו בני ראובן, “and the members of the tribe of Reuven, (the males over 20 years) amounted to, etc;” the tribes (excluding the tribe of Levi) were counted there one after another, in the order of their respective flags. Therefore Moses began with Reuven, followed by Yehudah the leader of all the tribes, followed Ephrayim and Dan.
+ראובן בכור ישראל, “Reuven, Israel’s firstborn;” this point had to be made again as the first tribe in the marching order was Yehudah. (B’chor shor) The reason why this point was made by the Torah at this juncture, was to explain that the only reason why he was counted first was that biologically, he was the first son of his father.
+
+Verse 21
+
+
+
+Verse 22
+
+
+
+Verse 23
+
+
+
+Verse 24
+
+לבני גד, “of the members of the tribe of Gad;” the Torah ranks him as third in the list, as he was the firstborn of the maidservants of his mother. (His mother was the maidservant of Leah, who also had produced Yaakov’s firstborn).
+
+Verse 25
+
+
+
+Verse 26
+
+
+
+Verse 27
+
+
+
+Verse 28
+
+
+
+Verse 29
+
+
+
+Verse 30
+
+
+
+Verse 31
+
+
+
+Verse 32
+
+
+
+Verse 33
+
+
+
+Verse 34
+
+
+
+Verse 35
+
+
+
+Verse 36
+
+
+
+Verse 37
+
+
+
+Verse 38
+
+
+
+Verse 39
+
+
+
+Verse 40
+
+
+
+Verse 41
+
+
+
+Verse 42
+
+
+
+Verse 43
+
+
+
+Verse 44
+
+
+
+Verse 45
+
+
+
+Verse 46
+
+
+
+Verse 47
+
+
+
+Verse 48
+
+
+
+Verse 49
+
+ואת ראשם לא תשא בתוך בני ישראל, “and you are not to number them as part of the Children of Israel.” The reason was that the criteria for counting the Levites were not the same as the ones applied to the other (12) tribes. The Levites were counted from age thirty days in this portion, (3,14), on the one hand, and again from the age of 30-50 (in chapter 4,47.) A different interpretation: seeing that none of them would serve in the army, but they would only perform duties as security guards for the holy objects, a different yardstick was applied to them.
+
+Verse 50
+
+המה ישאו, “they will carry;” whenever the people broke camp and continued on their journey.
+והמה ישרתוהו, “and they would minister to it;” when the Tabernacle would be put up again.
+וסביב למשכן יחנו, and they would encamp immediately around the Tabernacle from all sides to ensure that no unauthorized person would enter the Tabernacle.
+
+Verse 51
+
+יורידו אותו הלוים, יקימו אותו, “the Levites will dissemble it and will reassemble it;” they will do so by inserting the bolts through the rings in the planks and removing same, as required. This is all considered as part of their ministrations.
+והזר הקרב יומת, “and a common man that comes too near will die.” Levites are also considered “common” men in this respect. They may not enter these holy precincts once the Tabernacle had been reassembled. Assembling or dissembling did not require their entering, and when the Tabernacle had been taken apart, the site it had stood on was no longer considered as a holy site.
+
+Verse 52
+
+
+
+Verse 53
+
+והלוים יחנו סביב, “and the Levites are to encamp around it.” Their camp was situated between that of the ordinary Israelites and the Tabernacle. This fact prevented them from approaching too close to it. (B‘chor shor)
+והלוים יחנו סביב, when the same statement was made earlier in verse 50, why was the wording different, i.e. וסביב למשכן יחנו, “and around the Tabernacle they are to encamp?”In verse 50 the Torah spoke about carrying the Holy Ark when the people broke camp, something of the highest degree of holiness. Here the Torah only speaks about the Tabernacle which houses the sacred vessels. Its holiness derives from the vessels it houses.
+ולא יהיה קצף, “so that there will not be Divine anger against the community of Israel.” The Torah had already warned of this in verse 51, when spelling out that coming too close was a capital offence and would be punished with execution. (Ibn Ezra) This is precisely what happened in Samuel II 6,7 when Uzza mistakenly, and with noble intentions, touched the Holy Ark in order to steady it and prevent it from falling from the wagon.
+על עדת בני ישראל, against a member of the community of Israel, not against the whole community. We find similar construction in Exodus 21,11: אם שלש אלה לא יעשה לה, which does not mean that the master has not done all these three procedures for the servant maid, but that he has failed to do even one of them. Compare also: ויקבר בערי הגלעד, “he was buried in the towns of Gilead;” (Judges 12,7) The meaning is not that different parts of Yiftach were buried in different towns, but that his remains were buried in one of those towns. Compare also Zecharyah 9,9, ועל עיר בן אתונות, “but riding on a young donkey, born by asses.” The meaning is not that this donkey had more than one mother, but “by one of the many sheasses.” (Ibn Ezra)
+
+Verse 54
+
+ויעשו בני ישראל ככל אשר צוה וגו, “The Children of Israel did in accordance with all that the Lord had commanded Moses;” why did this Book not mention Aaron thus far? Rabbi Joshua son of Nechemyah quoting Rabbi Chiyah, says that Aaron had been busy establishing his family’s pedigree. The people had said to him that until he could prove the pedigree of Pinchas (his grandson) and to whom his son Elazar was married, (not to a daughter of Putiel, as written in Exodus 6,25, where he is reported as having married one of the daughters of that man, an idolater), he could not be included in the census. When G-d saw that the people were trying to belittle Aaron, He Himself testified that Pinchas was the son of Elazar who was the son of Aaron the High Priest, (Numbers 25,11) one fanatic having sired another fanatic. (Vayikra Rabbah 33,4)[This is a veiled reference to the founding father of the tribe of Levi, having been a fanatic, as is clear from when Levi and his brother Shimon killed all the males in the town of Sh’chem as retribution for the rape of their sister Dinah. (Genesis 34,2526) Pinchas had inherited part of that DNA when he killed Zimri the prince of Shimon for having cohabited with the Midianite woman Cosbi. (Numbers 25,15) Ed.] An alternate explanation: the verse above is testimony that none of the Israelites ever violated the commandment not to enter the sacred area of the Tabernacle and thus become liable to execution. (Ibn Ezra)
+
+Chapter 2
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+
+
+Verse 2
+
+על דגלו באותות, “every man with his own standard according to the insignias of his father’s house;” the flags had the names of the (fore)father���s houses inscribed upon them. How did this work? On the flag of Reuven there was an inscription אי׳י, the respective first letters of the names of the patriarchs אברהם, יצחק, יעקב. On the second flag (there were four flags, one for each army group of three tribes.) there were inscribed the letters בצ׳ע, the second letter in the names of each of the three patriarchs. The third flag would have the letters רח׳ק representing the third letter in the respective names of Avraham, Yitzchok and Yaakov, and the fourth flag the letters מק׳ב, representing the last letters each in their names. The letter ה which had been added to Avraham’s name, would be represented by the protective cloud that rested above the Israelites and protected them against nosy intruders during all the years they were in the desert. An alternate interpretation of the line: באותות לבית אבותם. The flag of the camp of Reuven had the outline of a human being in red colour, matching the colour of his stone on Aaron’s breastplate. It represented the mandrakes Reuven had found in the field and brought to his mother Leah, which the latter had traded for an extra night with her husband. (Genesis chapter 30) These mandrakes were shaped like a human being. The outline of a lion was drawn or stitched on the flag of Yehudah, who was called: “lion” in the Torah by his father (Genesis 49,9) The colour of that outline was turquoise as was the colour of his gem on Aaron’s breastplate. The flag of Ephrayim showed the outline of an ox, whom his father Joseph had reputedly called שור, ox, (Deuteronomy 33,17) The colour of that outline was onyx, as was the colour of his gemstone on the breastplate of Aaron. On the flag of Dan there was the outline of an eagle, coloured in a variety of colours, iridescent, as the gemstone that represented the tribe of Dan on Aaron’s breastplate. (Ibn Ezra) The Tabernacle located in the centre, was flanked by all these camps, and was a symbol of the holy angels called chayot, which surround the throne of G-d forming a square. The various nations learned from the Israelites to make tablecloths and the like in a variety of colours. (Bamidbar Rabbah 2,6)
+
+Verse 3
+
+והחונים קדמה מזרחה, “the ones who were encamped on the east side facing the sun;” they were facing the entrance of the Tabernacle as described at the end of Parshat T’rumah. (Exodus 27,13)
+דגל מחנה יהודה, “the flag of the camp of Yehudah;” he is mentioned first as he was the most honoured by all the other tribes for his leadership qualities. He was therefore accorded to honour of encamping near the gate of “The King.” We find something similar concerning Moses and Aaron in 3,38.
+
+Verse 4
+
+
+
+Verse 5
+
+והחונים עליו, “and those encamped next to him” (Yehudah). Five of Leah’s sons were among the twelve tribes that were each distinguished by flags. Two of Leah’s flags tribes shared the camp of Gad, who himself was the firstborn of Zilpah, Leah’s handmaid who cooperated closely with the camp of Reuven who was the firstborn of all the tribes. One flag was for Yehudah and the two tribes that were from the sons of the handmaids. Two of the handmaids’ sons who were not firstborns, camped alongside him.
+
+Verse 6
+
+
+
+Verse 7
+
+
+
+Verse 8
+
+
+
+Verse 9
+
+
+
+Verse 10
+
+
+
+Verse 11
+
+
+
+Verse 12
+
+
+
+Verse 13
+
+
+
+Verse 14
+
+אליסף בן רעואל, “Elyasaf son of R’uel. Everywhere else this name appears it was spelled with the letter ד instead of with the letter ר.
+
+Verse 15
+
+
+
+Verse 16
+
+
+
+Verse 17
+
+ונסע אהל מועד, ”and it will travel;” when the Torah also writes that the ark containing the covenant of the Lord was travelling ahead of the people, (Numbers 10,33), this referred to the ark constructed by Moses in which the broken sections of the first Tablets were kept. It would be taken with them when they went out to war.
+
+Verse 18
+
+דגל מחנה אפרים, “the flag of the camp of Ephrayim;” Rachel was represented by a separate camp, i.e. Ephrayim, Menashe, and Binyamin.
+
+Verse 19
+
+
+
+Verse 20
+
+
+
+Verse 21
+
+
+
+Verse 22
+
+
+
+Verse 23
+
+
+
+Verse 24
+
+
+
+Verse 25
+
+דגל מחנה דן, “the flag of the camp of Dan; the fourth camp comprised the maidservants of Rachel, Dan having been the firstborn of those. He was the leading tribe of that flag (camp). Asher was rewarded with an extra distinction, seeing that he was a son of Leah’s handmaid, he was mentioned before Naftaly, although the latter was older than he.
+
+Verse 26
+
+
+
+Verse 27
+
+
+
+Verse 28
+
+
+
+Verse 29
+
+
+
+Verse 30
+
+
+
+Verse 31
+
+לאחרונה יסעו, “they would always travel at the rear.” The letter ל has a dot above over the vowel patach. In our versions of the Chumash, the letter ר has a dot, and the letterל has the vowel kametz. Ed.
+
+Verse 32
+
+
+
+Verse 33
+
+
+
+Verse 34
+
+ויעשו בני ישראל ככל וגו, “and the Children of Israel did in accordance with all, etc.,” this statement was to cover the entire period that the Israelites were wandering in the desert. (Bamidbar Rabbah 2,22)
+כן חנו, “so they encamped;” before each departure G-d arranged for them the flags and the order of their journeys. They were given instructions how to manage their breaking camp and their subsequent new encampments, based on the blowing of the trumpets.
+
+Chapter 3
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+ביום דבר ה' אל משה בהר סיני, “as long as G-d wasspeaking with Moses at Mount Sinai,” Aaron’s sons Nadav and Avihu were still alive. They died in the Tabernacle in the desert of Sinai, at the beginning of the second year.
+
+Verse 2
+
+
+
+Verse 3
+
+
+
+Verse 4
+
+ובנים לא היו להם, “and they did not have sons.” Rabbi Yaakov, son of bar Avi, speaking in the name of Rabbi Acha, said: if these sons of Aaron had had sons, they would have preceded Elazar and Ittamar in greatness; it is a rule that anyone who has offspring takes precedence compared to those who do not have heirs. Their shortcoming was that they did not marry and assure themselves of offspring. (Midrash Rabbah Bamidbar 2,22.)
+על פני אהרן אביהם, “while their father was alive.” The expression: על פני, is to be understood as in Deuteronomy 21,16: על פני בן השנואה הבכור, “instead of the firstborn son of the hated wife;” or as in Exodus 20,3: לא יהיה לך אלוהים אחרים על פני, “you shall not have any other deities in My presence,”
+
+Verse 5
+
+
+
+Verse 6
+
+הקרב את מטה לוי, “bring the tribe of Levi near;” in chapter 1,50, G-d had already told Moses to appoint that tribe to be in charge of all the furnishings of The Tabernacle as well as the Tabernacle itself and to carry it during the journeys; they had also been warned not to allow any non Levite to come close to the Tabernacle; now that the Levites were to be appointed as performing service for the priests (Aaron and descendants), Moses was commanded to
+והעמדת אותם, “to present them” to the priests by performing services for them. Use of the root עמד in the in a similar mode is also found Kings I 17,1, where the prophet Elijah saying: ועמדתי לפניו. “I will present myself before him [G-d] as being at his service.”
+
+Verse 7
+
+ושמרו את משמרתו, “and they shall keep his charge (The High Priest’s) in accordance with his instructions.
+ואת משמרת כל העדה, “and the charge of the whole congregation;” a reference to anything the Israelites were supposed to do in front of the Tent of Meeting they should see to it that it be done.
+לעבוד את עבודת המשכן, “to perform the service of the Tabernacle.” Details had been spelled out already in 1,50.
+
+Verse 8
+
+
+
+Verse 9
+
+נתונים נתונים המה לו מאת בני ישראל, “they are wholly given to him (Aaron) from the Children of Israel (to be at his disposal).” We must understand these instructions as applying to the future when the average Israelite will be preoccupied with earning his livelihood as a farmer, and agriculture making demands upon him that cannot be delayed. The Levites, not having ancestral land, had time therefore to devote themselves to those tasks.
+
+Verse 10
+
+ושמרו את כהונתם, “so that the priests could preserve their time for their priestly duties. Their principal concern was to avoid becoming ritually defiled.
+והזר, “and the common Israelite, etc.” any Israelite or Levi who presumes to perform the duties of the priests will die.
+
+Verse 11
+
+
+
+Verse 12
+
+תחת כל בכור, “in place of every firstborn;” these firstborns also had not been intended to inherit ancestral fields, ever, as they were meant to be the priests in their respective families. When the Levites were appointed to perform the tasks previously meant to be performed by the firstborn, they forfeited their claim to ancestral heritage in the Land of Israel, and the firstborns, after redemption, could then lay claim to ancestral territory as did all the non firstborn.
+
+Verse 13
+
+
+
+Verse 14
+
+
+
+Verse 15
+
+.מבן חדש ומעלה תפקדם, “you will count them from one month and up.” The reason why they were not counted from twenty years and up is that they would not participate in any wars, and from 30 days of age and up they could be used to redeem firstborns of the other tribes. A first born son of any tribe became viable at the age of 30 days.
+
+Verse 16
+
+
+
+Verse 17
+
+
+
+Verse 18
+
+
+
+Verse 19
+
+
+
+Verse 20
+
+
+
+Verse 21
+
+
+
+Verse 22
+
+
+
+Verse 23
+
+
+
+Verse 24
+
+
+
+Verse 25
+
+המשכן, this refers to the carpeting of twisted linen which formed part of the roof of the Tabernacle.
+והאהל, “and the tent;” these are the carpets made of goats’ hair.
+מכסהו, “its covering;” this is a reference to the hides of red dyed rams and the hides of the animal known as tachash.
+
+Verse 26
+
+אשר על המשכן ועל המזבח, “which are next to the Tabernacle and the copper altar.”
+In this verse the word משכן refers to the courtyard surrounding that structure.
+
+Verse 27
+
+ולקהת משפחת העמרמי, “and of Kehat, the family of Amram;” we are now speaking of the antecedents of Moses, not including any of Aaron’s family; this is why we read in Chronicles I 23,13: ויבדל אהרן להקדישו קדש קדשים, “Aaron was separated to sanctify him to become most holy.”Moses and his sons were considered as simply members of the tribe of Levi.
+
+Verse 28
+
+
+
+Verse 29
+
+
+
+Verse 30
+
+
+
+Verse 31
+
+וכלי הקודש, “and the holy vessels;” these are the ones enumerated further on.
+
+Verse 32
+
+
+
+Verse 33
+
+
+
+Verse 34
+
+
+
+Verse 35
+
+
+
+Verse 36
+
+
+
+Verse 37
+
+
+
+Verse 38
+
+
+
+Verse 39
+
+אשר פקד משה ואהרן, “whom Moses and Aaron had counted.” There are dots on the word ואהרן.
+
+Verse 40
+
+
+
+Verse 41
+
+
+
+Verse 42
+
+
+
+Verse 43
+
+
+
+Verse 44
+
+
+
+Verse 45
+
+קח את הלוים תחת כל בכור בבני ישראל, “take the Levites in exchange for all the firstborn of the remainder of the tribes of Israel.” The reason why the Levites alive now were not used to also redeem the Israelites that were to be born during the 38+years that the Israelites were still to wander through the desert, is because the Levites that were sanctified now had already been born by other Levites who had redeemed firstborns. It is not logical to assume that they possessed the spiritual power to redeem a second time. All the firstborns that are mentioned at this point were not the ones that had been redeemed by Levites in the desert, but had been born by ordinary Israelites who had never been redeemed; the firstborns that had been redeemed by Levites had not been known to also redeem as yet unborn firstborn that stemmed from them.
+
+Verse 46
+
+
+
+Verse 47
+
+חמשת חמשת שקלים לגלגלת, “five shekel apiece per head count;” this was the standard amount for redeeming firstborns.
+
+Verse 48
+
+ונתת הכסף לאהרן ולבניו, “you are to give the money to Aaron and his sons; just as the Levites who had redeemed the firstborn now took the place of them, so the money realized from the 273 firstborn for whom no Levites were found to redeem them, now was given to the priests, seeing that the Levites themselves were also subservient to the priests.
+
+Verse 49
+
+
+
+Verse 50
+
+מאת בכור בני ישראל, “from the firstborn of the Children of Israel;” this refers to the 273 who were in excess of the 22000 firstborns listed earlier.
+
+Verse 51
+
+
+
+Chapter 4
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+אל משה ואל אהרן, “to Moses and to Aaron;” seeing that Aaron and his sons had to place the Holy Ark and its contents on the shoulders of the Kehatites.
+
+Verse 2
+
+נשא את ראש בני קהת, “take the sum of the of the sons of Kehat;” even though Gershon was the older son of Kehat, Kehat was given precedence, as he had been chosen to carry the most holy furnishing of the Tabernacle, the Holy Ark.
+
+Verse 3
+
+
+
+Verse 4
+
+
+
+Verse 5
+
+וכסו בה, “and the shall cover it;” the prefix ב is used in this sense also in Leviticus 8,32: והנותר בבשר ובלחם, “and the surfeit of the flesh and bread;” compare also Leviticus 7,36: ביום משחו אותם, “on the day they were anointed (by means of it). Compare also Numbers 4,9: אשר ישרתו לה בהם, “wherewith they minister unto it.”
+
+Verse 6
+
+
+
+Verse 7
+
+ועל שולחן הפנים, “and on the table of the showbreads; ”from this wording (the prefix letter ה in the word הפנים) we may assume that there were also other tables in the Sanctuary on which the sacred flesh was placed. (that flesh was removed daily as opposed to the showbreads. Ibn Ezra)
+ולחם התמיד עליו יהיה, “the continual bread shall remain on it constantly.” How could these showbreads stay upright and not fall down during the journeys? [Our verse is G-d’s assurance that it would.]
+
+Verse 8
+
+
+
+Verse 9
+
+
+
+Verse 10
+
+
+
+Verse 11
+
+
+
+Verse 12
+
+את כל כלי השרת, “all the vessels of ministry;” knives, bowls, and ladles.
+ונתנו על המוט, “and they shall put them on the bar.” Not below the bar so that they would not get damaged by being dragged along the ground.
+
+Verse 13
+
+
+
+Verse 14
+
+ונתנו עליו את כליו, “they shall put on it all its vessels.” The pots were not mentioned as they were identical with wicker baskets made of copper which served three different purposes. They were used to transport fire (glowing coal) on the altar during the journeys in order to fulfill the instruction that there must always be fire on the altar (Leviticus 6,6.) They would also contain ashes and not completely burned up remains of sacrifices to be carried beyond the boundaries of the camp. While service was in progress they were used to throw from the ramp to the ground next to it. They would land with a bang and be picked up by any priest or Levi who had heard the bang. (Compare Tamid 5,5 where all this is explained in great detail)
+
+Verse 15
+
+
+
+Verse 16
+
+ופקדת אלעזר שמן המאור, “and the charge of Elazar was the oil for the lighting of the menorah;” he was also charged with guarding the oil for anointing. He would carry one type in his right hand and the other in his left hand. He would carry the incense in his arm, and the חביתים, “the daily offering of the High Priest”, consisting of a meal offering, so called, he would carry on his shoulders.
+בקדש ובכיליו, “whether belonging to the Sanctuary or its furnishings.” There is a dot above the letter ב in the word בקדש. (In our editions the dot is over the letter ק.)
+
+Verse 17
+
+
+
+Verse 18
+
+
+
+Verse 19
+
+
+
+Verse 20
+
+כבלע את הקדש, “as the sacred furnishings were being covered;” the expression: בלע is also found in Lamentations 2,2, i.e. בלע ה' ולא חמל, “the Lord consumed without pity;” in light of this we may understand it here as meaning that if anyone wanted to feast his eyes by watching the Tabernacle being dissembled he would die while doing so. We find that something similar happened to the people in Beyt Shemesh (Samuel I 6,19) [where 57000 men were killed by G-d for having dared to look inside the ark that the Philistines had captured from the Israelite soldiers and returned after it had created havoc among them. Ed.] We therefore hear that the Israelites in the desert, every time when the Tabernacle was dissembled prior to the next step in their journey, kept a distance from that area. (Compare verse 5 in our chapter and the whole discussion of what might otherwise be considered trivial detail as it had no historic significance, no portable Temple ever having been constructed again.) [The lesson surely must be, as already hinted at in Exodus chapter 24, where the elite of the people feasted their eyes on what they perceived as a vision of G-d. The Torah pointed out there that G-d took no action against them then as it was such a happy day in the Jewish people’s history. Ed.] The warning in our verse extended even to the people personally charged with the covering of these sacred items.
+
+Verse 21
+
+
+
+Verse 22
+
+נשא את ראש בני גרשון גם הם, “count the number of the members of the house of Gershon, also;” even though I have ordered you to count the members of the house of Kehat first, seeing that the most important part of that work is the transportation of the Ark, the Table, the altars and the menorah, as has been stated in chapter 7,1, do not fail to also count the members of the house of Gershon, even though they do not do any carrying, as their work is being performed by the wagons donated by the princes. After all, the members of the house of Gershon are the firstborns of the house of Levi, and for that reason deserve to be counted next.
+
+Verse 23
+
+לעבוד, “to perform service;” their service consisted of erecting and dismantling the Tabernacle, as is written: יורידו אותו הלוים יקימו אותו הלוים, “the Levites are to erect it, the Levites are to dismantle it.” (Numbers 1,51)
+
+Verse 24
+
+
+
+Verse 25
+
+
+
+Verse 26
+
+ועל המזבח סביב ואת מיתריהם, “and by the altar around and their cords;” why were the pegs for the hangings of the courtyard not mentioned here? (According to Nachmanides, the pegs, and their being fastened into the ground was the duty of the house of Merari)
+ואת כל אשר יעשה בהם, “and whatever was to be done with them;” we find this type of construction also Genesis 39,22. in connection with Joseph’s duties in the house of Potiphar.
+
+Verse 27
+
+ופקדתם עליהם במשמרת, “you shall appoint their entire burden as their charge.” This is an instruction that we do not find in connection with the duties of the house of Kehat. The reason is that everything that the Kehatites carried was covered and not visible to anyone else, as we have read in 4,15: וכלה אהרן ובניו לכסות את הקדש ואת כל כלי הקדש בנסוע המחנה ואחרי כן יבואו בני קהת, “and when Aaron and his sons had completed to cover the holy furnishings and the holy vessels when the camp was ready to move. Then the sons of Kehat shall approach, etc.”
+
+Verse 28
+
+
+
+Verse 29
+
+
+
+Verse 30
+
+
+
+Verse 31
+
+
+
+Verse 32
+
+ובשמות תפקדו את כלי משמרת משאם, “and by their respective names you shall appoint them for the various instruments.”
+
+Verse 33
+
+
+
+Verse 34
+
+
+
+Verse 35
+
+
+
+Verse 36
+
+
+
+Verse 37
+
+
+
+Verse 38
+
+
+
+Verse 39
+
+
+
+Verse 40
+
+
+
+Verse 41
+
+
+
+Verse 42
+
+
+
+Verse 43
+
+
+
+Verse 44
+
+
+
+Verse 45
+
+
+
+Verse 46
+
+
+
+Verse 47
+
+לעבוד עבודת עבודה, “to perform the work of bearing burdens.” This task of dismantling and reerecting the Tabernacle was shared in equal measure by all the Levites.
+ועבודת משא, “and the work of carrying;” a reference to the table, the Ark, the menorah, and the two altars carried by the Kehatites.
+
+Verse 48
+
+
+
+Verse 49
+
+
+
+Chapter 5
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+
+
+Verse 2
+
+וישלחו מן המחנה, “that they shall put outside the encampment, etc.” we have heard the commandment; where do we find the penalty for disregarding this commandment? Answer: this is to be found in Numbers 19,20: ואיש אשר יטמא ולא יתחטא וגו' ״, “and anyone who has become ritually defiled and does not purify himself, etc.”
+כל צרוע וכל זב וכל טמא לנפש, “anyone who has a leprous like eczema, or a semen related issue, or has been contaminated through contact with a dead body, etc.;” there are three different categories of ritual defilement and we have three verses dealing with them. The common denominator of these three categories of ritual defilement is that the process of purification takes seven days. They also require that the person afflicted with any of these defilements be banned from one or possibly all three camps of the Israelites. This is in contrast with a ritual defilement caused by seminal emission not caused by a disease, which can be purified by immersion in a ritual bath on the same day, so that by nightfall the afflicted person is ritually clean again.
+
+Verse 3
+
+מזכר עד נקבה תשלחו, “be such a person male or female he or she must be removed from the camps forbidden for their category of defilement.” The verse teaches that in respect of ritual defilement the Torah does not make a distinction between minors and adults, males or females.
+ולא יטמאו את מחניהם, “in order that their presence while in such a state does not confer ritual impurity on the entire camp.” They must also undergo a purification process for having committed robbery, or possibly indulged in forbidden sexual relations. Also a Nazarite who is in doubt about having violated the terms of his vow must undergo purification.
+
+Verse 4
+
+ויעשו כן בני ישראל, וישלחו, “the Children of Israel did so, and they put outside, etc.” from the manner in which this is reported it is clear that this commandment was meant to be fulfilled without any delay
+.כן עשו בני ישראל, “the Israelites did so;” the apparent repetition indicates that the people affected by this did not object or argue about their status.
+
+Verse 5
+
+
+
+Verse 6
+
+כי יעשו מכל חטאת האדם, “if they will commit any sin that people are in the habit of committing;” this paragraph concerns theft committed against the estate of a convert; the Rabbis derive this from the words 'מעל בה, “a trespass against the Lord;” seeing that the convert left behind no heirs, the thief or robber considered what he did as finder’s keeper. The Torah teaches that this is not so, but that the Lord is the One Who considers Himself as having been sinned against. A similar paragraph in Leviticus 5,21 has the words: וכחש בעמיתו, “and he denies having trespassed against his colleague,” as speaking of a natural born Jew. The reason why this paragraph follows that of the various types of ritual defilements described in the previous paragraph is to remind us that this very defilement and the subsequent ostracism for at least seven days was a punishment for one of the trespasses detailed in this paragraph. (Ibn Ezra)
+.ואשמה הנפש ההיא, והתודו, ”and that soul shall be guilty, and confess;” Rabbi Natan claims that this is a line that can be used universally for all such trespasses, that the first step in rehabilitation of the sinner must be his confession of having committed this trespass. (Sifri)
+
+Verse 7
+
+וחמישתו יוסיף עליו, “and he is to add a fifth of it” (the value of the stolen property); if his confession is not the result of witnesses having accused him of his guilt, but it is simply an expression of his remorse, then he pays only this extra 25%, but if witnesses testified about the theft he is required to add a second 25% as a penalty. We have already explained in our commentary on Leviticus 5,16 precisely what is meant by this.
+ונתן לאשר אשם לו, “he will give to the person against whom he trespassed etc.” this verse teaches that if someone had owed a certain person, Reuven, say 100 dollars, and he came to the court with the intent to pay Reuven that amount, but did not arrive until another creditor of Reuven had lodged a claim regarding an independent amount owed him by Reuven, the court will accept payment from the debtor and transfer it to the creditor, as the Torah specifically writes: “he will give it to the one against whom he had sinned by not paying it sooner.” (Sifri)[Malbim adds certain qualifications to the example quoted by Sifri. Ed]
+
+Verse 8
+
+המושב לה, “it shall be viewed as returned to the Lord,” through being given to a priest who is the representative of G-d on earth.
+לה' לכהן, G-d is considered the Father of all converts and as such entitled to inherit him. It (the outstanding debt) will therefore be paid to G-d’s “heir” on earth, the priest.
+
+Verse 9
+
+
+
+Verse 10
+
+ואיש את קדשיו לו יהיה, “and every man’s hallowed things shall be his;” this somewhat enigmatic phrase, teaches that if a priest has sanctified some of his animals as sacrifices, he need not hand them over to the group of priests on duty at the time, but can proceed to offer such animals personally, although this particular time is not one during which he is on duty. (Sifri)
+איש אשר יתן לכהן לו יהיה, “whatsoever any man gives (prematurely) to a priest shall be (remain) his, the donor’s.” This verse or phrase, is understood to mean that if a father of a firstborn son had given a priest the money for his son’s redemption before said son was thirty days old, and in the interval that son had died before reaching the age of thirty days, (when it had become due) the priest is to return the money he has received to the deceased son’s father. (Sifri)
+
+Verse 11
+
+
+
+Verse 12
+
+כי תשטה אשתו, “any man whose wife goes astray;” the reason the following paragraph appears at this junction is that both paragraphs discuss the kind of trespass called מעילה by the Torah. (Compare verse 6)
+
+Verse 13
+
+ונסתרה והיא נטמאה, “and the fact that she had become defiled by having sexual relations with a man not her husband was concealed from him;” according to our Rabbis, this verse teaches that when there is a doubt about whether an object reposing in private property is ritually clean, the doubt is treated as if certainty of it being ritually unclean as doubt of this nature is by definition only possible in a privately owned property that the public has no access to. The Torah here describes the doubt about the woman’s actions as if fact, and she lost her previous status of being assumed to be ritually pure.
+והיא נטמאה “and she had become ritually defiled;” through the semen of the man she had carnal relations with;” the word והיא here is spelled with letter י. [The Torah emphasized her impurity, ignoring her partner’s. Ed.]
+ועד אין בה, “and there is no witness who could accuse her of infidelity;” the reason why there is no witness is because she had not been raped. (according to Rabbi Saadyah gaon, as well as Rash’bam) (This could have served as a defense.) Because there is a doubt about her conduct, she has to undergo an examination.
+ועד אין בה, Rashi comments on this phrase that we must contrast it with what the law would be if there had been a witness testifying against her. Even the testimony of a single witness would be enough not to let her drink the potentially disastrous waters. The line also means that whereas we do not have a witness that she had carnal relations with a man not her husband, we do have witnesses that she had hidden herself, so that she could have committed that sin easily. The grammatical construction here is similar to Leviticus 24,14: ורגמו אותו, “they will (all) stone him;” the extra word אותו instead of the pronoun ending, i.e. ורגמוהו, teaches that he will be stoned naked, his clothing will not be stoned. Here, the word אותה means the reverse, i.e. while she was clothed. (Talmud Sanhedrin, folio 45). There are numerous examples of such constructions in the Torah and the reason why extra letters were used to teach us certain halachot, legal rulings. The word אפילו, “even,” in Rashi’s commentary here, is clearly a printer’s error. The Talmud in tractate Sota, folio 3 has Rabbi Yishmael raise the question why in the case of this woman suspected of marital infidelity, the Torah chose to accept the testimony of a single witness at all? In answer it is suggested that there is some logic for such a procedure. This was a case where the husband had legitimate reason to suspect his wife of immoral conduct, and he had warned her not be alone with the person whom he suspects her of being too friendly with. His suspicions had been aroused because she had already once contravened his warnings and had been known to have been alone with the man in question after that warning. Moreover we have a statement in the Talmud tractate Ketuvot folio 9, according to which: a woman (wife) is not forbidden for a husband to continue to have marital relations with on the basis of the testimony of a single witness, until we have two valid witnesses that can accuse her of having been unfaithful to her husband, and her husband had already been jealous of her and she had subsequently secluded herself with the man against whom her husband had warned her not to seclude herself. In commenting on this statement in the Talmud, Rashi writes that the Talmud cites an example when there was no witness at all that accused her of having had carnal relations, but that there had been witnesses to the husband expressing his jealousy, and her secreting herself with the man in question nonetheless. If however, there was one witness accusing her of additional seclusion, after all this, such a witness is sufficient. He bases himself on the word: בה, ”against her,” in our verse. In Rashi’s opinion that word refers to testimony of carnal union, [although there had not been two witnesses. Ed.] We read the line as if it had said; “there were no two witnesses against her but only one.” In other words, the extent of the value of this one witness is for the accused woman not to have to drink the bitter waters in order to prove her innocence and the consequences if she had lied.
+והיא לא נתפשה, “she had not been caught in the act.” [alternate meaning of the word נתפשה.]
+
+Verse 14
+
+“she had not been defiled;” the word והיא is spelled with the letter י.
+
+Verse 15
+
+והביא את קרבנה, “he will offer her sacrifice;” it is impossible to assume that this offering will bring her atonement, as we have a principle that offerings by confirmed sinners are an abomination. (Proverbs 21,27) What happens here is that the person who had observed the adulterous action originally, without reacting to it and bringing it to the attention of the appropriate authorities, brings an offering, in order to atone for his sin of omission. By having failed to do so, he was now the cause of the Holy Name of the Lord becoming dissolved in the waters that the woman denying the accusation is made to drink.
+קמח שעורים, “of barley flour.” This is a type of flour in which also the husks are mixed in with the kernels. This reflects on the nature of the sin it is to atone for, as it resembles fodder for animals, and the guilty party acted like an animal in its indiscriminate conduct. לא יצוק עליו שמן ולא יתן עליו לבונה, “he shall pour no oil on it, nor is he to put frankincense thereon.” Those ingredients when added to other gift offerings are usually referred to as אזכרה, “remembrance,” as they are to remind the recipient of the offering, the Lord, of the person who has presented it. In this instance it would remind Him of the guilt of the donor of this offering, seeing it is known as a מנחת קנאות, “a meal offering of jealousy,” i.e. instead of pleasant fragrance it exudes only the spirit of jealousy.
+מזכרת עון, it reminds G-d of the guilt of either of the two parties concerned, either the woman who had sinned or her husband who had suspected her unfairly.
+כי מנחת קנאות הוא, “for it is a meal offering originating from jealousy.” The word הוא, seeing that it is in the masculine mode, refers to the earlier noun קמח, which is a masculine noun. In verse 18, where the expression מנחת קנאות הוא occurs again, it refers to the offering which is from the noun מנחה, a feminine noun.
+
+Verse 16
+
+והעמידה, “he shall position her;” this means that she will be placed in a position from which she cannot escape. Compare Joshua 10,13: ויעמד השמש בחצי השמים, “the sun stood still when it was at its zenith.”
+והעמידה לפני ה, “he sets her before the Lord.” He said to her: ‘wait here for me until I enter the Temple and return in order to take some earth from there.’ She was not allowed to enter the Temple (in order to save the priest time and effort. Ed.]
+
+Verse 17
+
+ומן העפר אשר יהיה בקרקע המשכן, “and from the soil on the floor of the Tabernacle, etc.” we have learned in a Mishnah in tractate Sotah folio 15, that the priest when entering the Sanctuary would turn to his right, and that close by there was a spot one cubit by one cubit, to which a slab of marble would be permanently attached by means of rings, from which the priest by lifting that slab would take the earth to be mixed with the water that this woman would be made to drink from.
+
+Verse 18
+
+
+
+Verse 19
+
+ממי המרים, “from this water of bitterness;” according to our sages, the priest had added herbs that would make the water taste bitter.
+
+Verse 20
+
+ואת כי שטית, “but since you have strayed, etc.” the priest did not say to her: “if you have strayed,” but he said to her that there was no question that she had strayed, the question was only to what extent she had strayed. She definitely deserved to have been shamed. Having caused her husband to suspect her, and having subsequently secreted herself with a man that her husband had specifically told her not to do, was disgraceful behaviour, even if no intimacy had occurred.
+וכי נטמאת, “the priest left the end of the sentence unsaid, i.e. “you will be punished through drinking these waters.” And in the event you have become ritually defiled;” he also implied that if she had not had carnal relations with someone other than her husband the waters would not harm her.
+מבלעדי אישך, the wording means that only if she had engaged in carnal relations with another man after her husband had been her husband in the full sense of the word, not during the period when she was merely betrothed, would she be forced to drink these waters if she wanted to clear her name. (B’chor shor)
+
+Verse 21
+
+והשביע הכהן את האשה, “then the priest shall cause the woman to accept a curse as a form of an oath;” this took the form of the woman confirming the curses uttered by the priest with answering: “Amen.”
+ירכך, “your thigh;” this is a synonym for “your womb.” Compare Genesis 24,2 where Avraham asks his servant to select a suitable wife for his son Yitzchok, by placing his hand under his thigh, i.e. תחת ירכי; then we have the expression: יוצאי ירך יעקב, “the descendants of Yaakov stemming from his thigh,” in Exodus 1,5. In the Talmud Megillah, folio 13, we hear that a woman’s jealousy is usually concerned with the offspring of other women, where the word for “offspring” used is the word .ירך
+נופלת, “falling,” an expression describing the loss of something. Compare Job 12,3: לא נופל אנכי מכם, “I am no less than you.” Applied to our situation this means: “you are no longer capable of engaging in carnal relations as the waters will damage the organs designed for this. Your womb will be ruined.”
+
+Verse 22
+
+ואמרה האשה: אמן, “the woman will respond by saying: “Amen.” In other words, she will agree that this will happen to her and deservedly, if she lied and was guilty of the accusations. According to the Jerusalem Targum, the word “Amen” here includes the following: “I agree that if I have defiled myself, or even if I will defile myself in the future.”According to our sages in the Sifri, the word: “Amen” here, means that she agrees that if she was guilty of having carnal relations with the particular man under discussion, or even with any other man not under discussion (after her marriage) she agrees that she deserves the penalty announced to her by the priest (the Torah). They explain further that seeing that the oaths are expressed in the plural mode, although only one single example of what they applied to was mentioned, (carnal relations (verse 20) any earlier violations of the laws of chastity in marriage would also now result in her being punished for them. They use logic to derive this: if a woman who had strayed but had never been accused previously is now being punished, any earlier acts of robbery [marital infidelity is an act of robbing one’s husband of his legitimate and exclusive rights, Ed.] in which the accusation could not be made to result in her being penalized, would now also be taken into consideration by G-d and used against her.
+
+Verse 23
+
+וכתב, “he will write;” using ink dissoluble in water. This is clear from the word: ומחה, ”he will erase;”
+את האלות האלה, “these curses;” the ones recorded on the scrolls mentioned here.
+
+Verse 24
+
+והשקה את האשה, “he shall make the woman drink;” the letter ה at the end of the word האשה, does not have a dot in it, as opposed to the same word in verse 27, where that dot is a pronoun.
+
+Verse 25
+
+
+
+Verse 26
+
+
+
+Verse 27
+
+
+ונפלה ירכה, “and her womb will fall;” it will no longer be able to fulfill the functions for which it had been designed. The punishment matches the crime.
+
+Verse 28
+
+ונקתה, “she will be cleared” (of the accusation).
+ונזרעה זרע, “and will conceive seed.” Her womb will not have suffered damage, and in future marital relations with her husband she will conceive [and presumably give successful birth. Ed.] A different interpretation of the last two words in our verse. From this point on when her husband resumes marital relations with her he will do so with halachic permission.
+
+Verse 29
+
+
+
+Verse 30
+
+
+
+Verse 31
+
+ונקה האיש מעון, “and the man will be free from guilt,” the guilt of allowing his wife to indulge in infidelity while married to her without divorcing her.
+את עונה, “her guilt.” The meaning of the word: עון here is the same as the same word in Samuel I 28,10: אם יקרך עון בדבר הזה, “if in this matter you would become guilty of something, etc.;” King Saul absolves the witch of Endor in advance of her complying with his request. Once the moral standards of the Jewish people had declined so that the incidence of infidelity, adultery, was no longer a rare event, the practice of subjecting women accused of such to Divine intervention in order drink the bitter waters to clear her name was discontinued. This discontinuation was based on when the prophet Hoseah, 4,14 wrote (quoting G-d) לא אפקוד על בנותיכם כי תזנינה, “I will not punish your daughters for engaging in adultery.” The Targum on this line translates the words לא אפקוד, as if the prophet had said: לא אבדוק, “I will not examine if the accusation is justified” by letting My Holy Name be dissolved in water.) (Compare Talmud Sotah, folio 47).
+
+Chapter 6
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+
+
+Verse 2
+
+כי יפלא, this is one of the words which occur in different contexts, having opposite meanings, such as “building” or “demolishing.” For instance, we find the phrase (Deut. 17,8) כי יפלא ממך דבר, where it means: “if something is too baffling for you, etc;” (the reference is to litigation between two parties) In our situation, our sages presume that the subject of the vow of Nazirite was not inserted here haphazardly, but that it teaches a valuable lesson in how to preserve one’s sin-free status. Our sages surmise that the reason that this subject follows on the heels of that of the wayward wife, is that man falling victim to sinning is related to imbibing too much wine, something that loosens not only one’s tongue, but also other restraints that would have served as protection against committing certain sins. [The reader may recall that Lot having been given too much wine by his daughters, resulted in the first instance of incest, so that the founder of the people of Moav’s founding father was at the same time also his grandfather through his mother. Eventually, 24000 Israelites were killed by a plague for having made an obeisance to a Moabite idol, Baal-Peor, after having drunk too much wine and slept with Moabite women who had been told by Bileam to find a way to seduce them. Ed.] According to our author, a woman who has not coiffed her hair properly is not in demand for sexual intercourse. (Based on Ibn Ezra)
+נדר נדר להזיר, “has uttered a vow to become a Nazirite.” The reason why the Torah chose such a cumbersome way of saying this is that it wanted to incorporate the three main aspects of the Nazirite’s vow: abstention from wine, etc; not shaving his hair, and avoiding contact with ritual impurity.
+
+Verse 3
+
+
+
+Verse 4
+
+
+
+Verse 5
+
+גדל פרע, “the locks (of hair) growing wildly;” these are two words meaning almost the same, just as in Daniel 12,2: אדמת עפר, “dusty earth;”, “dusty earth
+
+Verse 6
+
+על נפש מת, “near a dead body;” the word על is used in the sense of אצל, “next to.” Examples of such uses are found in Exodus 40,3: וסכות על הארון את הפרוכת, “you shall screen the Ark with the veil next to it.” Compare also Genesis24,30,והוא עומד על הגמלים, “while he was standing next to the camels.”
+
+Verse 7
+
+לא יטמא להם, “he must not defile himself on their account.” The addition of the word: להם on their account, means that he may or even should defile himself in order to bury a corpse who has no one else to attend to his being buried. (Talmud tractate Megillah folio 3.)
+במותם, “on account of their death;” however, he is not forbidden to become defiled through contact with living human beings afflicted with involuntary emissions from their sexual organs. (Sifri) [How could he be aware of their condition? Ed.]
+
+Verse 8
+
+
+
+Verse 9
+
+וכי ימות מת עליו, “and if someone dies suddenly beside him;” here the meaning of the word עליו is not “on him,” or “upon him,” but “beside him, next to him.”
+בפתע פתאום, “very suddenly;” a construction similar to גדל פרע in verse 5.
+וטמא ראש נזרו, “and he will defile his consecrated head;” this expression means that he has invalidated all the days of his being a Nazirite until now, and has to start the count anew.” The reason is that those days have to be counted consecutively, [generally the vow is valid for 30 days unless specified differently at the outset. Ed.] Any interruption of his status through ritual defilement cancels the whole period preceding it. [The word ראש in connection with counting has appeared repeatedly when the Israelites underwent a census. Ed.]
+
+Verse 10
+
+שתי תורים, “two turtle doves;” these plus a male sheep below the age of one year (verse 12) i.e. three animals symbolising the three major aspects of being a Nazirite, abstention from alcoholic drink, letting his hair grow wild, and avoiding contact with dead bodies.
+
+Verse 11
+
+מאשר חטא על הנפש, “for having sinned by reason of the dead.” (He should have made sure that the building he entered did not contain a corpse) The Torah had specifically warned him not to enter such a building in verse 6 of our chapter.
+
+Verse 12
+
+
+
+Verse 13
+
+וזאת תורת הנזיר, “and this is the law of the Nazirite” up to now the Torah had dealt with problems a Nazirite encounters when he violated the terms of his vow; now it proceeds to inform us about the procedures he must follows upon successful completion of the terms of his vow.
+
+Verse 14
+
+כבש אחד, כבשה אחת, ואיל אחד, “one male sheep, one female sheep, and one ram;” the three animals represent the three major aspects of a Nazirite’s vow, i.e. to abstain from any grapebased drink, including any part of the untreated fruit; to let the hair of his head grow without trimming any of it; to avoid contact with dead bodies which would defile his ritual purity. In order to underline this symbolism even further, there are three stages concerning how the parts of the ram which serves as a “peaceoffering” and that are not burned up on the altar are to be consumed. One part is to be “consumed” by the altar; one part is to be consumed by the priest or priests on duty at that time; and the third part by the owner and his family, i.e. the Nazirite himself.
+ואיל אחד תמים שלמים, this last offering reflects the Nazirite’s joy at having been able to complete term of his vow successfully. Prior to offering this ram, the Nazirite must place his body weight on the animal as a gesture of dedicating it as a sacrifice, and the parts assigned to the priest or priests, must undergo the customary waving. These parts are to be given to the priests while still raw.
+
+Verse 15
+
+
+
+Verse 16
+
+
+
+Verse 17
+
+
+
+Verse 18
+
+וגלח הנזיר, “and he shall shave of the hair of his head; from what we have read earlier in verse 5, we knew that this “shaving” is performed by a razor. Seeing that Jews are forbidden to shave by razor, this hair now has to be burned, [so that none of it can be used or enjoyed as the proceeds of a sin must not be enjoyed]. If it were not burned, innocent people not aware of its origin might use it for their own benefit.
+ונתן על האש, “and place it on the fire;” because it has been sanctified, as stated in verse 5 above. This is why it was fit for burning so as not to become an unwitting obstacle to people not knowing its origin.
+אשר תחת זבח השלמים, “which is under the peace offering.” Seeing that it is holy, it needs to be burned under the pot in which the meat of that offering is being boiled.
+
+Verse 19
+
+הזרוע, “the shoulder;” the word זרוע is a feminine noun as we know from Exodus 6,6: זרוע נטויה, “an outstretched arm.” This is why, when describing its adjective, the Torah wrote: בשלה, and not מבושל. Compare the words: כבידה, heavy, or שמנה, fat, or אבילה, in a state of mourning.
+
+Verse 20
+
+על חזה התנופה ועל שוק התרומה, “together with breast of waving and the thigh of heaving;” in other words: together with the breast and the thigh.
+
+Verse 21
+
+על נזרו, “on account of the vow which he shall pledge.” Compare this construction with: Leviticus 1,4: לכפר עליו, “to be acceptable to atone for him.” Compare also Psalms 44,23: כי עליך הורגנו, “since for Your sake we have been killed, etc.
+”מלבד אשר תשיג ידו, “beside that which he can afford.” This is also a construction which we find elsewhere, as for instance in Leviticus 23,38: מלבד מתנותיכם, “beside your gifts.”
+
+Verse 22
+
+
+
+Verse 23
+
+דבר אל אהרן, “speak to Aaron, etc.;” the reason why the paragraph dealing with the priestly blessing has been inserted at this juncture, is that they are holy, just as the Nazirite was holy, though only for a limited period, and not from birth. (Ibn Ezra)
+ואל בניו, “and to his sons;” this teaches that not only the High Priest bestows blessings on the people but also the ordinary priest.
+כה תברכו, “thus you shall bless:” during the first year while Jewish people were encamped in the same spot (around Mount Sinai) the Canaanites did not become aware of them. But during the second year when they had been counted according to tribes, and each knew his family tree, and they had been assigned flags, trumpets, etc., in order to organise their journeys properly, the Canaanites surrounding them had taken note of them. At this point the Canaanites had first begun to fear the approaching armies of the Israelites, [though they were not really an army as they travelled with their whole families. Ed.] The Israelites, aware of the likelihood of military encounters in the near future, now felt in need of blessings by the priests. They worried of being guilty of sins that would make them casualties in the coming confrontation. The fact is that immediately after the death of Aaron, when the Canaanites felt encouraged to attack them, they captured some prisoners. (Numbers 21,1) [Seeing that encounter happened to the next generation after almost 40 years, it is hard to see the relevance at this point. Ed.] כה תברכו, “thus you shall bless!” You are to be in a standing position when conferring these blessings.” This is spelled out more clearly in Deuteronomy 27,12: אלה יעמדו לברך, “these are to stand in order to pronounce blessing!”
+אמור להם, “say to them!” this teaches that the reader in the synagogue has to call upon the priests to begin their blessings. This also teaches that the priest is not guilty of failing to carry out this commandment until he has failed to respond to the reader’s call to do so. [He can leave the Sanctuary prior to this. Ed.]
+
+Verse 24
+
+
+
+Verse 25
+
+יאר ה׳ פניו, “May the Lord make His face shine;” The meaning is that the priest expresses the wish that G-d will grant the listeners life, as per Proverbs 16,15: באור פני מלך חיים, “in the light of the King’s face there is life.”
+
+Verse 26
+
+ישא ה׳ פניו אליך, “may the Lord lift up His countenance upon you!” In order to understand this properly it will help to look at Samuel II 2,22: ואיך אשא פני אל יואב אחיך “ how will I be able to look your brother Yoav in the face? [Avner had been trying to save Asa-el, his pursuer’s life, and Yoav’s brother by begging him to take advantage of the opportunity to escape from him. Ed.] The priests, in their blessing, ask G-d to welcome the members of the congregation with a welcoming and joyful heart.
+
+Verse 27
+
+ושמו את שמי, “they (the priests during their blessing) are to place My name, etc.;” the fact that in each of the verses comprising the priests” blessings they pronounce the most holy name of the Lord, makes plain that they only act as conduits, and that the blessing stems directly from the Lord. The Torah, in order to underline this concept, adds:
+ואני אברכם, “and I will bless them.” G-d will bless the Israelites in response to the priests invoking this blessing. The priests are never to take credit for having blessed the people, as the blessing stems from the Lord whose messengers they are.[There are commentators who understand the above words to mean that if and when the priests bless the people as prescribed, G-d, in turn will bless them. (Rashi). Ed.]
+
+Chapter 7
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+ויהי ביום כלות משה להקים את המשכן, “it was on the day that Moses had completed erecting the Tabernacle;” the Torah here refers to chapter 4,1-16. The Torah there had discussed the tasks allocated to the sons of Kehat which needed to be performed by carrying the furnishings on their shoulders. Now it turns to discussing the tasks of the sons of Gershon and Merari, which could not be performed by carrying on their shoulders, and which needed to be transported on the wagons donated by the princes. The subject of consecrating the altar follows that of the priests, to teach that on the day that Aaron raised his hands in blessing the Jewish nation, this was followed immediately by the consecration of the altar. (Ibn Ezra)
+וימשח אותו, “and he had anointed it;” having done so it became holy, i.e. ויקדש אותו. Our sages in the Talmud Sh’vuot, folio 15 state that all the vessels which Moses anointed became holy through the act of having been anointed. They were ready for immediate use. In subsequent generations new vessels were sanctified by their first use in the Sanctuary.
+
+Verse 2
+
+ויקריבו נשיאי ישראל, “the princes of the house of Israel offered etc.;” the Torah follows up with telling us what it was that the princes of the house of Israel offered, i.e. the offering was individual and collective at one and the same time; (verse 3) [Their sacrifices (pl.) are described as קרבנם, “their offering” (singular) instead of קרבנותיהם, “their offerings, pl.)
+העומדים על הפקודים, “the ones who supervised the census.” According to Rashi, each prince had stood beside Moses and Aaron when the members of that prince’s tribe were being counted. He based himself on Numbers 1,4: ואתכם יהיו איש איש למטה איש ראש לבית אבותיו הוא, “and with you there shall be a man of every tribe, everyone head of his father’s house.” Therefore the construction of ויביאו את קרבנם, “they brought their atonement offering for counting the people of Israel,” is justified. We find another example of such an offering as atonement for counting in Numbers 31,50 after the successful punitive campaign against Midian, [both the soldiers who found that there had been no casualties, and the huge amount of booty collected. Ed.]
+
+Verse 3
+
+שש עגלות צב, “six covered wagons;” the expression צב, is derived from צבא, “army,” in the sense of mobilising.
+
+Verse 4
+
+
+
+Verse 5
+
+ונתתה אותם אל הלוים איש כפי עבודתו, “you (Moses) will hand them over to the Levites, each in accordance with the needs of their specific tasks.” This left open the construction of additional wagons if the ones donated by the princes should prove insufficient. It is hardly likely that twelve oxen could pull the 48 sections of the Tabernacle’s walls, plus the one hundred sockets of silver each very heavy, plus all the pillars and the heavy skins and carpets making up the roof of the Tabernacle, not to mention the curtains and supports surrounding the courtyard of the Tabernacle.
+
+Verse 6
+
+
+
+Verse 7
+
+את שתי העגלות, “the two wagons, etc.” seeing that the weight of the curtains and skins for the roof, and other incidentals, were relatively light, only two of the wagons were assigned for that task.
+
+Verse 8
+
+.ואת ארבעת העגלות “and the other four wagons, etc.;” these four wagons would transport all the heavy parts of the Tabernacle.”
+
+Verse 9
+
+
+
+Verse 10
+
+
+
+Verse 11
+
+נשיא אחד ליום, “one prince each day, etc.” the presentation of these offerings were spread over 12 days in order to accord honour to each of the princes. Seeing that the tribe of Yehudah represented Royalty in the future, the prince of Yehudah, Nachshon, was the first one to present his offering. In order to ensure that he would not say that seeing he had been the first one to present his offering, he would also join the other princes on each in their offering, the Torah limits the number of offerings to be presented to one on each day. By extending the period of these offerings for 12 days, the festive nature and the attending joy among the people was considerably enhanced.
+
+Verse 12
+
+נחשון בן עמינדב, “Nachshon, son of Aminadav.” He has not been accorded his title here as have all the other princes, i.e. “prince of such and such a tribe,” in order that he should not feel proud for having been chosen to be the first one to offer this sacrifice. The other princes were all given their title when mentioned as recognition of the fact that none of them protested Nachshon having been chosen to be the first one.
+
+Verse 13
+
+וקרבנו, “and his offering, etc.” the strange prefix of the letter ו meaning: “and,” when no other offering had been offered as yet, is explained by the Torah having written in verse 12; ויהי המקריב, “and he that presented, etc.” By adding this prefix the Torah wishes us to understand that what follows was what the person mentioned in verse 12 presented. An alternate approach: the reason that Nachshon’s offering is introduced by the connective letter ו is that he should not boast about having been the first prince to be allowed to present this offering. [If he even did not mind that his title was omitted, he was hardly likely to boast about anything. Ed. ]
+קערת כסף, “a silver dish,” what is the difference between a קערה and a מזרק, a basin? According to the Sifri, a bowl is thick and a מזרק is thin. It weighed only slightly more than half the weight of a מזרק
+
+Verse 14
+
+כף אחת עשרה זהב, “one golden pan weighing ten shekel; the shekel is a weight measure applied to silver, not usually to gold.
+
+Verse 15
+
+פר אחד בן בקר, “one young bullock;” compare the word בן as describing something when used in connection with pigeons, i.e. בן יונה.
+
+Verse 16
+
+
+
+Verse 17
+
+זה קרבן, “this was the offering, etc.” This apparently superfluous word was to hint that these princes added incense to their offerings, something not usually permitted to an offering of an individual. Not only that, but they also offered a sin offering each, although they had not been guilty of any sin requiring this. In addition, and even more remarkable, at least one of them offered his offering on the Sabbath when individual offerings must not be offered. (Compare Sifri)
+
+Verse 18
+
+
+
+Verse 19
+
+
+
+Verse 20
+
+
+
+Verse 21
+
+
+
+Verse 22
+
+
+
+Verse 23
+
+
+
+Verse 24
+
+
+
+Verse 25
+
+
+
+Verse 26
+
+
+
+Verse 27
+
+
+
+Verse 28
+
+
+
+Verse 29
+
+
+
+Verse 30
+
+
+
+Verse 31
+
+
+
+Verse 32
+
+
+
+Verse 33
+
+
+
+Verse 34
+
+
+
+Verse 35
+
+
+
+Verse 36
+
+
+
+Verse 37
+
+
+
+Verse 38
+
+
+
+Verse 39
+
+
+
+Verse 40
+
+
+
+Verse 41
+
+
+
+Verse 42
+
+
+
+Verse 43
+
+
+
+Verse 44
+
+
+
+Verse 45
+
+
+
+Verse 46
+
+
+
+Verse 47
+
+
+
+Verse 48
+
+ביום השביעי, “on the seventh day;” this day was a Sabbath; permission was granted to not interrupt this string of sacrifices of which G-d had told Moses that they should be offered on consecutive days. (Verse 11)
+
+Verse 49
+
+
+
+Verse 50
+
+
+
+Verse 51
+
+
+
+Verse 52
+
+
+
+Verse 53
+
+
+
+Verse 54
+
+
+
+Verse 55
+
+
+
+Verse 56
+
+
+
+Verse 57
+
+
+
+Verse 58
+
+
+
+Verse 59
+
+
+
+Verse 60
+
+
+
+Verse 61
+
+
+
+Verse 62
+
+
+
+Verse 63
+
+
+
+Verse 64
+
+
+
+Verse 65
+
+
+
+Verse 66
+
+
+
+Verse 67
+
+
+
+Verse 68
+
+
+
+Verse 69
+
+
+
+Verse 70
+
+
+
+Verse 71
+
+
+
+Verse 72
+
+
+
+Verse 73
+
+
+
+Verse 74
+
+
+
+Verse 75
+
+
+
+Verse 76
+
+
+
+Verse 77
+
+
+
+Verse 78
+
+
+
+Verse 79
+
+
+
+Verse 80
+
+
+
+Verse 81
+
+
+
+Verse 82
+
+
+
+Verse 83
+
+
+
+Verse 84
+
+
+
+Verse 85
+
+
+
+Verse 86
+
+
+
+Verse 87
+
+
+
+Verse 88
+
+
+
+Verse 89
+
+ובבא משה, “and when Moses entered;” seeing that the subject here is the consecration of the altar, we are told here that the Presence of the Lord was manifest over the Tabernacle, and that G-d’s voice emanated from within it. Some commentators feel that the beginning of the Book of Leviticus completes the report about the consecration of the altar. (Ibn Ezra)
+
+Chapter 8
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+
+
+Verse 2
+
+דבר אל אהרן, speak to Aaron, etc.; the commandment about lighting the lamps on menorah appears immediately following the consecration rites of the altar because we have heard about twelve tribal leaders each offering a sacrifice on that occasion, while the tribe of Levi, i.e. its representative, Aaron, has not been allocated any role in that important event. The Levites had started to grumble about having been excluded from these festivities. They wanted to know the reason why they had been excluded. As a result, G-d immediately told Aaron and his sons that what the representatives of the other tribes had done was only in the nature of something preparatory, whereas it had been reserved for them to do the actual consecration of the Temple/altar. The reader is referred by our author to Nachmanides’ lengthy and comprehensive commentary on this paragraph. Aaron is initially to involve his sons in these activities and subsequently also other members of the tribe of Levi.
+בהעלותך את הנרות, “when you light the lamps, etc.;” this command was issued on the day that the Tabernacle had been erected (and stayed up) because they started to light the lamps in order to teach that these lamps burned throughout the night, also. The light in the Tabernacle was like an eternal flame (Ibn Ezra) We find something similar in connection with the prophet Samuel, (Samuel I 3-4) 'ונר אלוקים טרם יכבה״״ויקרא ה אל שמואל“the lamp of G-d had not yet gone out, and Samuel was sleeping in the Temple, when G-d called to Samuel.” (Chavell directs the reader to the commentary known as karney or, to follow up on this subject) בהעלותך את הנרות אל מול פני המנורה, “when you kindle the lamps towards the front of the menorah;” the priest or High Priest performing this procedure was to take up position facing the seven lamps on the menorah. As a result, the lights would all illuminate. The words: אל מול פני המנורה, do not refer to the words that follow: יאירו שבעת הנרות, as understood by Rashi, but as is clear from what Aaron actually did as reported in the verse following, אל מול פני המנורה העלה נרותיה, “he had lit the lamps while facing them.”A different interpretation: the words בהעלותך את הנרות, are to be understood literally. i.e. “when you raise the lamps;” you will then place the wicks in their positions. They are not considered as fixtures in their respective positions, seeing that we have read in Exodus 37,17: ויעש את המנורה, “he constructed the candlestick,” and subsequently we read: (Exodus 37,23) ויעש את נרותיה שבעה ומלקחיה, “and he made the lamps thereof, seven, and their tongs;”“ ,אל מול פני המנורה יאירו שבעת הנרות He turned the seven mouths for the wicks towards the center shaft of the front of the candlestick, which faced the dividing curtain in the Sanctuary which was hung between the Sanctuary and the innermost holies housing the Ark. This would make sense according to the sage who claims that the position of the menorah was in a north-south direction i.e. its broadside was facing the dividing curtain, in one direction whereas the opposite broadside faced the entrance of the Sanctuary. According to the sage who claims that the menorah was positioned in an east-west direction, it would have faced the Table in the Sanctuary. This is how we can interpret what is written in Exodus 4,24: וישם את המנורה נוכח השולחן, “he placed the menorah opposite the Table.”
+יאירו שבעת הנרות, “the seven lamps shall provide illumination. This would refer to the six lamps, three on either side of the center shaft of the candlestick. According to our author this would be the correct text in Rashi, but the scribes of Rashi’s manuscripts have omitted a word by mistake, i.e. the word האמצעי, “the centre shaft” (the lamp on it)
+
+Verse 3
+
+
+
+Verse 4
+
+וזה מעשה המנורה, “and this was the work of the candlestick;” this verse is one of three verses with which Moses had difficulty, according to our sages. This is hinted at by the word: וזה. (Compare Talmud tractate Menachot folio 29) According to Sifri here the three were: our verse, the second one the verse in Exodus 12 about the position of the moon at new moon, and the third was the verse dealing with creeping animals. The reason that the Sifri did not include the word זה in זה יתנו, “this they shall give” (the half shekel coin in Exodus 30,13) is that Moses had no problem imagining the size and shape of a coin.
+
+Verse 5
+
+
+
+Verse 6
+
+קח את הלוים, “take the Levites;” this line was said on the day that the Tabernacle had been erected; (Talmud, tractate Gittin 60) seeing that the laws pertaining to the Levites were recorded in writing on that day, as on that day they commenced the part of their service that involved their daily songs of praise. The paragraph was written in chronological order, and the two previous paragraphs, one of which commenced with הקרב את מטה לוי, (Numbers 3,6) and the other which commenced with the words: ואני הנה לקחתי את הלוים, (Numbers 3,12) these paragraphs referred to the position where the Levies encamped around the Tabernacle. After the Tabernacle had been erected and the positioning of the flags had been arranged and the lights of the menorah had been kindled, G-d ordered Moses to command the Levites to commence their daily service. The paragraph dealing with the Levites’ service was written next to that of the kindling of the lights in order to tell us that the priests were to busy themselves with that at the same time as when the Levites were performing their service. Apart from that the Levites will assist the Kohanim in their service.
+מתוך בני ישראל, “from among the Children of Israel.” Up until that time they had been part of the ordinary Israelites. (Ibn Ezra).
+
+Verse 7
+
+הזה עליהם מי חטאת, “sprinkle the water of purification on them;” it is impossible to say that this command was issued on the day when this paragraph was revealed, as on the day when the Tabernacle had been erected the procedure of burning the red heifer had not yet been performed. (Jerusalem Talmud tractate Megillah 3,3, and quoted by Rashi on Gittin folio 60) The red heifer was burned on the day following. We therefore have to understand the sequence as being as follows: it is taken for granted that the sprinkling of the purification waters took place after the procedure with the red heifer had been performed. (Numbers chapter 19) Even though the Levites were obligated to purify themselves in anticipation of performing their service as otherwise they could not have sung their songs, since the day when the Tabernacle had been erected, we must assume that they used the oil with which they had been anointed in lieu of the waters containing the ash of the red heifer. Commencing with that day, it became the task of the Levites to dismantle the Tabernacle and to reassemble it as the progress of the Israelites’ journeys demanded this. Prior to that, when they needed to become purified they used either blood from the altar or some of the oil of anointment. The Talmud in tractate Yuma folio 4 states that the water of the red heifer took the place of blood which had been used previously in the procedure of purification.
+הזה עליהם מי חטאת, “sprinkle water of purification on them” Seeing that from that day on they were charged with the dismantling and reassembling the Tabernacle, they would have to undergo this sprinkling on the third and seventh day of a seven day period. [This editor finds it difficult to reconcile this with the Torah’s statement that on occasion the Tabernacle was put up only for a single day, as the Israelites moved on again as soon as the cloud above it moved. (Numbers 9,18-23) Ed.] The reason that this was needed was that it was impossible for the Levites not to have been in contact with dead bodies while the people were encamped, especially after the sin of the spies when dying had to have become a daily occurrence.
+והעבירו תער על כל בשרם, “and let the cause a razor to pass over all their flesh;” they had to do this prior to the sprinkling of the ash in the water of the red heifer on the third and seventh day of their purification ritual. Rashi mentions in his commentary here that he found in the writings of Rabbi Moshe hadarshan, that seeing that the Levites had functioned as the instruments of atonement for the firstborn who had been guilty during the episode of the golden calf, and that was called a זבחי מתים, “offering of the dead,” and the “leprous” (מצורעים) people also referred to as “dead,” [compare Numbers 12,1113. Ed.] the Levites required shaving of all body hair as required from “leprous” people during their purification process after the priest has declared them as healed. (Leviticus chapter 14)
+
+Verse 8
+
+ולקחו פר בן בקר, “then let them take a young bullock, etc,” this was to serve as a consecration rite for the services they would perform henceforth. An alternate interpretation: they have to take a young bullock seeing that the firstborn whom they replaced had served the golden calf at the instruction of others, at that time. We derive this from the line in Exodus 32,4: אלה אלוהיך ישראל, “these are your gods, Israel.” In other words: someone, the mixed multitude seduced the Israelites. We find in Numbers 15,24: “then it shall be, if it be done in error by the congregation, it having been hidden from their eyes, that all the congregation shall offer one young bullock for a burnt offering, etc,” The subject there is the person who had inadvertently committed the sin of idolatry
+ופר שני, “and a second bullock, etc.;” in commenting on the word שני, second, Rashi points out that the sin offering when applicable, must precede the offering of a burnt offering. [How could a burnt offering be welcome before the Lord as long as the person guilty of bringing a sin offering for his atonement has not first done so? Ed.] The point of the Torah using this sequence therefore is to teach us that just as no parts of a burnt offering may be eaten by the donor or the priest, so in this instance, no part of the sin offering may be eaten either. Our author, in elaborating on that Rashi, adds that the Levites used this bullock as their consecration offering as is clear from Leviticus 9,11,where it is spelled out specifically, and it was a sin offering.
+תקח לחטאת, “you shall take as a sin offering.” When it came to “taking,” i.e. sanctifying and setting the offering aside for its purpose, the Torah mentions the burnt offering first. The reason is that the more valuable one of these two bullocks was the one used for the burnt offering. Nonetheless, when it came to the sequence of which of these two animals would be offered on the altar first, the sin offering took precedence. The Torah paid the Levites a compliment, by not requiring them to offer a male goat as a sin offering, for if it had insisted on this, the impression could have been created that the Levites had to atone for the inadvertently committed sin of idolatry. They had not been guilty of that. (B’chor shor)
+
+Verse 9
+
+.והקרבת את הלוים לפני אהל מועד , “you shall present the Levites at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting;” we find a similar construction in Leviticus 14,11, where the priest is presenting the person to be purified at the entrance of the Tabernacle, i.e. “before the Lord.”
+
+Verse 10
+
+וסמכו בני ישראל את ידיהם “and the Children of Israel shall place their hands, etc;” the “Children of Israel” referred to here are the firstborn for whom the Levites had served as atonement. Every firstborn Israelite would place his hands on the Levite who was to perform that service for him.
+וסמכו בני ישראל את ידיהם על הלוים, we find this kind of procedure also in Numbers 27,18, where G-d tells Moses to appoint Joshua as his successor, i.e. וסמכת ידך עליו, “you are to place your hand upon him.” Whenever this procedure is mentioned in the Bible it means that authority is being transferred by the person placing his hand or hands on the person to be appointed. The first person to do so was Yaakov in Genesis 48,14, where he placed his right had on Joseph’s younger son Ephrayim, indicating that he should be treated as his firstborn.
+
+Verse 11
+
+והניף אהרן את הלוים מאת בני ישראל, “and Aaron is to wave the Levites (as an offering) from the Children of Israel;” Aaron was chosen to do this as he was the agent appointed for this by the nation.
+
+Verse 12
+
+על ראש הפרים, “on the heads of the bullocks;” on the head of each one of them.
+
+Verse 13
+
+והעמדת את הלוים לפני אהרן ולפני בניו, “and you shall position the Levites in front of Aaron and his sons;” this was to show the people that the Levites were under the authority of the priests, as we explained already.
+
+Verse 14
+
+
+
+Verse 15
+
+וטהרת אותם, “you will purify them;” you will sprinkle ash from the red heifer on them on the third and seventh day of the purification rites.
+
+Verse 16
+
+כי נתונים נתונים המה לי, “for they are wholly given to Me;” the Levites are viewed as a gift given by the Jewish people to G-d, Who, in turn, passed this gift on to Aaron.
+לקחתי אותם לי, “I have taken them unto Me.” G-d is saying: “I have accepted this gift from the people.”
+
+Verse 17
+
+ביום הכותי כל בכור, “on the day when I smote every firstborn. On a different occasion, in Exodus 12,29, the smiting of the firstborn was not described as having occurred on “a day,” but as having occurred at midnight. We see from here that every time the Torah uses the term: יום, “day,” it speaks of a 24 hour period, i.e. night and day.
+
+Verse 18
+
+ואקח את הלוים תחת כל בכור, “I have taken the Levites instead of the firstborn.” If all the firstborn were to perform service in the Temple, this would lead to the people suffering a plague, as there was no guarantee that the father of the firstborn performing that service had also been a firstborn, neither his grandfather. As a result, that family had not had an opportunity to become thoroughly familiar with all the intricacies of Temple service. Failure to perform the service properly would result in G-d’s killing such a person as we know from what happened to the two older sons of Aaron, Nadav and Avihu. Once the Levites had been appointed and the status had become a hereditary one, each member of each family made a point of being thoroughly familiar with all their duties. This is why the Torah writes: 'לא יהיה ללוי חלק ונחלה וגו, “the Levite is not to own ancestral land in the land of Israel;” (Deuteronomy 18,1) by not owning land and growing crops they were free to concentrate on their tasks as Levites. They should not acquire too much familiarity with the tools used by farmers and artisans, so that they would not be diverted from their principal vocation, service in the Temple. If the Levite were to devote himself to those mundane activities, his fingers would become too coarse to play the musical instruments efficiently to accompany the choir of Levites during the time when Temple service was in progress.
+לעבוד את עבודת בני ישראל, “to perform the service of the Children of Israel (collectively), which basically had been the task of the firstborn of each family in each tribe.
+ולא יהיה בבני ישראל נגף, “and the there will not be a plague among the Children of Israel,” even a single one of them. We can find similar constructions in Exodus 21,11: ואם שלש אלה לא יעשה לה, “and if (her master) does not do one of these three economically constructive actions for her, etc.” (Exodus 21,11) Compare also Judges 12,7, “he was buried in one of the towns of the region of Gilead.” [All the people of surrounding towns took part in Yiftach’s burial. Ed.]
+
+Verse 19
+
+
+
+Verse 20
+
+כן עשו להם בני ישראל, “so did the Children of Israel.” They placed their weight with their hands upon them.
+
+Verse 21
+
+ויתחטאו הלוים, “the Levites purified themselves.” They did so by means of sprinkling the waters containing the ash of the red heifer upon themselves.
+
+Verse 22
+
+כן עשו להם, “so they did unto them.” The Levites did so to the priests. An alternate interpretation: “so did Aaron and his sons to the Levites.” This interpretation is based on Numbers 4,19: וזאת עשו להם וחיו, “this is what you are to do unto them so that they will live.”
+
+Verse 23
+
+
+
+Verse 24
+
+זאת אשר ללוים, ”this is what pertains to the Levites:” Levites are disqualified from performing their tasks if either too young or too old. They are not disqualified if afflicted by physical blemishes as are the priests. (Talmud, tractate Chulin, folio 24.) Priests are not disqualified by age limitations, (if otherwise healthy and fit.) This paragraph was only written (or taught) for use in the desert, as we learned on that same folio in the Talmud. We read there as follows: “a Levite from the age of thirty until the age of fifty, is fit to perform all the tasks that he is designated to perform. After that he is unfit regardless of his physical condition.”Under what circumstances does this rule apply? During the period of the Tabernacle in the desert, seeing that as long as the people had not yet settled, parts of the service that had to be performed involved carrying the furnishings of the Tabernacle on their shoulders, like the Kehatites who had to carry the Holy Ark on their shoulders. This could only be done by people who had attained the age of thirty, which is generally understood as the age of maximum physical strength. Once the Tabernacle was stationary (for 369 years) at Shiloh and subsequently at the Temples in Jerusalem, and the people were settled, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yossi, the Levites would become disqualified only if their voices revealed that they had aged. Wherefrom did he derive such a rule? He quoted Chronicles II 5,13, where we read: ויהי כאחד למחצצרים ומשוררים להשמיע קול אחד, “their singing became as if they all sang with one voice (choir) as the sound of the trumpets and the cymbals; which sounded as if of one voice.” In other words, if the voice of a Levite had changed due to aging, he was no longer capable of being part of this choir. This is how Rashi explains the text in the chapter called הכל שוחטים in the first chapter of the Talmud, tractate Chulin.
+מבן חמש ועשרים שנה, “from twenty five years of age and up;” this appears to contradict the statement in Numbers 4,3, where the Torah speaks of “from thirty years and up;” according to the plain meaning all the Levites were mobilised from the age of 25 years and up, at which time they began to perform tasks, such as standing guard and to sing in the choir; in other words, to perform the relatively easy tasks. By the time they reached the age of thirty, they were also required to perform the physically difficult tasks. The Kehatites began then to carry the Ark on their shoulders, and the members of the family of Gersonides and Merari then began to load the wagons with the parts of the Tabernacle each had been assigned to, and to the dismantling and reerecting the structure.
+
+Verse 25
+
+ומבן חמשים שנה ישוב, “and from fifty years he would retire from whichever part of the service he had been assigned to.” The Kehatites retired from carrying the Ark on their shoulders, and the family of the Gersonides and Merari retired from loading the wagons with the parts of the Tabernacle and from dismantling and re-erecting the structure. But they continued to sing and to guard so that no stranger would enter the Sanctuary.
+ולא יעבוד עוד “and he would no longer perform service.” According to Rashi, this refers only to service involving carrying with his shoulder, but he would still perform such tasks as opening and closing the gates. According to Rashi, these verses were not addressed to the members of the families of Gershon and Merari, for if they were, how could he have said that they were still performing the tasks of loading and unloading? We must therefore conclude that the over fifty year old members of the families of Gershon and Merari also retired from their specific duties at that age. Perhaps Rashi had in mind the years that the Sanctuary stood in Shiloh and Jerusalem, when these tasks did not have to be performed as the Tabernacle was no longer a prefab to be moved from time to time. The words: “to load the wagons,” in Rashi would then have applied only to the periods when the Jewish people were in the desert.
+
+Verse 26
+
+ושרת את אחיו, “but shall minister with their brethren;” when this Levite turns fifty, he shall minister with the other Levites who have already turned fifty. This is based on Numbers 1,50: “they are to encamp immediately around the Tabernacle.”
+ועבודה לא יעבוד עוד, “he is no longer to perform physical tasks.”
+
+Chapter 9
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+בחדש הראשון, “in the first month;” The Torah writes here: במדבר סיני, “in the desert of Sinai,” and it did so also in Numbers 1,1, when that date was in the second year of the Israelites’ wanderings. This teaches that what was communicated to the Israelites on both occasions was told to them on the first day of the month. Here Rashi comments that the communication recorded there was not communicated to them until the beginning of the second month. This was to teach us that the author of the Torah did not feel obligated to order Moses to write things down in chronological order. Why did the Torah (Moses) not write this chapter at the beginning of the Book of Numbers? He did not want to commence this Book with recording matters which reflected negatively on the Jewish people. If you were to counter: what is so negative, seeing that in the Book of Exodus chapter 12,25, the people’s coming to the land of Israel and receiving it as their ancestral heritage was made conditional on their observing the laws connected with the Exodus? The fact is that had it not been for the people’s complaining as reported in chapter 11, they would have come to the land of Israel much sooner and the question of observing the anniversary of the Exodus in the desert would never have arisen. They would have entered the land of Israel during the month in which the event recorded in this chapter occurred. As it is, they moved away from Mount Sinai on the 20th day of the month of Iyar, and Moses told the people that there was only eleven days’ march to the land of Canaan from Mount Sinai. In fact, in expectation of this, Moses had invited his father-in-law Yitro to accompany them on that short journey in verse 29 of our chapter, indicating that they would move on forthwith. According to Rashi, the way Moses had formulated this invitation it meant that within a maximum of 3 days the Israelites would break camp and enter the Holy Land. They would have had ample time to prepare for the Passover which was to commence on the evening of the fifteenth of that month. Now, seeing that the Israelites had become guilty of the sin of demanding meat in an unfitting manner, and they had spent a whole month eating the quail, except for the ones who died from overindulging even earlier, the time to observe the Passover in the Holy Land had already passed. (Numbers 11,29) They were delayed again on account of having to wait until Miriam had been healed after she had spoken deprecatingly of her brother Moses. (Numbers 12,116). Subsequently, they were delayed for 40 days while Moses had to send out spies to pacify the doubters. To cap it all, the whole generation of the adults who had left Egypt were condemned to die in the desert for having preferred to return to Egypt rather than to trust the Lord to bring them to the Holy Land. All of this were events which Moses did not wish to record at the beginning of this Book.
+
+Verse 2
+
+ויעשו בני ישראל את הפסח במועדו, “let the Children of Israel perform the Passover rites at its appointed time in the calendar. The letter פ in the word: הפסח has the vowel kametz gadol under it.
+
+Verse 3
+
+וככל משפטיו, “and according to all the ordinances thereof;” according to Rashi, this refers to the festival being observed for the full seven days, the search for chametz and its disposal prior to the beginning of the festival, all in accordance with what has been written in chapter 12 of the Book of Exodus.
+
+Verse 4
+
+
+
+Verse 5
+
+ויעשו את הפסח, “they performed the ritual of the Passover;” according to Rabbi Yossi in the Tossephta, this was the only time in all the years that the Israelites wandered in the desert that the Passover was actually observed. The reason for this was that at the time described they were encamped in a location where it was possible to perform circumcisions without endangering the lives of the infants being circumcised. This has been explained at the beginning of the Book of Joshua where a mass circumcision took place of all the people who had been born after the Exodus and who could not have been circumcised on account of the danger to the lives of these infants.
+
+Verse 6
+
+
+ויהי אנשים, “There were certain men, etc.” this paragraph teaches that the legislation for a “second Passover”, i.e. instead of the original date, is applicable only to individuals but not to the whole congregation, regardless of why they could not observe the original date. This legislation was made public on the day that the Tabernacle had been erected, i.e. two weeks before the date of Passover, (Sifri on verse 13)
+אשר היו טמאים לנפש אדם, “who had become ritually impure due to contact with a dead human body;” according to Rabbi Yitzchok, if these people’s impurity stemmed from the fact that they had been the carriers of the ark in which the remains of Joseph were being transported, they would have had time enough to purify themselves as the people had been stationary since the first of month at the latest. On the other hand, if these men were the ones who had carried the caskets in which Nadav and Avihu were being carried, they had plenty of time to purify themselves as these two men had died on the eighth day of Nissan; the Tabernacle had been erected on the first day of Nissan; on the second day of Nissan Eleazar had burned the red heifer (Jerusalem Talmud, Megillah, 3,3) and according to the Talmud in tractate Gittin on that day eight different subjects were revealed, one of them being the one containing the legislation about the red heifer. Seeing that the two sons of Aaron died on the first day of Nissan, according to parshat Sh’mini, these men could have completed their purification rites already on the eighth day of that month, in plenty of time before Passover. We are left therefore with the question whose death had caused their ritual impurity? The only answer that is reasonable is that they became ritually impure through burying someone who had no relatives who could bury him, and they fulfilled this commandment, something that if it occurred to a High Priest even he would have been obliged to attend to. (Compare Sifri)
+ולא יכלו לעשות הפסח, “so that they had been unable to observe the commandment of offering the Passover.
+ביום ההוא, “on that day.” The emphasis on the word ההוא suggests that if Passover had commenced only a single day later, these people would have completed their purification rites in time. In other words, their last day of purification rites occurred on Passover eve. (Sifri)
+
+Verse 7
+
+למה נגרע, “what for are we to be denied?” Why are we not allowed to eat holy things while in a state of ritual impurity, seeing that last year when we were in Egypt we also ate it in a state of ritual impurity? The reason is that at that time we had not been warned not to do so.
+
+Verse 8
+
+
+
+Verse 9
+
+
+
+Verse 10
+
+או בדרך רחוקה, “or on a journey far off;” there is a dot on the letter ה in the word רחוקה; this dot is not connected to the word בדרך, for if so, the word would be treated as if it had not appeared. Rather, that dot connects to the word איש, “a man or person;” we are to understand the person concerned as being spiritually on a journey that had estranged him to Judaism and its G-d.
+או לדורותיכם, “or someone of your generations;” the verse means that the person described is either at this time far from you spiritually or time wise, in other words, if many years from now there will be someone who due to the time that elapsed since the Exodus feels disconnected to our history, and therefore would not observe the Passover ritual by not having his heart in it.
+
+Verse 11
+
+בחודש השני, “in the second month;” seeing that the observance of the original Passover in Egypt was restricted to a single calendar day, they were not commanded concerning this now; but once when the Tabernacle had been built, people who had missed it through no fault of their own would be given a chance to make up for all of its essentials.
+
+Verse 12
+
+
+
+Verse 13
+
+ובדרך לא היה, “and he did not have the excuse of being too far away from Jerusalem,” or he had never even set out on the journey to Jerusalem; we find a similar construction in Exodus 21,15: מכה אביו ואמו, “if someone strikes his father or his mother. Not “his father and his mother.” The connective letter ו in the word בדרך here, also means “or,” not “and.”
+וחדל לעשות הפסח, “and he omits to perform the Passover ritual;” the Torah could have written: מעשות הפסח, thus saving a full word. The choice of words by the Torah teaches that the person the Torah has in mind here is the one who reasons that he can always make up for his failure to observe the Passover in Nissan, by observing it in lyar. We can find the root חדל used in a similar fashion in Genesis11,8, ויחדלו לבנות העיר, when the people of the generation of the Tower gave up that attempt after their languages had become confused. The choice of the word לעשות, instead of מעשות was also used when the Torah described G-d in Genesis 2,3 as having ceased His creative activities of the first six days. Instead of writing כי בו שבת מעשות כל מלאכתו וחדל לעשות, “for on it He ceased from completing all His work,” the Torah wrote אשר ברא אלוקים לעשות, thereby hinting that He was going to continue being involved in the improvement of His universe. The correct translation of that line would be: “for on it He ceased from completing all His work of creating.”
+
+Verse 14
+
+וכי יגור אתכם גר, “and when a stranger has taken up temporary residence amongst you;” at this point the Torah reverts back to the rules governing the “second,” or “substitute” Passover.
+
+Verse 15
+
+וביום הקים את השמכן, ”and on the day when the Tabernacle had been erected;” since the Torah wished to speak about the journeys and the flags, it informs us about the manner in which the cloud that rested above the Tabernacle when the Israelites were stationary, ever since the Tabernacle had been put up.
+כסה הענן את המשכן, “the cloud covered the Tabernacle.” This cloud was not the same cloud as the one that enveloped the entire camp of the Jewish people, and which therefore was at a higher elevation, as pointed out by Tanchuma Bamidbar 12. The cloud mentioned as covering the Tabernacle actually covered it as well as the surrounding area where the Levites had their dwellings.
+
+Verse 16
+
+
+
+Verse 17
+
+
+
+Verse 18
+
+
+
+Verse 19
+
+
+
+Verse 20
+
+
+
+Verse 21
+
+ונעלה הענן בבקר, “and when the cloud had ascended in the morning, etc.” This teaches that G-d did not inconvenience the people by making them break camp at midnight, etc. (B’chor shor)
+
+Verse 22
+
+או יומים או חדש ימים, “or two days, or even a month of days.” If the Torah had not written this verse I would have said that the cloud never moved until it had remained in place either for a whole year or only for one night. This is why it had to add the words: “or two days.”
+
+Verse 23
+
+
+
+Chapter 10
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+
+
+Verse 2
+
+עשה לך שתי חצוצרות, “make yourself two trumpets, etc.” they were meant to be at Moses’ disposal at all times so that he would not have to send out to find someone who owned trumpets.
+
+Verse 3
+
+
+
+Verse 4
+
+
+
+Verse 5
+
+החונים קדמה, “who were encamped on the eastern side;” the flag of the army group headed by Yehudah.
+
+Verse 6
+
+החונים תימנה,”who were encamped on the southern side;” the army group headed by Reuven and his flag. We might have thought that just as signals were blown for the eastern and southern army group to form in formation, so the trumpets would also be blown as signals for the army group in the west and the one in the north. By writing the word t’ruah, alarm, in the singular mode the Torah made clear that only two alarms were blown on these trumpets “for them to commence their journeys (pl).” There is another opinion which holds that separate alarms were blown on the trumpets for each army group.
+ותקעתם תרועה שנית, “you will blow a second alarm.” From this verse we learn that every time a t’ruah was blown it had been preceded by the signal known as tekiyah both before and after.
+ותקעתם תרועה שנית, Rashi comments on this line as follows: the signal to start journeying was to blow in this order: tekiyah truah tekiyah. If the trumpets were being used to call the people to an assembly, however, no t’ruah was blown. Our author continues with speculations about what appears to be repetition in this paragraph. As there will not again be an opportunity to reenact the procedure in reality, I have decided to save time and space and not translate his speculations.
+
+Verse 7
+
+ובהקהיל את הקהל, “but when the assembly is to be called together, etc.” on this verse Rashi comments: “seeing that we might have thought that seeing that the construction of the trumpets had been introduced as something that Moses was to do personally, and use by himself, that just as for breaking camp there would be a blast of tekiyah followed by a blast of t’ruah, followed again by a blast of tekiyah, the same would be the signal for a general assembly; However, if that were so how would the people have known the significance of these blasts? In order to prevent such a misunderstanding, the Torah in our verse specifically warns that when the trumpet call served to call the people to an assembly there would not be the alarming blast of the t’ruah.”
+
+Verse 8
+
+והיו לכם לחוקת עולם לדורותיכם, “they shall be for you as a statute forever, throughout your generations. These (trumpets) will serve you as a statute. They were given to you as a statute, i.e. only to be used while in the desert; whereas all the other vessels used in the Tabernacle or in connection with it, were to be used also after the people settled in the Holy Land, i.e. “throughout your generations.”
+
+Verse 9
+
+וכי תבאו מלחמה, “and when you go to war;” the Torah employs a variety of words when referring to becoming involved in wars, another one being והיה כי תראנה מלחמה, “it will be when war will break out” (Pharaoh to his people in Exodus 1,10)
+על הצר, “on account of the enemy that oppresses you,” (a defensive war) the preposition על, as “on account of” occurs also in Psalms 44.23: כי עליך הורגנו כל היום, “for on Your account we are being killed on any day;”
+ונזכרתם לפני ה, “you will be remembered before (the throne) of the Lord;” the Torah will proceed to explain how this scenario will unfold, i.e. you will be saved from your attackers.
+
+Verse 10
+
+ותקעתם בחצוצרות, “you will blow the tekiyah blasts with the trumpets, etc.” (the Torah speaks of joyous occasions) in order that the people will realise that the offerings on their behalf are at that moment being presented and they can tune in spiritually to the meanings of these sacrifices.
+על זבחי שלמיכם, “and over the sacrifices of your peaceofferings;” this is a reference to sheep offered on Shavuot, when the trumpets were only blown to call attention to communal mandatory offerings.
+והיו לכם לזכרון, “which shall be for you a memorial;” on those days blowing tekiyah will accompany the burnt offerings, whereas when the trumpets are blown on account of war, especially the t’ruah, alarming sounds, this was to bring your merits to the attention of the Lord so that He would help you prevail against your enemies.
+
+Verse 11
+
+
+
+Verse 12
+
+וישכון הענן במדבר פארן, “and the cloud came to rest in the wilderness of Paran.” This region included the location which became known as Taveyrah, another name for Kivrot Hataavah, where the meat hungry people died from overeating as if ravenously hungry. Included were also the locations named Chatzerot, Ritmah, and Kadesh, all reminders of minor or major disasters. Proof of this is the fact that in Parshat Massey where all 42 way stations of the journeys of the people are listed chronologically, no mention is made of the wilderness of Paran.
+
+Verse 13
+
+על פי ה, “at the command of the Lord;” by means of blowing the trumpets. [not verbal commands to Moses each time. Ed.] An alternate interpretation of these words: the command of the Lord was conveyed to the people when they observed that the lifting of the cloud over the Sanctuary and the Levites dismantling the Tabernacle.
+
+Verse 14
+
+
+
+Verse 15
+
+
+
+Verse 16
+
+
+
+Verse 17
+
+
+
+Verse 18
+
+
+
+Verse 19
+
+
+
+Verse 20
+
+
+
+Verse 21
+
+והקימו את המשכן, “so that they would be able to erect the Tabernacle.” According to Rashi, the subjects in this verse are the members of the house of Gershon and Merari. There is a full stop here in Rashi’s commentary. When Rashi continues there with: “two army groups had already preceded them,” this does not refer to the ”Merarites and Gersonidides,”but refers to a different subject, namely the order in which the journeys proceeded. Rashi has to be understood as follows; “when did the members of the house of Gershon and Merari reerect the Tabernacle? After the first two army groups which had already preceded them and who in turn had preceded the Kehatites carrying the Holy Ark on their shoulders, had passed. The members of the house of Gershon and Merari had traveled as part of the first two army groups. When they observed that the cloud had stopped moving, this was their signal to reerect the Tabernacle. During that period the Kehatites arrived and found the Tabernacle ready to receive the Holy Ark.
+
+Verse 22
+
+
+
+Verse 23
+
+
+
+Verse 24
+
+
+
+Verse 25
+
+מאסף לכל המחנות, “the rearguard of all the camps. (army groups) Rashi comments that the reason why the tribe of Dan formed the rearguard was that it was very numerous. Anyone who had lost something during the journey would hand it in to members of that tribe awaiting the loser to claim it. This follows the opinion that the Israelites were moving in the pattern of a box. The camp of Dan was in a northerly direction as a matter of routine. [The land of Israel being situated north of the land of Egypt, this would be normal. Ed.] Seeing that they numbered so many soldiers they could spread out over a wide area so that the left flank would actually be partially in the west. It would therefore be appropriate to apply the term מאסף, “ingatherer,” to that army group headed by the Danites. If you were to argue that according to the text of the Torah, the army group headed by Yehudah numbered about 16000 more soldiers than that of Dan, what Rashi meant was that of the three tribes comprising the army group headed by Dan, the tribe of Dan itself was more numerous that the other two tribes that formed part of his army group. The members of the tribe Dan itself were the hindmost of all the tribes in the various army groups.
+מאסף לכל המחנות, “the hindmost of all the army groups;” if any member of any of the other army groups due to fatigue fell behind, they would all be included in the group headed by the tribe of Dan, so that they would not become lone stragglers. We find the expression מאסף having a similar meaning in Judges 19,18: ואין איש מאסף אותי הביתה, “and no one would be willing to give me shelter in his house.”
+
+Verse 26
+
+
+
+Verse 27
+
+
+
+Verse 28
+
+
+
+Verse 29
+
+נוסעים אנחנו, “we are about to embark on our journey to the Holy Land;” according to Rashi, Moses invites Yitro to become a partner to Israel. At this point Moses still believes that both he and the people are on the way to immediately enter the Holy Land and to settle there. When Moses had suggested to G-d that He send someone else to be the leader of the Jewish people, (Exodus 4,13), Rashi commented that the reason why Moses said this was that he knew that he himself would not get to the Holy Land. According to the plain meaning of what Moses is saying here to his father-in-law, it is clear that he included himself among the people who would get to the land of Israel. He reasoned that if the people were to know that the man who had taken them out of Egypt and performed all these miracles would not be allowed to enter the Holy Land, what possible chance would an ordinary Israelite have to ever to get to that land? [He therefore pretended that he would get there.] An alternate interpretation: Moses said this only to Yitro, as he reasoned that if he told or hinted to Yitro that he himself would not get to the Holy Land, surely Yitro would not believe that he would succeed where Moses did not, and therefore he would decline Moses’ offer.
+והטבנו לך, “we will treat you well.” He meant that Yitro would be allowed to share in the loot the Israelites would secure from the Canaanites. He had not been authorized by G-d to promise him an ancestral piece of land in the Holy Land.
+
+Verse 30
+
+כי אם אל ארצי ואל מולדתי אלך, “but I prefer to go to my country and my birthplace” [to die there. Ed.] According to our author, Yitro preferred the evil he knew to the evil he did not know, i.e. he knew what awaited him in Midian, but he did not know what awaited him in the land of Canaan.
+
+Verse 31
+
+אל נא תעזוב אותנו, “please do not abandon us!” We have not been able to show you how well we can treat you thus far. (B’chor shor)
+כי על כן ידעת חנותנו, “for the reason you came here to see where we were encamped was in order to join us.”
+והיית לנו לעינים, “and you have become our eyes” this is to be understood as Genesis 18,3: אם נא מצאתי חן בעיניך “if only I will find favour in your eyes.” The word עינים is used in the same sense as פנים, “face, front.” An alternate interpretation: other potential converts to Judaism will look at you as the example that inspires them to follow his example. (B’chor shor)
+
+Verse 32
+
+אשר ייטיב ה' עמנו “the good that the Lord will do for us.” Moses refers to nations in addition to the seven Canaanite nations. He refers to Exodus 34,24: והרחבתי את גבולך, “I will expand your boundaries.” According to another view, Moses promised Yitro and his family the land belonging to the Kenites. This had been included as one of the ten nations whose lands G-d had promised to Avraham as being part of greater Israel (Genesis 15,19). This is why in future years the descendants of Yitro are usually referred to as Kenites, as for instance in Numbers 24,21, where Bileam prophesied about them. Compare also Samuel I 15,6 ויאמר שאול אל הקני, “Shaul said to the Kenite.”
+
+Verse 33
+
+ויסעו מהר ה, “they journeyed away from the Mountain of the Lord;” all this time the Israelites had still remained next to Mount Sinai.
+דרך שלשת ימים, “for a distance of three days’ march;” the Torah did not write simply “שלשת ימים “ for three days; but it wrote: “a distance of three days.” This means that when they had started journeying they encamped once before the incident with the quails for a distance of three days march. These dates were the 20th of Iyar, the 21st and the 22nd of Iyar.
+וארון ברית ה, and the Ark of the covenant with the Lord, etc.,” some people claim that Moses had been carrying it, just as has been written in Michah 6,4: “I sent ahead of you Moses, Aaron and Miriam.” In other words, Moses carried the ark he had made for the first set of Tablets, whereas the Ark that had been made by Betzalel was carried between the second and the third army group as described earlier.
+
+Verse 34
+
+וענן ה' עליהם יומם ולילה, “and the cloud of the Lord was above them both by day and by night. Regarding Rashi’s commentary that there were seven clouds during theIsraelites’ journeys, they were not all mentioned in a single paragraph, as pointed out in Torat Kohanim. Four enveloped them from the four directions of the globe, and two from above and below. The seventh traveled ahead of them. This latter one is the one mentioned here. The others are mentioned in Numbers 14,14, Numbers 9,19, Exodus 40,36 and 40,37. According to the view of Rabbi Yehudah, there were 13 such clouds, 2 in each direction of the globe, two above and two below, and one in front of them. According to the opinion of Rabbi Yoshia, there were only four clouds, whereas according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehudah hanassi, there were only two such clouds.
+
+Verse 35
+
+ויהי בנסוע הארון, “It would be that whenever the Ark was moving forward, etc.” According to the Talmud in tractate Shabbat folio 116, quoting the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel, this short paragraph in the Torah (which is bracketed) will be removed from the Torah scrolls at some time in the future and it will be rewritten in the appropriate place. If so, why was it not written in the proper place to begin with? It was meant to separate positive occurrences that the people experienced from negative ones, such as the ones we will shortly be reading about. What is the “appropriate” place that it should have appeared in? According to Rabbi Yossi, on the folio of the Talmud in Shabbat 116, it should have appeared when we read about the flags, immediately after verse 21 in our chapter, where the Torah describes the Kehatites as carrying the Holy Ark.'
+ויאמר משה קומה ה, “Moses said:” arise O Lord, etc.” He said so as the cloud appeared to have disappeared at the time when the people were on the march.
+
+Verse 36
+
+ובנחה, “and when it came to rest, etc.” the spelling of this word appears defective and it is to be read as if it had been written with the letter ו at the end instead of the letter .ה
+ובנחה יאמר שובה,”and when it came to rest, he (Moses) would say: “return O Lord, etc.” This was necessary as the cloud had previously been inert. Moses wanted the cloud to actively “dwell” above the camp of the Israelites.
+רבבות אלפי ישראל, “unto the tens of thousands of families of Israel.” The expression means that Moses wished for the Presence of the glory of the Lord to be manifest in the midst of the tens of thousands of families comprising the Jewish people. רבבות, this is one of the words that loses the prefix letter ב, such as we find the first time already in Exodus 31,17: כי ששת ימים, which we would have expected to be: כי בששת ימים, “for during six days.” The author quotes a number of such examples, singling out: Genesis 38,11. An alternate interpretation: the meaning of the line: קומה ה' ויפוצו אויביך, “arise O Lord so that Your enemies will scatter,” is the standard prayer we ought to recite whenever engaging on a journey. 
+The line commencing with: 'שובה ה, is the prayer to let the traveler complete his journey without mishap, so that when counting his companions he will find that none were lost during the journey. The author quotes Deuteronomy 30,3, ושב ה' אלוקיך את שבותך, “and the Lord your G’D will return with your captives, etc.,” to support his view. 
+The word ושוב there is to be understood as if Moses had said: והשיב, “He will bring back.”
+
+Chapter 11
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+ כמתאוננים, “as murmurers;” the word is related to און and עמל, “as in Jeremiah 4,14: מחשבות אונך, “your evil designs.”
+וישמע ה, “the Lord heard;” He heard that they uttered complaints and dissatisfaction., “your evil designs.”
+ותבער בהם אש, “and the Lord’s fire raged among them;” this was a punishment fitting the crime, as they had dared to look at the glory of the Lord which is also known as fire, i.e. אש אוכלת, Exodus 24,17. They had already been warned not to do this in Exodus chapter 24. Rashi explained this in connection with Exodus 24,10.
+ותאכל בקצה המחנה, “and it devoured at the outer edges of the camp.” Therefore the people complained against Moses (verse 2) since they were afraid that the fire would spread throughout the camp.
+
+Verse 2
+
+
+
+Verse 3
+
+תבערה, “punitive fire by the Lord.”
+
+Verse 4
+
+והאספסוף אשר בקרבו התאוו תאוה וגו, “and the mixed multitude that were amongst the people, etc.” everything written here until the beginning of verse 30 when Moses selects the elders who are to assist him, occurred during the first three days after the people had moved away from Mount Sinai. 
+The letter א (though silent anyways) is not read.
+וישובו ויבכו גם בני ישראל, “and in due course even the elite of the people, the בני ישראל, who had already complained previously, now also joined the weeping of discontent that had been started by the mixed multitude. This is when they expressed their urge to be given meat to eat.
+מי יאכילנו בשר, “if only someone would feed us meat!” The quails which had materialized on the evening before the manna started its daily appearance (Exodus 16,13) had come to an end some time ago. From this verse we understand the substance of the people’s complaint.
+
+Verse 5
+
+זכרנו את הדגה, “we remember now the fish, etc.” when the Nile overflows its banks and irrigates the fields of the Egyptians who had dug narrow canals to absorb these waters, and the water eventually retreats again, it leaves behind little fish in the indentations in the soil, and the wives of the Israelites would scoop these up and use as food. This could be done without effort, and the women who had come equipped with bowls or flasks could keep these fish alive for quite some time. Our sages have explained this to us. (No source quoted)
+אשר נאכל במצרים חנם, “which we used to eat in Egypt without having to pay for it.” (Ibn Ezra)
+את הקשואים ואת האבטיחים, “the cucumbers and the melons;” these would be eaten as dessert.
+ואת החציר ואת הבצלים, “as well as the leeks and the onions;” these would be used in the cooking pots to provide seasoning for the food to be boiled.
+ואת השומים, “and the garlic,” for making the meat and fish tasty.
+
+Verse 6
+
+ועתה נפשנו יבשה, “and now our soul is dried up;” they were afraid that seeing that the manna was absorbed by their bodies entirely, none of it being waste to be excreted, that this would so interfere with their intestinal organs that it would kill them internally. They did not understand how a human being born from the womb of a woman can survive on food such as the manna alone. They challenged Rabbi Shimon by asking: “what is it that keeps you alive?” Is it not the excrement which is described in the Torah inDeuteronomy 23,14: ויתד תהיה לך על אזנך, “and have a paddle with you to cover your excrement!” (Torah addressing the Jewish soldier) The Rabbi answered the questioners that what is excreted are only the contributions to food provided by the gentiles. None of the manna needs to be excreted as it originated in the heavenly spheres where there is no useless or harmful substance. Scriptural proof for this is to be found in when David said in Psalms 78,25: לחם אבירים אכל איש, “each man ate a hero’s meal.” The type of man who can thrive on manna is the one who deserves the title אבירים. A different interpretation: if the people had become spiritually flawed, they would find that some of the manna turned into excrement within them.
+
+Verse 7
+
+והמן כזרע גד, “and the manna was like coriander seed;” the letter כ has the vowel chirik, and the letter ז has the semi vowel sh”va.
+
+Verse 8
+
+שטו העם ולקטו, “the people would leave the camp and collect;” the word שטו is familiar to us from Job 1,7 שוט, “roaming.” According to a midrash found in the Talmud, tractate Yuma folio 75, the line: שטו העם ולקטו, refers to the righteous Israelites who were eating the manna while it was descending through the atmosphere. They did not even have to bother to leave their homes and to collect it.
+וטחנו בריחים או דכו במדוכה, “they ground it in a mill, or pounded it in mortars;” this refers to the average Israelite.
+ובשלו בפרוד, “or they boiled in pots.” According to that midrash, this refers to the relatively wicked Israelites, who had to spend more time and effort to make the manna palatable for themselves. This is also why the Torah reports in Numbers 15,32, that the Israelites found a man gathering kindling on the Sabbath. He was a sinner and wanted to boil the manna on the Sabbath.
+
+Verse 9
+
+
+
+Verse 10
+
+
+
+Verse 11
+
+ולמה לא מצתי חן, “and why have I not found favour, etc.?” The word מצתי is one which on occasion is spelled without the letter א when that letter is the last root letter.
+
+Verse 12
+
+האנכי הריתי, “was it I who has conceived these people?” Am I their mother who had conceived them?
+אם אנכי ילידתיהו, “did I sire them?” Was I their father? The root ילד has been used in this sense in Genesis 10,24. (Ibn Ezra)
+על האדמה, not “on the earth,” but as in אל האדמה “on to the earth.” Compare Genesis 38,12, על גוזזי צאן, “to the shearing of the sheep.” Compare also Exodus 10,21: נטה ידך על השמים, not “incline your hand over the heaven,” but “incline your hand in the direction of the heaven.”
+
+Verse 13
+
+
+
+Verse 14
+
+לא אוכל אנכי לבדי, “I cannot all by myself, etc.” Moses had said all this after the fire of G-d had burned against all the officers in the camp, seeing that as long as these had still been alive, they had shared the burden of leading the people with him.
+
+Verse 15
+
+ואם ככה את עושה לי, “and if You will deal with me in this fashion;” according to Rashi, Moses had felt that he had become weak like a woman, so that he was not even able to complete the last word, (which should have been: אתה in the masculine mode). He was full of psychological pain and anger, so that he addressed G-d as if he were addressing a human being and runs out of breath before being able to complete a sentence. Other commentators understand the word: את here as if vocalised with a segol, similar to בך, or לך, which can be used both in the masculine and in the feminine mode.
+ואל אראה ברעתי, “so that I will no longer have to deal with the evil that has befallen me.”
+
+Verse 16
+
+אספה לי שבעים איש, “gather for me seventy men;” the number 70 is symbolic of the original seventy Israelites that left the land of Canaan to go to Egypt, as well as the seventy elders that were the leaders of the people at the time of the revelation at Mount Sinai. (Exodus 24,1) It also symbolises the seventy families mentioned in the census reported in Numbers chapter 26, as well as the members of the Supreme Court, Sanhedrin, excluding its president, in later Jewish history.
+
+Verse 17
+
+ואצלתי מן הרוח אשר עליך, “and I will enhance some of the spirit that is part of you;” did G-d not have holy spirit that He could have taken from somewhere else other than Moses? We therefore must understand G-d’s words as follows: He told Moses that that he should judge the Jewish people and that He had given him sufficient wisdom to know how to this. How could Moses therefore complain that he could not do it by himself? (verse 14) If so, it was proof that he, Moses, had to share some of his holy spirit with the elders he would now appoint.
+
+Verse 18
+
+התקדשו למחר, “sanctify yourselves in preparation for tomorrow, (the 23rd of lyar) (see our author’s commentary on verse 4 in this chapter)
+
+Verse 19
+
+
+
+Verse 20
+
+עד חדש ימים, “as long as a whole month.” The last day of that month was not included in the period that G-d is speaking of. According to the Talmud in tractate Taanit folio 29, the last day of that period would be the 23rd of Sivan.
+והיה לכם לזרא, “it will become loathsome for you.” The Torah substituted the letter א at the end of this word, where we would have expected the letter ה. There are other examples of this in the Bible, such as Ruth 1,20 קראן לי מרא, “call me the embittered one,” where we also would have expected the author to have written: מרה. The meaning of the word לזרא, is: להסיג, to remove, to vomit. Isaiah uses that expression in Isaiah 1,4 נזורו אחור, when describing the Jewish people’s moral turpitude by having turned their back on G-d and His commandments. We find it also in Numbers 17,2: as an imperative: זרה הלאה, “scatter it! (the destructive glowing coals on his pan containing incense). G-d commands the people to gorge themselves on the meat so much so that in the end it will become repugnant to them, no longer an object of their desire. Eventually, they will vomit it in disgust.
+לאמור למה זה יצאנו ממצרים, because you had the nerve to say: “why did we ever agree to leave Egypt?” G-d refers to the people having yearned for the fish they ate in Egypt without having to work or pay for. (verse 5)
+
+Verse 21
+
+ויאמר משה: שש מאות אלף רגלי וגו, “Moses said: there are six hundred adult infantry soldiers, etc.” Moses is overwhelmed by the intended undertaking of G-d to supply such a vast number of human beings suddenly with meat to which they had absolutely no claim, by his appointing seventy elders to help him govern such a nation. He cannot understand why, on the one hand, G-d had told him to appoint for himself 70 people to help him govern such a stiffnecked people, and on the other hand, reward them by performing such a miracle for them at the same time. He is under the mistaken impression that these seventy men should act as the slaughterers for such a large number of people. How could even seventy slaughterers supply meat for about three million people?
+
+Verse 22
+
+הצאן ובקר shall sheep and cattle be slaughtered? (seeing that they had asked for meat)
+ואם כל דגי הים, “or shall all the fish in the ocean (be caught)? (seeing they had recalled the fish they had eaten in Egypt with such nostalgia)
+ישחט להם...יאסף להם, “be either slaughtered for them, or caught for them?” Shall all of this be done by a mere seventy people?
+ומצא להם, “where could all this even be found, never mind slaughtered, in order to feed them for a whole month?!
+
+Verse 23
+
+ויאמר ה' אל משה: היד ה' תקצר, The Lord said to Moses: “is the Lord’s power inadequate?” G-d implied that it had not been His intention for one moment to use the seventy helpers Moses would appoint as slaughterers or fishermen. Neither would He have to resort to overt miracles. All He had to do was to direct the flight of a swarm of birds in their direction. He was fully capable to do this within the boundaries of existing laws of nature.
+עתה תראה היקרך דברי אם לא, “now you will see if My word will come true or not.” “I will provide, but not as you had thought by employing these seventy men.”
+
+Verse 24
+
+
+
+Verse 25
+
+ויאצל מן הרוח, “He diverted from the holy spirit” (of Moses) the letter א in the word ויאצל, though written in the Torah, is not heard when read.
+ויתנבאו ולא יספו, “they prophesied;” but they did not continue to do so with the help of Moses. The word: יספו is to be understand as if the Torah had written “they added,” the word is used in this sense also Leviticus 5,16 ויסף חמישתו עליו “ “he will have to add a fifth of it in addition
+
+Verse 26
+
+.וישארו שני אנשים, there were two men in addition to the seventy men. (Moses had put 72 pieces of parchment in an urn, 6 for each tribe, of which two bore no inscription so that the men drawing those would know they were not part of the seventy elders). In other words: “they were redundant.”
+שם האחד אלדד ושם השני מידד, “one of these two men was called Eldod, and the other was called Meydod.” The seventy elders were never mentioned by name whereas these two men who at first glance appeared as rejects, were named. The reason is that the prophetic spirit bestowed on the seventy elders ceased when Moses died, whereas the prophetic powers granted to these men survived Moses, as their prophetic powers was not a branch of Moses’ holy spirit. G-d Himself had said that He would give some of Moses’ spirit to these 70 elders (verse 17) The two named men received their prophetic spirit from G-d directly, as stated in our verse with the words: ותנח עליהם הרוח, “and the spirit rested upon them.”
+ותנח עליהם הרוח, although these men had not been chosen to become part of the seventy elders, seeing that they were fit to have been elders and they did not feel humbled or rejected by not being chosen, they were rewarded by being given greater and longer lasting prophetic insights that the seventy whose parchment had read: “elder.”
+והמה בכתובים, “they were amongst the seventy who had not drawn blanks.” According to Rashi this means that they had been included in the seventy two parchments on 70 of which Moses had written the word: “elder” and two of which he had left blank. If you were to ask that this method would have resulted in a great deal of jealousy by the ones who had not drawn a parchment with the word “elder,” it is therefore more reasonable to suppose that those who took parchments out of the urn early on would argue that they had a better chance not to draw a blank as 70 out of 72 were not blanks. Each one pushed in order not to be one of the last two whose chance of drawing a blank was so much greater. This was faulty reasoning, as the chance that the blanks would be drawn by the “early birds” was just as great as the reverse, and in fact, as soon as the blanks had been drawn the remaining candidates already knew for certain that they could not draw a blank. [It is therefore more likely that the Torah wishes us to know that in order to avoid jealousy, these two men decided to withdraw out of humility, so that the other 70 could all become elders. Ed.] They accomplished this by not showing up at the entrance to the Tabernacle as the men who drew parchments with the word: “elder” had been told to do.
+ולא יצאו האהלה, “but they had not gone out to the Tabernacle’s entrance;” they had not left the general camp to follow the other elders to the Tabernacle with their colleagues.
+ויתנבאו במחנה, ‘they prophesied inside the camp of the Israelites. Concerning what subject did these two men make prophetic announcements? They prophesied concerning the eventual war against Gog, and concerning the prophet Ezekiel. We find a hint of the subject of their prophecies in Ezekiel 38,17: כה אמר ה' האתה הוא אשר דברתי בימים קדמונים ביד הנביאים שנים, “you are the one I spoke of in ancient times through My servants the prophets of Israel, who prophesied in those years about you and about Gog;” instead of reading the word שנים to mean: ”years,” understand it to mean: “שניים, two.”
+
+Verse 27
+
+
+
+Verse 28
+
+מבחוריו, “from his early youth.” We find this word having this meaning also in Kohelet 12,1: בימי בחורתיך, “in the days of your youth.”An alternate interpretation of this word: “from amongst the choicest to serve Moses,” for there were others with him. (Ibn Ezra)
+אדוני משה כלאם, “my lord Moses lock them up!” Joshua wanted these two men put under house arrest so that their prophecies would not become public. The other seventy men who had also displayed prophetic insights had done so only in the relative privacy of the sacred precincts of the Tabernacle which was out of bounds to the people at large. They had done so only in the presence of Moses. (verse 16) Eldod and Meydod had not asked for permission to prophesy publicly, and had prophesied outside the sacred precincts.
+
+Verse 29
+
+וכי יתן כל עם ה׳ נביאים, “would that all the Lord’s people were prophets!” Moses did not care if they would prophesy in the camp or only in the sacred precincts around the Tabernacle, as long as they would make his task easier to accomplish.
+כי יתן ה׳ את רוחו עליהם, “as long as G-d directly would bestow His holy spirit upon them!” He wanted them to receive holy spirit from G-d directly, not only as a part of the holy spirit that had been bestowed upon him. He realised that the seventy men had received only part of the Holy spirit that he had been endowed with, and that this Holy spirit would vanish as soon as he would die. He therefore prayed that they would receive permanent Holy spirit.
+
+Verse 30
+
+ויאסף משה אל המחנה, Moses withdrew to the camp;” he accompanied the seventy elders now as he wished to show them honour in public.
+
+Verse 31
+
+ורוח נסע, “a wind went forth, etc.;” this occurred on the twenty third of lyar.
+ויגז שלוים מן הים, “it brought across quails from the sea;” this was how G-d fulfilled His promise to provide meat for all the people, enough for them to gorge themselves on for a whole month, in response to their longing for the fish they had eaten in Egypt without having had to pay for them.(verse 5)
+על המחנה, next to the camp; the word על here is used as in Exodus 40,3;וסכות על הארון ,”you will spread it next to the Holy Ark, or as in Leviticus 24,7: ונתת על המערכת, “you shall place it next to the row.”
+וכאמתים על פני הארץ, “and to a height of approximately two cubits above the ground.” The quails had been flying in formations over each other above the earth.
+
+Verse 32
+
+ויאספו את השלו, “they gathered up the quails.” The letter י is missing in the word השלו.
+עשרה חמרים, “ten heaps;” a “heap” is equivalent to thirty saah, the latter being approximately 13000 ccm., so that the ones who collected the least amount would have collected ten saah per day during the thirty day period involved in this episode.
+
+Verse 33
+
+הבשר עודנו בין שניהם, “while the meat was still between their teeth etc.;” the negative effect was delayed until the whole people had been provided with sufficient meat, so none would be able to say that they were only stricken because G-d was not able to provide sufficient meat for all of them.
+
+Verse 34
+
+ויקרא את שם המקום קברות התאוה, “he called the name of this place: graves of lust.” The Torah did not identify who it was who bestowed this name on these graves, just as we find that in Genesis 48,1 we do not know who told Joseph that his father had been taken sick, i.e. ויאמר ליוסף, “someone called Joseph.”
+
+Verse 35
+
+מקברות התאוה נסעו, “from that place they continued journeying, etc.” this was on the twenty second day of the month of Sivan
+ויהיו החצרות, “they remained at Chatzerot for some time.” We would have expected the Torah to have written: ויחנו בחצרות, “they made camp at Chatzerot,” as it did when reporting on all the other places where the people made camp. The reason why there was a change here was that the Torah wished us to know that their departure from Chatzerot had been delayed because Miriam had spoken critically of her brother Moses, and when having been punished with skin eczema, the people waited until she had been healed. This is another example of the Torah not having reported events in their chronological order. Part of the people had already moved on during that episode, but they turned back after finding out what had occurred.
+
+Chapter 12
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+ותדבר מרים ואהרן במשה, “Miriam and Aaron spoke out critically against Moses;” how did either of them know that Moses had separated from his wife? They had both noted that Tzipporah no longer wore the jewelry she had been in the habit of wearing. Miriam asked Tzipporah why she no longer wore that jewelry. Tzipporah replied that it was because Miriam’s brother (Moses) did not pay any attention to her jewelry. This was a hint that he had separated from her. She told Aaron about this and they talked about that situation criticizing him.
+על אודות האשה הכושית, they wondered why Moses had chosen this point in time to separate from Tzipporah and concluded that it was because she was a Negress (ugly), and they could not understand that he had married her in the first place seeing that she had always been a Negress. A different interpretation of this line: She had been a queen in her land, the land of Kush. This would fit with what we have read in Chronicles that Moses had been a King in that land. At the time, he had to marry a local woman. Now there was no need for him to remain married to a Kushite woman. If this were correct, our verse would not refer to Tzipporah, for the line: “for he had married a Kushite woman,” would not make any sense as Tzipporah was a Midianite woman as we know from Exodus 2,21. The Kushites were descended from Cham, the third son of Noach, and as such were a cursed people, and a Jew would not have married a woman from a cursed nation [although, Keturah, Avraham’s second and last wife, was an Egyptian and therefore also from a cursed nation, as Mitzrayim was the second son of Cham, Kush having been his firstborn (Genesis 10,6) Midian himself was a son of Keturah an Egyptian (Genesis 25,2), and therefore descendant of a cursed nation. Ed.]
+
+Verse 2
+
+ויאמרו הרק אך במשה דבר, “did G-d then speak exclusively to Moses?” We have a rule in the Hebrew language that when restrictive clauses such as “only,” or “exclusively,” follow one another consecutively, they are meant to add something instead of to subtract something. In this instance we have two such clauses following one another, i.e. רק and אך. The addition follows promptly by Miriam adding that G-d had spoken to them, i.e. herself and to her brother Aaron also, so that they too were prophets. (The Talmud, tractate Megillah folio 14, and tractate Sotah folio 12 claims that Miriam had prophesied even before Moses had been born.) Concerning Aaron prophesying, the reader is referred to Samuel I 2,27, as interpreted by Sh’ ’mot Rabbah 3,21.)
+וישמע ה “the Lord heard;” even though Miriam and Aaron had this conversation completely privately, and no one overheard them, G-d was privy to it, and He would demand that Moses’ integrity be defended. (Ibn Ezra)
+
+Verse 3
+
+
+
+Verse 4
+
+ויאמר ה' פתאום, “suddenly the Lord spoke up;” He did so in order that Aaron and Miriam would not blame Moses for having complained about him to G-d.
+
+Verse 5
+
+ויקרא אהרן ומרים, “He called Aaron and Miriam’” He did not invite Moses to become part of this conversation. He did not want the Israelites to say that G-d had been angry at Moses also.
+
+Verse 6
+
+במראה אליו אתודע, “I make Myself known to him as a prophetic vision. The word מראה here is used in the same sense as in Numbers 23,3; ודבר מה יראני והגדתי לך, “and whatever He will show me I will tell you about.” (Bileam to Balak)
+
+Verse 7
+
+בכל ביתי נאמן הוא, “he is trusted in all My house.” The world at large knows that Moses has seen things that have not been shown to any other prophets. This is because he is the “father,” i.e. prototype of all prophets past present or future. In Proverbs 11,13, Solomon said of Moses: נאמן רוח מכסה דבר, “a faithful spirit keeps a confidence.” The Jerusalem Targum translates that phrase with the words: “in My whole house, among My whole people.” All of My people young and old simple and learned, are aware that Moses keeps absolute faith with G-d, and does not reveal anything he has not been told to reveal.
+
+Verse 8
+
+ותמונת ה' יביט “and he is allowed to see a visual image of the Lord.” G-d does not refer to a frontal image, but to a rear view as stated in Exodus 33,23.
+
+Verse 9
+
+ויחר אף ה' בם, “and the anger of Hashem was kindled against them;” according to some commentators Aaron was also smitten with tzoraat;” (to account for the word: בם, “against them”) Another sage holds that G-d contented Himself with being angry at Aaron without taking any action against him. (Compare Talmud in tractate Shabbat folio 97)
+
+Verse 10
+
+והענן סר והנה מרים מצורעת, “when the cloud had cleared, Miriam had been struck with tzoraat”. It is not seemly for the holy cloud of G-d to remains next to a ritually impure person.
+
+Verse 11
+
+
+
+Verse 12
+
+אל נא תהי כמת, “do not let her be like a dead person.” Anyone suffering from this skin disease is considered as if dead. (Talmud, tractate Nedarim folio 64) What Aaron meant was that his sister should not be like a newly born infant that displays signs of tzoraat, and therefore is considered as if stillborn. We have a statement: “when a youngster is born afflicted with the disease of tzoraat he will never attain ritual purity.” (B’chor shor) Seeing that this affliction is attributed to a specific sin, it may be healed as a result of a prayer, as we know from when Pharaoh was healed from this affliction in response to Avraham’s prayer. (Genesis 12,17) Rashi comments here that Moses implied that seeing that Miriam and he emerged from the same womb, how could he be expected to tolerate that his other half be “as dead?”
+
+Verse 13
+
+אל נא רפא נא לה, “Heal her now, I beseech you, G-d!” the first word נא is to be understood as a request. The second time it is used, it appeals for immediate action by G-d. Proof of this is the fact that G-d’s reply explains why G-d cannot fulfill Moses’ second request. The minimum period time Miriam has to suffer from this affliction is one whole day.
+
+Verse 14
+
+הלא תכלם שבעת ימים, “would she not be banned for at least seven days?” G-d refers to such a daughter not being allowed to look at her father’s face as a sign of her shame. We find an example of this in the life of Avshalom, son of David, (Samuel II 13, 37-39) Here we are dealing with two sins Miriam had committed, one against G-d and one against Moses; G-d had spelled it out when He said: בעבדי במשה, “against My servant, against Moses.” Accordingly, if G-d were to apply a strict yardstick, Miriam would have to be ostracised at least for two weeks.
+
+Verse 15
+
+מחוץ למחנה שבעת ימים, “seven days outside the camp.” Not seven whole days, but the seventh day would be accounted as a whole day as our author had already explained once on Leviticus 13,5.
+
+Verse 16
+
+ואחר, “and afterwards;” after Miriam returned to the camp on the twenty ninth day of Sivan
+.ויחנו במדבר פארן, “they made camp in the desert around Paran.” This is a reference to Kadesh Barnea, (as we know, the place from which the spies were dispatched) The sequence of events was as follows: on the 20th of Iyar the people arrived at Kivrot hataavah, after having journeyed from Mount Sinai on that day. G-d had not told them to sanctify themselves until the following day, until the 22nd of the month. Concerning this period the Torah had written: “they journeyed from Mount Sinai a distance of three days.” The reason we need to know all this is in order to know that when the spies returned with a devastating report, resulting in a whole generation being condemned to die in the desert, the date was the 9th of Av, a date to become infamous for many tragic events in Jewish history. The episode of the quails lasted exactly a whole month the last day being included, so that it ended on the 22nd of Sivan. On that day the people arrived at Chatzerot. They remained there until Miriam had been healed, on the seventh day, i.e. the 29th day of Sivan. On the following day the first day of Tammuz, the spies were sent of, as stated in the Talmud, tractate Taanit folio 29.
+
+Chapter 13
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+
+
+Verse 2
+
+
+תשלחו כל נשיא בהם, “send them, each one of these men being a prince in his own right.” Each prince sent one man from his tribe.
+
+Verse 3
+
+כלם אנשים, “all of them distinguished personalities;” according to Rashi, at the time when they were charged with their mission they were all deserving of having been chosen for this task. They underwent a change of heart only after having been selected. Rashi points this out when commenting on the words: וילכו ויבאו, “they went forth they arrived,” in verse 26.
+ראשי בני ישראל, “heads of the Children of Israel.” Each one of them was at least a head of a thousand Israelites. [There were 600 like that Ed]
+
+Verse 4
+
+
+
+Verse 5
+
+
+
+Verse 6
+
+כלב בן יפונה, “Caleb son of Yefuneh.” He is identical with Caleb son of Chetzron, and the reason he is here called the son of Yefuneh, is because he turned aside (פנה) from all but one of the other spies. [Chetzron had been a grandson of Yehudah, Genesis 46,12, compare also Chronicles I 2,18. Ed.]
+
+Verse 7
+
+
+
+Verse 8
+
+
+
+Verse 9
+
+
+
+Verse 10
+
+
+
+Verse 11
+
+למטה יוסף, למטה מנשה, “of the tribe of Joseph, i.e. the tribe of Menashe.” Even though on numerous occasions the tribe of Joseph is equated with the tribe of Ephrayim (seeing that Yaakov had told Joseph that he outranked Menashe the older), here Joseph and Menashe are paired, seeing that both had become guilty of slander. Joseph had slandered his brothers to his father, and the prince of Menashe had slandered the land of Israel. There are several instances where Joseph and Menashe are equated precisely because the context of the story supports that interpretation. (Compare Numbers 34,23, Joshua 17,1) In Joshua 17, the subject is the distribution of the land to the various tribes, and it was these lands that the prince of Menashe had slandered in joining the majority report of the spies.
+
+Verse 12
+
+
+
+Verse 13
+
+
+
+Verse 14
+
+
+
+Verse 15
+
+
+
+Verse 16
+
+אלה שמות האנשים. “the following are the names of these 12 men: no representative of the tribe of Levi had been included amongst the spies, as the members of that tribe were not going to get fields to work as ancestral lands.
+ויקרא משה להושע בן נון יהושע, “Moses renamed Hoshea bin Nun as Joshua. The Torah does not mean that Moses renamed Hoshea at this time; we have to understand this verse as follows: Moses had renamed Hoshea from the time he had appointed him as his personal valet. The Torah merely wishes to tell us that the Joshua whom Moses has appointed as one of the spies, was the one whom he had renamed at the time of his previous appointment as Moses’ personal servant, seeing that at that time already he had found favour in his eyes, and he wanted to express this by adding a letter to his name. We know that G-d had renamed Avram after he had found favour in his eyes by adding a letter to his name, just as He had changed a letter in Sarai’s name for a similar reason. Both Yaakov and Joseph experienced name changes, as did Daniel and the last King of Yehudah, Matnaya, whom Nebuchadnezzar renamed Tzedekiah. Also Nechemyah, underwent such a name change as we know from Nechemyah 8,9.
+
+Verse 17
+
+עלו זה בנגב, “ascend from this point in the south!” Kadesh was at the southernmost part of the land of Israel. (Ibn Ezra)
+ועליתם את ההר, “and climb up into the mountains.” Once you have seen the land from the mountains, it will be easier to conquer its lowlands. (B’chor shor)
+
+Verse 18
+
+
+
+Verse 19
+
+אם רעה, “or if it is bad;” if the land is pleasant (climatewise). or if its waters are bad and cause bereavement. In reply to these questions the spies upon returning, answered Moses that the land devoured its inhabitants. (verse 32).
+
+Verse 20
+
+והתחזקתם, “be of good courage.” They needed to be on their guard, seeing that it was the beginning of the harvest season and the farmers would watch their crops against thieves.
+
+Verse 21
+
+ממדבר צין עד רחוב לבא חמת, “from the desert of Tzin in the south, as far north as the approaches to Chamat.” They crossed the country diagonally from south to North, and from North to South. The verses that we read in Parshat Massey confirms this.
+
+Verse 22
+
+ויבא עד חברון, “he came as far as Chevron;” we have a sudden switch from the plural mode to the singular mode, which raises the question of who it was that the Torah speaks of in this verse. Our sages understand this to be a reference to Caleb whom they credit with the urge to pay his respects to the graves of the patriarchs and his desire to get moral support against the negative attitude of most of his companions. This is Rashi’s interpretation. He felt the need to do this as Moses had not prayed for him especially, as he had done for his colleague Joshua. An alternate interpretation of the line: “he came to Chevron:” it is customary for the Torah to apply the singular mode even when speaking about a number of spies or members of an ambush, as we know from Joshua 8,19 where we read: והאורב קם ממקומו, “and the ambush (the men comprising it) arose from where it had been hiding.”
+ושם אחימן, the Torah mentions this giant by name as the spies later on in their report refer to descendants of a race of giants whom they had encountered, i.e. in verse 28, where we read: “we also saw a race of giants there.” The Torah wanted us to know where precisely the spies had come face to face with such people. (B’chor shor)[All this is part of the peculiar fact that although the spies reported faithfully what they had seen and where, they drew the wrong conclusions from their observations. Ed.]
+וחברון שבע שנים נבנתה לפני צוען מצרים, “and the town Chevron had been built seven years earlier than the capital of Egypt, Tzoan.” The race of giants had not yet died out, as they had survived from earlier generations. The reason why this is of importance is to tell us that the conclusion drawn by the spies that the land of Canaan “consumes its inhabitants,” (verse 32) was contradicted by what they themselves reported as having seen.
+לפני צוען מצרים, “prior to Tzoan in Egypt.” The Torah reminds you of the importance of the land of Canaan, compared to the land of Egypt before they had emigrated from it. The spies had been aware of these historical facts, [and they should have concluded from this that the land of Canaan certainly does not “consume its inhabitants.” Ed.].
+
+Verse 23
+
+ויכרתו משם זמורה ואשכול, “they cut from there a branch with a cluster of grapes.” From this little detail we are to learn two lessons, (i.e. from the letter ו at the beginning of the word אשכול). From the branch they made a pole to carry the cluster by.
+וישאוהו במוט בשנים, “they bore it on a pole between the two of them. The pomegranates and the cluster of grapes were carried separately by different men.
+
+Verse 24
+
+
+
+Verse 25
+
+מקץ ארבעים יום, “at the end of forty days;” they had commenced their mission on the 29th day of Sivan, and concluded it on the 8th day of the month of Av close to evening. The month of Tammuz in that year had thirty days. (Talmud, tractate Taanit folio 29)
+
+Verse 26
+
+אל מדבר פארן קדשה, to the desert of Paran, toward Kadesh.” The desert of Paran, the desert of Tzin, Kadesh Barnea, and Ritma, were all very near one another. All this is clear from Numbers 33,18, as well as verse 36 there. Compare also Numbers 32,8.
+
+Verse 27
+
+
+
+Verse 28
+
+
+אפס כי עז העם היושב בארץ והערים בצורות גדולותת however “the people are very fierce, and the cities are fortified and great;” they described two major drawbacks to the assumptions that these people were easy to dislodge. In addition to this, they spoke of the giants they had seen, וגם ילידי ענק ראינו שם, “and we have also seen the children of Anak (a giant) there.” We have read in Deuteronomy 9,2, that Moses reminded the new generation of Israelites that they had heard about the awesome reputation of these giants already from their parents who had described them as invincible
+
+Verse 29
+
+עמלק יושב בארץ הנגב, “the Amalekites reside in the southern region of that land.” The spies implied that before asking about the fierceness of the inhabitants of that land further north, they should first ask about the Amalekites who live near the southern border, the area slated for invasion first. This was the same Amalek whom their fathers had not been able to completely defeat when they had just come out of Egypt.
+והאמורי יושב בהר, “and the Emorites dwell in the mountainous regions. The Canaanites dwell along the shores of the Sea, as well as along the river Jordan. They meant that there was no unpopulated region through which to enter this land.
+
+Verse 30
+
+ויהס כלב את העם אל משה, “Caleb silenced the people toward Moses;” From this line you can glean what must have been left out here, i.e. that Moses was trying unsuccessfully to interrupt the report of the spies, until Caleb succeeded to silence them, even if only briefly. 38 years later in Deuteronomy 1,29, Moses reminds the people that he had tried to give them encouragement to proceed with carrying out G-d’s command to mount an attack against the inhabitants of that land.
+
+Verse 31
+
+
+
+Verse 32
+
+
+
+Verse 33
+
+ושם ראינו את הנפילים, “and there we have seen the Nephilim; some commentators believe that these people were very tall people who had fallen out of the sky, as in Job 14,18 הר נופל יבול, “mountains collapse and crumble,” where the words describe a great height.
+בני ענק, according to one opinion cited by Rashi, the necks of these people reached almost to the sun. (Exaggeration, of course).
+The spies, referring to themselves add that they therefore felt as if they were as small as grasshoppers by comparison. This is not the only example where small creatures are compared to grasshoppers. Compare Isaiah 40,22.
+
+Chapter 14
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+
+
+Verse 2
+
+
+
+Verse 3
+
+!הלא טוב לנו לשוב מצרימה, “would it not be better for us to return to Egypt!” When an Israelite died in Egypt, at least he had someone to leave his estate to either to children, relatives, or at least to friends. Who could he leave it to in the desert? It would all go to the enemy.
+
+Verse 4
+
+
+
+Verse 5
+
+
+
+Verse 6
+
+
+
+Verse 7
+
+
+
+Verse 8
+
+אם חפץ בנו ה, “if Hashem had really been fond of us, He would not allow us to die in the desert.”
+
+Verse 9
+
+(Joshua and Caleb speaking) כי לחמנו הם , “they are just as if our bread, ready to be consumed. This expression describing enemies as if already utterly defeated, is based on Deuteronomy 7,16: ואכלת את כל העמים “you will consume all the nations.”
+סר צלם מעליהם, “their protective shadow has already been removed from them. The Torah describes any “shield,” intended to protect as צל, “shadow.”
+
+Verse 10
+
+
+
+Verse 11
+
+
+
+Verse 12
+
+אכנו בדבר ואורישנו, “I will strike them with a pestilence and destroy them.” G-d intended to do this so that no enemy will be able to boast that he has defeated G-d’s people.
+
+Verse 13
+
+כי העלית, “although You have brought them up, etc.;” according to our author, the meaning of the word כי here is the same as the word אשר, “which or whom.”
+
+Verse 14
+
+ואמרו, “and the Egyptians will say, etc,”אל יושבי הארץ, “to the inhabitants of this land, etc.”What are they going to tell them? Because of G-d’s inability, etc.” (B’chor shor)
+
+Verse 15
+
+
+
+Verse 16
+
+
+
+Verse 17
+
+יגדל נא כח ה, “let the power of Hashem be great!” Moses prays that G-d’s attribute of Mercy be more powerful than His attribute of Justice; the source of this argument is found in Proverbs 16,32: טוב ארך אפים מגבור, “he that is slow to anger is better than he who is mighty.”An alternate interpretation: Moses refers here to what he imagined the nations as saying when faced with the disappearance of the Jewish nation. He is challenging G-d to prove to all those who do not believe in G-d’s ability to let the Jewish people conquer the Canaanites and dispossess them, that they are indeed capable of doing just that.
+כח ה, the name of G-d here is the one we spell with the letter ד, i.e. adonay.
+כאשר דברת, “as You have said.” (During the episode of the golden calf.) There are minor differences between what was said then and what is recorded now. These differences are immaterial, as in almost all cases in the Torah when something is repeated the two versions are not absolutely identical
+
+Verse 18
+
+ה׳ ארך אפים, “the Lord is slow to anger;” Moses does not mention the attribute “el” here in connection with erech apayim, though it usually is mentioned. The reason for this is that it normally reflects aspects of G-d’s power, and Moses did not want G-d to display His power against Israel. He also did not mention the attributes of rachum v’chanun aspects of G-d’s mercy and grace, as these attributes are used when describing G-d as bestowing gifts on mankind, as we know from Psalms 37,21: וצדיק חונן ונותן, “and the righteous excels in generosity and keeps giving.”Moses did not beg G-d to show his people favoritism, but he wanted Him to grant forgiveness on the basis of the attribute: emet, “truth,” but on the basis of what is known as lifnim mishurat hadin, somewhat beyond the strict requirements of justice. However, the word אמת describes absolute truth, without allowances being made for special considerations of the person or persons being judged. (compare b’chor shor on Leviticus 5,15.) An alternate interpretation: the reason why Moses omitted to refer to G-d’s attribute of truth is that he did not want G-d to employ that attribute as it had been mentioned by G-d when He said: “I will smite them with pestilence,” which would have been what the Israelites deserved at that stage. [after all, surely G-d would not have exceeded the application of pure justice as represented by emet, truth. Ed.] Moses also did not invoke G-d’s attribute of נוצר חסד, “storing up good deeds,” performed in the past by the party or parties being judged. G-d had told Moses, that on the contrary, the people had tested Him beyond endurance already 10 times [and had certainly used up any reservoir of goodwill they had built up in the past. My words. Ed.]
+וחטאה, “an inadvertent transgression;” Moses could not invoke this attribute of G-d as what the people had just become guilty of could never be called “inadvertent.”
+
+Verse 19
+
+סלח נא לעוו העם הזה, “please forgive the deliberately committed sin of this nation!” This is a reference to the sin of the spies;
+וכאשר נשאת לעם הזה ממצרים ועד הנה, “just as You have upgraded the sins of the nation ever since they left Egypt especially the episode of the golden calf, [by remembering their lowly origins. Ed.].
+
+Verse 20
+
+סלחתי כדבריך, “I have forgiven, as you yourself have said,” i.e. the episode of the golden calf. Now, however, I am unable to do so. And have to demand what is My due.
+An alternate interpretation: “in accordance with your request.” G-d refers to two occasions when He had forgiven the Jewish people, once during the episode of the golden calf, and now for the sin of the people being misled by the majority report of the spies. On the first occasion His forgiveness had been more comprehensive, i.e. He had used more of His attributes in doing so. This is why He adds the words: “according to your words.” You yourself, by appealing to only a part of the attributes I have taught you to use when the need arises to appeal to Me, are in agreement that this situation cannot be compared to the incitement of the mixed multitude at the time when you had not returned from Mount Sinai for over forty days, and they thought you might not be able to return. G-d reminded Moses that he himself had agreed that the rules of justice were not to be bent, by omitting to appeal to this.
+The author continues to find hints of this in the difference of the spelling of the word כדברך without the plural letter י i.e. כדבריך, which the rules of grammar would have dictated as the correct spelling. By condemning the generation of male adults who had left Egypt at the Exodus to die only gradually, about two and a half percent a year, G-d demonstrated that the principle of considering the positive accomplishment of the past generation when dealing with the younger generation had been considered by Him even here.
+
+Verse 21
+
+
+
+Verse 22
+
+וינסו אתי, “they put Me to the test” The word here is used as equivalent to ויכעיסו, “They made Me angry.” Compare Onkelos on Genesis 40,6, where the word for זועפים is translated as “angry,” נסיסין. This is why the letter ס in this word has a dot, to show that it is a variation of the usual meaning.
+
+Verse 23
+
+
+
+Verse 24
+
+ועבדי כלב, “but My servant Caleb,” there was no need for G-d to mention Joshua by name here seeing it was he who would lead the people into the Holy Land. An alternate interpretation: There was no point in mentioning him, seeing that he had no children who would receive an ancestral share of that land. The Torah could not have written of him that his descendants would inherit their share of the land
+וימלא אחרי, “he followed Me fully;” he completed Moses’ task, My messenger’s task, trying to make him more effective. The use of the root מלא in the same sense as translated here is not unique; we find an example of it in Kings I 1,14: ואני אבוא אחריך ומלאתי את דבריך, “and I will come immediately after you and confirm and reinforce your words.”(The prophet Natan to Batsheva, mother of Solomon)
+וזרעו יורישנה, ”and his seed will inherit it.” The root ירש in the transitive mode is used here to mean “inherit,” in other words: “and I will cause his seed to leave it as an inheritance [To more distant generations also. Ed.]
+
+Verse 25
+
+והעמלקי, “and the nation of Amalek, etc.” G-d now reciprocated what the spies had done. They had intimidated the Israelites by pointing to the Amalekites as powerful adversaries; G-d does the same to the people now.
+והכנעני, “and the Canaanite; “actually both the Canaanite and the Emorite, who was one of the Canaanite tribes.
+יושב בעמק, “who dwells in the valley.” This sounds somewhat puzzling, seeing that a few verses later these people are described as descending (verse 45.) What the Torah had meant was that most of the Canaanites were dwelling in the valley, but the ones dwelling in the mountains would attack and overpower any Israelites daring at this time against the wishes of G-d to engage them in war. It is also possible that although these tribes dwelled in the valley they had moved out of their homes to higher ground in order to have the advantage over any Israelites who would have to climb in order to engage them in a fight. It was not unusual to plant ambushes as we know from Psalms10,8, ישב במארב חצרים, “dwelling in an ambush in isolated areas.”
+מחר פנו וסעו לכם, “tomorrow turn, and start journeying;” in this instance the word מחר is not to be understood as literally: “tomorrow,” but as “soon.” Actually, according to our sages the people stayed at Kadesh for 19 years. This is how they interpreted the line in verse 48 which described them as staying there for a long time. Use of the word as meaning something in the distant future is familiar to us from Exodus 13,14: כי ישאלך בנך מחר, “when your son will ask you מחר” [the son could not do this until after the parents having settled in the land of Israel prepared to observe the Passover. Ed.]
+המדברה דרך ים סוף, “toward the desert in the direction of the sea of reeds.” to circle Mount Seir, as we find in Deuteronomy, in order to complete the decree that “your children shall be shepherds in the wilderness for forty years.”
+
+Verse 26
+
+
+
+Verse 27
+
+
+
+Verse 28
+
+
+
+Verse 29
+
+מבן עשרים שנה ומעלה, “from twenty years and up.” Seeing that this was the age at which the male Israelites began to bear arms, it was that group who had been afraid to rely on G-d’s help.”
+
+Verse 30
+
+
+
+Verse 31
+
+
+
+Verse 32
+
+ופגריכם אתם, “and you who are already corpses;” this verse has been truncated, and it should really have been written in the reverse order, i.e. ואתם פגריכם, “and as for you, your carcasses etc.” This is also what Rashi had in mind when he wrote: “as per the Targum, your carcasses.”
+
+Verse 33
+
+יהיו רועים, “they will be wanderers;” this is meant literally, i.e. like sheep that are wanderers, [not like shepherds, Ed.] Sheep do not wander in one direction but often cross areas that they had fed on earlier in the season. Your children will also be nomads like those sheep.
+
+Verse 34
+
+במספר הימים, “according to the number of days;” the letter ב in במספר has a dagesh, dot in it.
+וידעתם את תנואתי, “so you shall know My displeasure.” You claimed that I had planned to kill you by the enemies’ swords in order not to have to bring you to the Holy Land; now you will experience the reverse; you will live out your lives but to no purpose.
+
+Verse 35
+
+אם לא זאת אעשה, “surely this I will do;” we have here three short verses all dealing with the same subject. 1) You will not get to see the land you were to have made your home in. 2) You will not even enter it. 3) This will include your whole congregation [the ones who were 20 years old at the time of the Exodus. Ed.]
+הנועדים עלי, “that have ganged up against Me.” They did so by trying to stone My representatives on earth. They traded My honour for something infinitely inferior.
+
+Verse 36
+
+והאנשים אשר שלח משה, “and the men that Moses had sent forth;” the spies, G-d did not let them live out their lives but killed them at once by a plague.
+וישובו וילינו, “made all the congregation murmur against him.” Once was not enough, but they repeated their negative attitude to conquering the land of the Canaanites.
+
+Verse 37
+
+
+
+Verse 38
+
+
+
+Verse 39
+
+
+
+Verse 40
+
+
+
+Verse 41
+
+את פי ה, “the Lord’s commandment?” He had told you that you would turn back in the direction of the sea of reeds, whereas you now insist on undertaking a military campaign against the Canaanites. (compare verse 25)
+
+Verse 42
+
+
+
+Verse 43
+
+כי על כן שבתם, “for you turned away from Hashem again.” The reason why the spies frightened you was in order to turn you away from G-d, and now when they succeeded you wanted to do this once more? Do you still not place your confidence in Him? The only reason why He is not going to be on your side is that you constantly rebel against Him! If you will again transgress against His commandment you will surely be defeated until the forty years He decreed will have passed.
+
+Verse 44
+
+
+
+Verse 45
+
+ויכום, the Amalekites defeated them.” ויכתום, “the Canaanites beat them.”
+
+Chapter 15
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+
+
+Verse 2
+
+דבר אל בני ישראל, “speak to the Children of Israel!” When G-d saw that finally they had acknowledged their wrongdoing and had repented, and had mourned appropriately, He informed them that their sons would settle in the Land and He spoke to them on the subject of sacrificial offerings to be offered.
+אל ארץ מושבותיכם, “to the land wherein you will settle;” but while in the desert, these sacrifices are not welcome. These sacrifices are effective only for sins committed inadvertently; you however, have committed the sins fully aware of what you had done.
+
+Verse 3
+
+
+
+Verse 4
+
+והקריב המקריב, “the one presenting the offering shall present it;” Rabbi Natan understands this verse as an introductory formula applicable to all such situations, something known in Talmudic parlance as binyan av. It teaches that no one offering a gift offering may use less than the quantities and ingredients listed in this verse. (Sifri)
+
+Verse 5
+
+על העולה או לזבח, “on either a burnt offering or an offering part of the meat of which could be consumed;” why did this have to be spelled out here? We had read in verse 3: ועשיתם אשה עולה או זבח, “you are to make a fire offering or a burnt offering for the Lord;” from that line we heard that if someone declares: ”I undertake to present a burnt offering, I am going to present a meat offering,” he declares: “I am going to present a gift offering, and “I am going to present a peace offering,” [in other words, all these types of offerings. Ed] that he did not have to add more that a single libation offering with all of these offerings; this is why the Torah here had to spell out that these libation offerings must accompany each of the above mentions animal or meal offerings. (Sifri)
+
+Verse 6
+
+
+
+Verse 7
+
+
+
+Verse 8
+
+
+
+Verse 9
+
+ והקריב על בן הבקר, “he will present it with the bullock;” the word על means “with,” in this instance.
+
+Verse 10
+
+
+
+Verse 11
+
+ככה יעשה לשור האחד, “so it shall be done for each bullock;” we learn from here that the Torah did not distinguish between the amounts used for libation offerings of young animals such as a calf, and the amounts used to accompany animals that had fully matured. (Sifri)
+או לאיל האחד, “or for each ram.” Why did this detail have to be spelled out? I might have thought that seeing that the Torah had distinguished between the size of libations for one year old animals and two year old animals, and the size of the libations for three year old animals, it would similarly distinguish between the sizes of the libations for three year old animals of one type and another type, and between the males of the species or the females, therefore it equates sheep and goats i.e. the biggest of the categories known as בהמה דקה, the smaller categories of domestic beasts acceptable as sacrifices and the larger ones, known as בהמה גסה. The amounts of fine flour used in the libation offerings accompanying either animal, are identical in volume, i.e. three logs of fine flour.
+
+Verse 12
+
+לאחד כמספרם, “for everyone according to their number.” The letter ל in the word לאחד, has the vowel kametz under it.
+
+Verse 13
+
+כל האזרח יעשה ככה, “Every citizen shall shall do so.“ why is this said? Because it says “and battered, and crushed, etc.“ These, you do not accept, but you accept from them unblemished ones. Would it be possible that just as Israel brings libations, so too would the Canaanite bring libations? The verse teaches us, “Every citizen shall do so, etc.“ Israel brings libations, and the Canaanite does not bring libations. From here it was said that if a non-Jew sent his burnt offerings from overseas, and did not send libations with them, they would be offered from the public funds.
+
+Verse 14
+
+וכי יגור אתכם גר או אשר בתוככם, “and if amongst you there sojourns a stranger, or whoever there may be amongst you throughout your generations, etc,” this verse appears in a truncated form; it should be understood as if the Torah had written it as follows: “if a stranger who lives amongst you at the present, or at some time in the future, etc.;” from this verse we learn that this paragraph has been written in the Torah twice, and been repeated in order to add to it two details that had not previously been revealed to the people. (B’chor shor)
+
+Verse 15
+
+
+
+Verse 16
+
+
+
+Verse 17
+
+
+
+Verse 18
+
+
+
+Verse 19
+
+והיה ב��כלכם, “it shall be when you eat of, etc.” the letter ב at the beginning of the word באכלכם, has the vowel chatof patach under it.
+
+Verse 20
+
+ כתרומת גרן, “as that which is set aside from the threshing ground;” this is equivalent to what is known elsewhere as ראשית עריסותיכם, “the first product of your kneading bowls.”
+
+Verse 21
+
+מראשית עריסותיכם, this includes the parts of the harvest to be left for the poor, such as the field’s corner, gleanings, and areas the reaper forgot to cut, all of which are subject to the laws of challah, i.e. before the proceeds are baked, a small portion had to be set aside for the priest.
+לדורותיכם, “throughout your generations.” According to the Sifri on this verse this includes any dough baked during the sh’mittah year as well as any dough that qualifies for the laws of challah.
+
+Verse 22
+
+
+
+Verse 23
+
+
+
+Verse 24
+
+
+
+Verse 25
+
+
+
+Verse 26
+
+
+
+Verse 27
+
+.ואם נפש אחת תחטא בשגגה, “and if one person sin through error, etc.;” idolatry is one of the sins which can be atoned for by an offering of the appropriate animal sacrifice by the guilty party, either through presenting a female sheep female or goat, as specified. It depends on the social status of the sinner. If a national leader had become guilty of that sin through error, he has to bring a male goat, if it was the High Priest, a bullock; also if the president of the Supreme Court had become guilty of that sin, he has to present a mature bullock. [One of the reasons that a female goat is referred to as שעירה, and not as עז, is that the practice of offering goats called satyrs to their deities was so widespread amongst the idolaters. (Compare Leviticus 17,7) Ed.] This is the reason why this paragraph had to be written especially.
+עז בת שנתה, “a female goat during the first year of its life.” Every time the term עז appears in the Torah, it refers to a female goat of less than one year. (Sifri)
+
+Verse 28
+
+
+
+Verse 29
+
+
+
+Verse 30
+
+ונכרתה הנפש ההיא, “that soul will be cut off;” whenever the root כרת is used it refers to a separation, ending of a previous relationship.” (Sifri)
+
+Verse 31
+
+עונה, “her guilt;” the letter ה in the word עונה does not have a dot. [although we would have expected it as it is a pronoun ending. Ed.]
+
+Verse 32
+
+ויהיו בני ישראל במדבר, “While the Children of Israel were in the desert, etc.;” they remained there as G-d had decreed that they could not enter the Land of Israel. The commandments that have been listed immediately preceding this paragraph were all commandments that could not be fulfilled outside that land. This is why they had been introduced with the words: וכי תבאו אל הארץ, “when you will come to the land.” The only one discussed here that was not only applicable in the Holy Land were the laws of the Sabbath which apply universally, wherever Jews happen to be, even when they are in the desert. This is why the fact that the man who collected kindling on the Sabbath was in the desert was written, as we would have known that he was in the desert, where else could he have been? (B’chor shor on verse 34.)
+וימצאו איש מקושש עצים, “they found a man collecting kindling.” According to Rashi, this line is written as a critique of the Israelites, seeing that at least one of them did not even observe the second Sabbath already. [Actually, some Israelites who went out of the camp with containers to collect manna on the first Sabbath also violated the Sabbath legislation, although this was before the Torah had been given. Ed.] From Rashi’s comment we must assume that this incident occurred already during the first year of the Israelites’ wanderings. On the other hand, the incident of the blasphemer recorded in Leviticus chapter 24, took place in the second year, as in the first year the Israelites had not yet arranged their tribal positions around the Tabernacle according to their tribal flags. And some commentators suggest that even though the incident of the blasphemer also occurred in the first year, nevertheless he was guilty as explained in Lev.24.12-16.
+מקושש עצים ביום השבת, “collecting kindling on the Sabbath day.” According to one opinion, the violation consisted of his carrying the kindling a distance greater than four cubits in the public domain. According to another opinion the sin consisted of his having cut the kindling from the tree’s trunk on the Sabbath. A third opinion holds that he was guilty of the sin of bundling these kindling together as in making sheaves. (Talmud tractate Shabbat folio 96.)
+וימצאו, “they found;” this teaches that Moses must have appointed men especially appointed to look for lawbreakers on the Sabbath. One or more of these guards found the culprit, and then cautioned him. (Sifrei)
+
+Verse 33
+
+ויקריבו אותו וגו, “and the men who had found him brought him to Moses;” why did this have to be repeated once more? We had already heard what this man had been found doing on the Sabbath? It was repeated to let us know that the men who found him had warned him of the consequences in store for him if he did not desist.
+
+Verse 34
+
+כי לא פורש מה יעשה לו, “for it had not been specified what should be done to him.” Rashi explains that whereas it was known that the man had to be executed, which of the four methods to be used in this case had not yet been spelled out. If you were to ask why this man should not be executed by strangulation seeing that it had not been stated that he has to be stoned, and strangulation is the standard method of execution for most capital sins, the answer is that Moses was in doubt what precisely was the sin that called for execution here, if desecration was equivalent to desecrating the name of the Lord by worshipping an idol, in which case execution was to be by means of the sword. This is why he was kept locked up until Moses received an answer from G-d. If you were to say, that in accordance with the view of Rabbi Yehudah that if the sinner had not been warned of what kind of death penalty he could expect, no conviction could be obtained from a court, you would have to answer that the witnesses advised him that he would be liable to one of the four kinds of executions provided for by the Torah.
+
+Verse 35
+
+
+
+Verse 36
+
+
+
+Verse 37
+
+
+
+Verse 38
+
+ועשו להם ציצית, “that they make for themselves fringes;” When G-d created the universe (our globe) He did not create anything that could not lend itself to perform a commandment with. If a farmer goes out to plough his field, he must take care not to use an ox and a donkey to pull the plough. If he goes out to sow seeds, he must be sure not to violate the commandment of mixing two species of seeds to grow in the same row. If he goes out to harvest, he must take care not to harvest every last bit of the field. If his wife bakes bread, or better, makes a dough for bread, she must take care to set aside something for the priest. The list could be continued ad infinitum. [This editor has contented himself with part of the list spelled out by our author. What is a rule for agricultural activities and domestic activities in the kitchen, also applies to the clothing we wear. G-d has provided us with an opportunity to perform a commandment even in that area of our lives, though we are not obligated to wear four cornered garments nor to mix wool and linen, otherwise forbidden, when doing so. Ed.]
+על ציצית הכנף, “on the fringes of each corner,” i.e. “together with the fringes on each corner of that garment.” An example of a similar construction is found in Leviticus 25,31: על שדה הארץ, which does on mean: “on the field of the country,” but “with the field of the country.” Three of the fringes are white in colour, whereas the fourth is blue. This is what our sages said in the Sifri.
+
+Verse 39
+
+וזכרתם את כל מצות ה, “so that you will remember all the commandments of the Lord;” Rashi explains this line by pointing out that the numerical value of the word ציצית is 600; when you add the eight fringes and the five knots required to attach them in the traditional manner you have 613, the number of the commandments of the Torah. Seeing that the three times the word ציצ(י)ת appears in this paragraph the letter י is missing, one must take the ל of לציצת (which has a value of 30) and add 10 to each time that word appears remind us of the number 613.
+ולא תתורו אחרי לבבכם ואחרי עיניכם, “and you must not go about after your hearts and after your eyes;” whenever you look at one of My commandments you are to remember that you are My servants and are not free to follow your inclinations when they deviate from My commandments.
+
+Verse 40
+
+, למען תזכרו ועשיתם את כל מצותי, “so that you will remember and carry out all My commandments, and not violate them.” This paragraph has been inserted next to the paragraph that dealt with the person collecting kindling on the Sabbath, so that you will remember what happened to that person for violating My commandment. After having witnessed this, the people might have thought: “how can we ever observe the laws of the Sabbath after having witnessed that this man was executed for a minor infraction?” At least when it comes to the observance of the festivals there are symbols on that day that remind us of the nature of it, but what distinguishes the Sabbath from the weekdays so that it could serve as a reminder? Therefore the Torah gave us the commandment of fringes as a symbol of clothing that would be worn on the Sabbath, although it would be inconvenient to wear such garment on weekdays when we have to go about our work. Our sages have formulated it thus: “anyone who does not wear a Tallit with fringes on the Sabbath is comparable to the person who collected kindling on the Sabbath. [This is a quote from Tossaphot, sages who were contemporaries of our author. Ed.]
+והייתם קדושים לאלוקיכם, “and then you will be holy for your G-d.” And who is this G-d of yours?
+
+Verse 41
+
+אני ה' אלוקיכם אשר הוצאתי אתכם מארץ מצריפ , “I amthe Lord you G-d. Who has taken you out of the land of Egypt.” Quoting from the writings of Rabbi Moshe Hadarshon, one of his favourite sources, Rashi comments the eight (folded over 4) strings making up the fringes at each corner of a fourcornered garment symbolize the eight days it took the Jewish people after leaving Egypt to finally being free from pursuit. That was when they broke out in the song of thanksgiving. If you were to say that they descended into the sea on the evening of the seventh day according to Exodus 14,5, and the recited the song of thanksgiving on the following morning, (which as till the seventh day), we have to assume that the day on which they had moved from Goshen to Ramses, was included in the count of eight. The report in Exodus commences only after they had all miraculously assembled in Ramses, from where they proceeded to Sukkot.
+
+Chapter 16
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+ויקח קרח, “Korach took, etc.” Korach acquired people, sympathisers; which people did he acquire specifically?Datan and Abiram, sons of Eliav, as well as On ben Pelet, members of the tribe of Reuven, other discontents. The letter ו in the word ודתן is superfluous, but there are numerous such letters ו in similar situations.
+Compare one in Genesis 46,9 ובני ראובן חנוך ופלוא. Pelet and Phalu are identical, Eliav being the son of latter. We know this from Numbers 26,8. Seeing that the Torah previously had written in Numbers 14,35: במדבר הזה יתמו ושם ימותו, “in this desert they will be consumed, there they will die,” the Torah here explains why some of them died as the result of other specific occurrences, not just the sin of the spies. These people were quite numerous, including the twenty four thousand who died during the last year of the wanderings at Shittim as a result of sleeping with Moabite women and having worshipped the deity, Baal Peor of those women. Not a single one of the adult males who had left Egypt and who were alive during that debacle survived the march through the desert. (Numbers 26,64)
+
+Verse 2
+
+ויקומו לפני משה, ”they orchestrated an uprising against Moses;” Korach’s specific complaint was that seeing that he was the firstborn of his father’s sons, (Exodus 6,21) Aaron instead had been given preferential treatment. Datan, Abiram and On were angry that their tribe had been deprived of the status that should have been accorded to the firstborn of Yaakov their founding father, and that status had been accorded to Joseph and his descendants instead. They believed that this was due to the fact that Joshua from the tribe of Ephrayim, Joseph’s son, had been chosen by Moses to be his closest disciple and valet, the whole tribe had been promoted to special status. They also considered that the leaders of the various tribes had been chosen as they were each firstborns, and that therefore it was clear that their tribe had been deliberately demoted. (Ibn Ezra) Proof that this was their complaint can be seen from Numbers 17,25, where the Torah reports that finally, when Aaron’s staff, i.e. a representative of the tribe of Levi, brought forth a bud that developed into almonds, the Torah reports that these kinds of complaints ceased. They finally realised that G-d had chosen the tribe of Levi rather that Yaakov’s firstborn son Reuven, i.e. that the system of allocating spiritual and material advantages to the firstborn had been replaced by a system of hereditary spiritual background, such as G-d’s having chosen the descendants of three proven patriarchs as His “firstborn” people, a message relayed to Pharaoh at the beginning of Moses’ career. [some of these words are mine. Ed.] On the other hand, Korach rebelled against what appears to be the message of Exodus 13,2, that all the firstborn are to be sanctified, i.e. they were not holy through birth, and he claimed that the entire people of Israel, ever since they had accepted the Torah had become holy, as all had participated in the revelation at Mount Sinai.
+ואנשים מבני ישראל חמשים ומאתים, “together with another two hundred and fifty men from various sections among the Israelites.” He selected twenty three from each tribe excluding members from his own tribe; the reason that he chose the number twenty three was that that number constituted the number of judges required to deal with sins involving capital punishment. Each tribe had a high court comprising that number of judges. If you remove Datan, Aviram and On, you have a total of 253 rebels, not counting the leader. At this juncture, Rashi comments that all these men garbed themselves in prayer shawls made entirely of blue wool. They supposedly challenged Moses by asking if those prayer shawls required fringes, tzitzit. When Moses ruled that they did require fringes, they started ridiculing him and his Torah, by arguing that if a whole garment can be fit to wear by adding a single strand of blue wool, it was nonsensical to disallow these prayer shawls that consisted exclusively of blue wool. Some commentators claim that Korach used this commandment as it was the one most recently written in the Torah. Korach used that commandment as something to challenge Moses with. (Tanchuma Korach section 2.)
+קריאי עדה, “elect men of the assembly.” They had been called out to serve in the Tabernacle.
+
+Verse 3
+
+כי כל העדה כולם קדושים, “for the entire congregation are all holy.” Korach was referring to the firstborn of each family. (Ibn Ezra). He based himself of Exodus 13,2. It follows that it is the firstborn who have the duty and the privilege to perform the service in the Tabernacle.
+
+Verse 4
+
+וישמע משה, “Moses heard;” he understood that Korach’s rebellion was aimed at usurping the position of his brother Aaron, the High Priest.
+ויפול על פניו, “he fell upon his face;” he was ashamed and put his face on the ground in order to offer a prayer. He hoped to receive a revelation from G-d how to confront this challenge.
+
+Verse 5
+
+
+
+Verse 6
+
+קחו לכם מחתות, “take censers for yourselves.” It did not occur to Moses that these rebels would take him up on this, after all it was well known to all that anyone offering incense who had not been authorised to do so would die at the hands of G-d, as had even Aaron’s own two elder sons. Seeing that Korach challenged Moses with uncalled for accusations pulled out of thin air, Moses retaliated with equally ridiculous sounding answers, answers that he thought would be challenged instead of being taken seriously.
+
+Verse 7
+
+
+
+Verse 8
+
+ויאמר משה אל קרח, “Moses said to Korach, etc.;” his first words were addressed to Korach and his immediate followers, i.e. fellow Levites.
+
+Verse 9
+
+
+
+Verse 10
+
+ויקרב אותך ואת אחיך, “and He has brought you near as well as your fellow Levites after you. Korach was a grandson of Kehat, who was one of the Levites charged with carrying the Holy Ark on their shoulders, a privilege reserved only for Kehat and his offspring but not for other Levites. They were also the head of the Levites performing the songs in the Tabernacle as spelled out in Chronicles I16,5.
+ובקשתם גם כהונה, “and you also demand a share in the priesthood?”
+
+Verse 11
+
+לכן, “therefore,” i.e. since you have also demanded to have the status of priests;
+הנועדים על ה, “you, the ones who have joined together against the Lord;” you have gathered today and you will see G-d’s response tomorrow;
+כי תלונו, “because you have complained;” this word normally should have been spelled with the letter י instead of the letter ו in the middle. [Our author, when making these observations merely points out that the spelling is not a scribe’s error. He does not engage in speculations of why the Torah deviated from the norm. Ed.] The word is read as if it had been spelled: תלינו.
+
+Verse 12
+
+לא נעלה, “we will not go up [to face Moses]. This does not mean that Moses stood on an elevated platform, but is a standard expression when people are asked to appear before a judge or judges. Our author quotes Deuteronomy 25,7, as well as Judges 4,5, and Ruth 4,1, as proof of his interpretation. In each instance the verb עלה is used for people appearing at a court.
+
+Verse 13
+
+כי תשתרר עלינו גם השתרר, “but you have also imposed a dictatorship over us!” According to Rash’bam, the Torah uses the word גם, usually translated as “also,” both positively and negatively, i.e. as a continuation of something previous, or as an abrupt opposite of something previously stated. Our verse is an example of Datan and Abiram using it in the latter sense as if asking: “are you now going to also (even) act as dictator? Exodus 12,32 is such an example where the Pharaoh who had railed against Moses and Aaron all the time, suddenly makes a 180 degree turn by pleading for Moses to bless him also when offering sacrifices to the Jewish G-d. Numbers 22,33, is another such example where the angel who had not killed anyone tells Bileam that he would have killed not only his ass but also Bileam if he had been at liberty to do so.
+
+Verse 14
+
+העיני האנשים ההם תנקר, “will you gouge out the eyes of these men?” The verse is to be understood as a question, not as a statement, the authors expressing their astonishment that Moses hoped to get away with misleading the people with such trick. They themselves could certainly not be fooled by him, someone who had so utterly failed in his so-called mission up to now. They expressed wonder that the eyes of the Jewish people should have been fooled thus far, it looked to them as if these people had been blind all the time. [They were clearly the greatest demagogues up to that time! Ed.] Now, instead of making good on these promises, he had decreed that a whole generation of Israelites were to perish in this desert! They would not appear in front of him to be judged by him, he had lost all credence as a leader.
+
+Verse 15
+
+אל תפן אל מנחתם, “do not turn to their gift offering!” The reason why Moses cursed Datan and Abiram, by asking G-d not to accept their offering if any, was because even assuming, as he did, that they would not retract even if G-d were to say, as He did, that He had chosen Aaron and not Moses, they would still challenge the hereditary nature of the priesthood;Korach and his followers, on the other hand, by each taking the censers in which to offer incense outside the Tabernacle, did not challenge the priesthood itself, only Aaron’s appointment as High Priest. Therefore he did not ask G-d not to accept the incense of these 250 men.
+לא חמור אחד מהם נשאתי, “I have not appropriated a single donkey from anyone of them;” this remark by Moses is relevant to verse three, when he and Aaron had been accused of having elevated himself above the people. The vocalization of the word חמור corresponds to the plain meaning of the verse, whereas according to Rashi’s interpretation the word echad should have been achad, “one of,” as in Genesis 26,10.
+נשאתי, an expression meaning “I have taken.” It occurs in this sense also in Samuel II 5,21: וישאם דוד ואנשיו, “and David and his men took them.”
+ולא הרעותי את אחד מהם, “and I have not done wrong to a single one of them.” Moses referred to the fact that Datan and Abiram had betrayed him to Pharaoh for killing the Egyptian who had first killed an Israelite without provocation. (Exodus 2,112,15)
+
+Verse 16
+
+
+
+Verse 17
+
+
+
+Verse 18
+
+
+
+Verse 19
+
+
+
+Verse 20
+
+
+
+Verse 21
+
+ואכלה אותם כרגע, “so that I may consume them in a moment;” if you were to ask that we have a rule that punishment must not be meted out unless preceded by a warning, Moses had warned them in the name of G-d when he had said to them to come up for judgment in the presence of the Lord on the following morning together with Aaron in verse 16. However, Korach had not complied. This is why G-d could be angry at them without delay, seeing that Korach. instead of complying with G-d’s instruction had assembled the whole congregation as per verse 19, in order to get the maximum publicity value out of his rebellion. As a result, G-d was justified in carrying out sentence immediately. The participants and guilty people had already all been warned. (17,10)
+
+Verse 22
+
+אלוקי הרוחות לכל בשר, “O G-d, Spirit of flesh, etc.;” Moses refers to the fact that G-d has knowledge of our innermost thoughts at all times. As a result, He surely knows who is guilty and who is not. G-d tells him that he is quite correct and that is why He tells him now for the innocent to stand back and demonstrate their innocence. All he had to do is to tell people to remove themselves from Korach’s tent.
+האיש אחד יחטא, shall one man sin, etc.;” the letter ח in the word אחד has the vowel kametz, to teach you that it is not something unusual for a human being to commit a sin; if there was something surprising here, it was that apparently G-d would therefore be angry at the whole congregation that man was a part of.
+
+Verse 23
+
+
+
+Verse 24
+
+
+
+Verse 25
+
+
+
+Verse 26
+
+בכל חטאתם, “in all their sins.” A better translation would be: “on account of their many sins.”
+
+Verse 27
+
+
+
+Verse 28
+
+לעשות את כל המעשים האלה, “to perform all these works.” I have tested them by the manner in which they related to the incense, as I have said, when I gave you a chance to compete against Aaron, each of you with his own censer. An alternate interpretation: to show if the priests could be exchanged for the Levites. (Ibn Ezra)
+
+Verse 29
+
+
+
+Verse 30
+
+ואם בריאה יברא ה, “but if the Lord will create a new phenomenon, etc.;” these words do not refer to “earth,” seeing that since the first six days of creation, according to our sages (in Avot 5,6) no such new phenomenon had been created. Scripture itself is witness to this statement when the Torah wrote in Numbers 16,30 in our chapter that the earth, i.e. an existing phenomenon, would open earth, i.e. an its mouth. Furthermore the Torah had written already in connection with Kayin (Genesis 4,11) that the earth did open its mouth. This is clear proof that the “mouth” of the earth and its function already existed. What Moses meant was the following: if a new phenomenon which had never been observed until now, namely the descent of fully alive human beings into the bowels of the earth, will occur, this will be proof, etc.
+
+Verse 31
+
+
+
+Verse 32
+
+ואת כל האדם אשר לקרח “and any human being siding with Korach, etc.” the expression: כל האדם, is somewhat puzzling at this point. It cannot refer to adult members of Korach’s family, as these had repeatedly been referred to as איש; we must therefore assume that it refers to his wife and minor children as well as to his servants and entourage. The Torah states specifically that Korach’s sons (adults?) did not die; compare Numbers 26,11.
+
+Verse 33
+
+וירדו הם, “they descended, they;” the reason that these people, not Korach’s family or household members, but sympathisers, over and beyond the two hundred and fifty people mentioned at the beginning of this episode. descended into the bowels of the earth also. The word: הם is a limitation, excluding the two hundred and fifty men who had offered incense, seeing they had done so at the invitation of Moses. Although they had been totally wrong, their motivation was noble so that they died by being burned on the spot, but presumably were buried with honours, just as their censers were used as covers for the altar subsequently. (Numbers 17,3) The people who had not followed Moses’ advice, were the ones that descended into the bowels of the earth. [Actually, of Datan and Aviram the Torah reports that they were burned to death (and that they descended into the bowels of the earth. Deut. 11.6)
+
+Verse 34
+
+נסו לקולם, “they fled when hearing their sounds”. This is a reference to the outcries of the people being swallowed by the earth. We know of a parallel in Jeremiah 49,21: מקול נפלם רעשה כל הארץ, “at the sound of their downfall the whole earth will shake.”
+
+Verse 35
+
+
+
+Chapter 17
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+
+
+Verse 2
+
+אמור אל אלעזר, “say to Elazar, etc.;” G-d did not want that Aaron the High Priest become ritually impure, as he was involved actively in offering sacrifices, that is why He asked Moses to give these instructions to his son Elazar.
+
+Verse 3
+
+החטאים האלה בנפשותם, “these sinners who paid for their sins with their lives;” they brought their death upon themselves. Moses had warned them in 16,7, when he made clear that only one person of all of them would be chosen by G-d. In other words, all the others would die as a result of this test. All of them foolishly risked their lives, knowing that 249 of them would die.
+ועשו אותם, “so that they will make out of them, etc.” Moses, i.e. G-d refers to skilled artisans. This verse is abbreviated, as we find in similar verses such as Genesis 48,1 ויאמר אל יוסף, “he said to Joseph,” where the subject is missing, or verse 2 in the same chapter where the person giving this information to Yaakov has also not been named.
+
+Verse 4
+
+ויקח אלעזר, “Elazar took;” at first glance this does not appear the proper place for this verse. This verse should have begun with the words: זכרון לבני ישראל, “to be a memorial for the Children of Israel, etc.” Verse 4 was inserted here in order to provide a separation so that we would understand that from the beginning of this whole paragraph until the words: ויהיו לאות לבני ישראל, “so that will be a sign unto the Children of Israel,” Moses was told to speak to Elazar, whereas from verse 5 he was told to speak to Aaron, something which becomes clear at the end of that verse. Proof for this is provided by Sifri on chapter 18,8: וידבר ה' אל אהרן וגו', “the Lord spoke to Aaron, etc.
+צפוי למזבח, “a covering for the altar.” Until now the altar did not have a roof.
+
+Verse 5
+
+זכרון לבני ישראל למען אשר לא יקרב איש זר, “a reminder to the Children of Israel so that no non priest, etc.;” why was such a reminder necessary? Someone looking at the copper cover on the earthen altar (which was outside the Tabernacle) would be liable to ask: seeing that the Torah had written in Exodus 20,21 “make for Me an earthen altar,” i.e. fill the hollow with earth, what is the good of that earth if it was now going to be covered with copper sheathing?” He would be answered that this sheathing was constructed from the pans used by the rebels who had supported Korach in his rebellion against the hereditary institution of the priesthood. Seeing what had happened to the owners of these censers the people were afraid to question the institution of the priesthood in the future.
+ביד משה לו, ”through Moses to him.” The “him” refers to Korach. The meaning is; concerning Korach. The construction is similar to Genesis 28,15: כי לא אעזבך עד אשר עם עשיתי את אשר דברתי לך, “I will not abandon you until I have carried out all that I have said to you (promised to you) [G-d speaking in Yaakov’s dream of the ladder. Ed.] There too the word לב is to be understood as עליך, “concerning you.”An alternate interpretation understands the word לו, as referring to what Moses had said to Aaron. (Rashi and Ibn Ezra)
+
+Verse 6
+
+אתם המתם את עם ה, “you are killing G-d’s people!” They meant that Moses and Aaron, by suggesting that the two hundred and fifty men offer incense, something non priests were forbidden to do, and were the direct cause of these people dying a sudden death. All of this had been caused by Moses and Aaron substituting the Levites for the firstborn, who previously were in their rights to offer incense.
+
+Verse 7
+
+
+
+Verse 8
+
+
+
+Verse 9
+
+
+
+Verse 10
+
+
+
+Verse 11
+
+אש מעל המזבח, “fire taken from the altar;” Moses warned Aaron not to err and because of haste to use non consecrated fire as had done two of his sons who had paid with their lives for their error.
+ושים קטרת, “and lay incense;” in order to show them that you are a priest, and that the incense which they thought is the cause of death, is actually the cause of life if used by people authorised to do so, i.e. a priest.
+וכפר עליהם, “and make atonement for them;” the smoke of the incense will act as a barrier against the plague.
+
+Verse 12
+
+
+
+Verse 13
+
+
+
+Verse 14
+
+
+
+Verse 15
+
+
+
+Verse 16
+
+
+
+Verse 17
+
+וקח מאתם מטה מטה, “and take from each of them a staff;” seeing that they are still complaining about the tribe (מטה) of Levi being the one G-d has selected to perform special duties, they were to realise that the significance of handling incense was not something that applied only to Aaron, but that Aaron’s tribe, the Levites, had a special role to perform. There was a need to demonstrate this by an additional miracle.
+
+Verse 18
+
+כי מטה אחד, “for there shall be one staff, etc.” even though there is an internal division between ordinary Levites and the priests, they all belong to the same tribe.”
+
+Verse 19
+
+
+
+Verse 20
+
+והשכותי מעלי את תלונות בני ישראל, “and I will put an end to the complaints of the Children of Israel against Me.” Their complaints were that you, Moses and Aaron, had acted arbitrarily when selecting a special rank for the members of the tribe of Levi in lieu of the firstborns of each family.
+
+Verse 21
+
+
+
+Verse 22
+
+וינח משה , “and Moses laid out, etc.” the letter נ in the word וינח, has a dot in it.
+
+Verse 23
+
+ויצא פרח, “and bloomed blossoms;” this was to be a symbol that the young priests would come forth from the sons of Aaron.
+ויצץ ציץ, “it had budded;” a sign that priests would come forth. The High Priests descended from Aaron would wear this ציץ, headband, engraved with the word: kodesh, holy, on their forehand (compare Exodus 28,36). ויגמול שקדים, “it bore ripe almonds.” This was an allusion to the eagerness with which the priests descended from Aaron would perform their duties. Throughout history the priests were lauded for the eagerness with which they performed their duties. They were cited as examples of such eagerness, i.e. כהנים זריזים הם (compare Talmud tractate Shabbat, folio 20) According to some opinions, this phenomenon of Aaron’s staff producing blossoms and almonds was also one of the miracles for which G-d had provided the potential during dusk on the sixth day of creation. (Compare tractate Avot, chapter 5, Mishnah 6)
+
+Verse 24
+
+
+
+Verse 25
+
+ותכל תלונתם. “so that their complaints will cease.” Our author understands the word as if the Torah had written: ותכלה אתה תלונתן של ישראל, “so that you will be able to bring to an end the Israelites’ complaints.” He cites two similar constructions in Deuteronomy 3,28: וצו את יהושע, and Genesis 38,14 ותכס בצעיף.
+
+Verse 26
+
+
+
+Verse 27
+
+הן גוענו אבדנו, “here we are perishing;” some of the people would die from natural causes, whereas others would perish from external causes. When the people said this they were still under the impression that anyone, not only non priests, would expose themselves to death by approaching the Tabernacle. They did thought that only blemished priests were included in this prohibition to approach too closely. (Compare Numbers 1,51) [The subsequent general prohibition was in effect only for people who, having eaten holy things in a state of ritual impurity, dared approach sacred precincts. Ed.]
+
+Verse 28
+
+
+
+Chapter 18
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+ויאמר ה' אל אהרן “The Lord said to Aaron, etc.;” Rashi comments that we must understand this line as meaning that G-d spoke to Moses, to tell what follows to Aaron. To the question of what forced Rashi to ignore the text as written, i.e. that G-d addressed Aaron directly, we must understand what transpired as follows: The Torah, i.e. G-d, wishes the people to know that they were wrong in thinking that anyone daring to come into the vicinity of the Tabernacle would either be killed by G-d, or by a human tribunal, seeing that G-d had already said concerning Aaron: “you and your sons and your fathers, (all the priests) shall bear the iniquity of the Sanctuary;” in other words, it was the task of the priests to ensure that the boundaries would not be crossed by people who had no authority to enter the Sanctuary. G-d had said the following to Moses to convey to Aaron: “you and your sons, etc,”In other words, what Rashi was saying here is that G-d had already told Moses to tell Aaron what follows;He had done so in the portion of Bamidbar chapter 1, verse 51, etc. These instructions have been repeated here in verse 7, because a new element has been added, i.e. אתה ובניך ובית אביך, “you, your sons, and the house of your father;”Seeing that this paragraph has been written close to the people’s, especially Korach’s, complaints about the priests and the institution of hereditary priesthood, it has been positioned as a sort of introduction to the people’s gifts to the priests, seeing that these people were not landowners and depended for their livelihood on the willingness of the people to carry out all these instructions. Our author adds as his own commentary concerning Rashi’s words, that seeing that we have learned from the Sifri on 18,8 where the author quotes our verse, i.e. G-d, as speaking directly to Aaron, and in verse 8 of our chapter where we have the Torah writing again that G-d spoke to Aaron, and it certainly sounds very direct, that he had already stated on a previous occasion that every time we have the Torah writing: “G-d spoke to Aaron,” this refers to something that had first been told to Moses and he had been instructed to relay it to Aaron. In this instance also, the substance of the message was to be ultimately relayed to the Jewish people to avoid tragedy through misunderstanding. [Leviticus 10,8 also has G-d speaking (apparently) directly to Aaron, as well a verse 20 in our chapter. Ed.]
+
+Verse 2
+
+הקרב אתך, “bring near with you, etc.;” the point here is to warn the Levites charged with singing in a choir while the priests presented the offerings, that they do so on the special platform provided for them to stand on at those times. [This platform was outside the Tabernacle. Ed.] (Sifri) 
+וילוו עליך, “so that they may be joined to you.” The Torah writes this to remind the priests that they are not to coopt any ordinary Israelites to the Levites.
+ואתה ובניך אתך לפני אהל מועד, “and you and your sons with you in front of the Tent of Testimony.” The priests were to stand inside, the Levites outside.
+
+Verse 3
+
+
+
+Verse 4
+
+וזר לא יקרב אליכם, “and a stranger (non Levite or priest) shall not approach you.” We have heard the warning, but where is the penalty for violation spelled out? Look at verse 7, where the Torah spells it out, i.e. והזר הקרב יומת, “and if a stranger approaches (crosses the boundary) he is subject to execution.”
+
+Verse 5
+
+ולא יהיה עוד קצף, “so that there will no longer be a wrath;” the word עוד, “again, or in future,” is peculiar as the wrath is already in existence. We have this on the authority of Numbers 17,11: “כי יצא הקצף,” for the wrath has come forth!” [The word עוד therefore must mean: “it will not continue.” Ed.]
+
+Verse 6
+
+לכם מתנה נתונים לה, “for you the Levites, they are given as a gift for the Lord.” They are not “given” to you priests as personal servants, but to the Lord, and at the disposal of the priests in their capacity as His representative on earth. The priests may not use the Levites to perform personal chores for them.
+
+Verse 7
+
+ולמבית לפרכת, “and to that which is beyond the dividing curtain.” We learn from here that there was an area behind the dividing curtain which served as a place where the priests could be examined as to their status as priests. (Sifri)
+עבודת מתנה, “a service performed voluntarily, as a “gift;” just as lots were also drawn as to which priests would be privileged to perform which part of the Temple service so accumulated gifts to the priests from the common people were distributed by lot. No one could arrogate to himself to determine his personal preference.
+והזר הקרב, “and a non priest or Levite who dared to approach into the sacred domain, etc.” The Torah speaks of such a stranger presuming to perform service within the Temple. Such a stranger would also be punished, even if he had been ritually pure. Even a Levite, if he had presumed to perform Temple service would be subject to the death penalty. If you were to ask that we know that Samuel the Levite is reported to have offered sacrifice on the altar (Samuel I 7,9), this was due to an emergency, just as Gideon offered a sacrifice (Judges 6.26).
+
+Verse 8
+
+ואני הנה נתתי לך, “and as far as I am concerned, behold I have given to you, etc.;” after the institution of the hereditary priesthood had now been established by consensus, the Torah proceeds to list the gifts from the farmers that the priests and the Levites are entitled to, as well as to parts of the people’s offerings in the Temple, seeing that they have no other means of earning a livelihood, not owning any ancestral land. [No priest or Levite is permitted to demand anything personally from an individual farmer. Each farmer is at liberty to “pay” these dues to a Levite or priest of his choosing. Ed.
+לכל קדשי בני ישראל, “parts of any offerings by the Jewish people tendered to G-d.”
+לך נתתים, “unto you I have given them” (these “gifts.”) They are yours by right.
+ולבניך אחריך, “and to your children after you.” These gifts to the priests and Levites are ancestral, just as the soil distributed by Joshua to the other tribes were hereditary
+
+Verse 9
+
+מן האש, “separated from the fire” that is, those parts of the offering which are eaten by the priests are separated from the parts which remain on the altar where they are burnt.
+זה יהיה לך מקדש הקדשים, “this is what is yours (priests) of the most holy things;” the Torah proceeds to spell out which parts of the respective animal sacrifices are for the consumption of the priest (and his household). After each category of animal sacrifice and meal offering and its purpose are listed, there follow what is to be saved for the priest or priests. The only category of animal offering of which no part is permitted to be eaten is the burnt offering, olah, and sin offerings presented on the golden altar as distinct from the copper altar. After listing all the sacrifices from which the priests receive a portion, there remain only two sacrifices which are consumed entirely by the priests – these are the two-loaf meal offering that is brought on Shavuot and the weekly 12-loaves shew bread which are brought every Shabbat and remain in the Sanctuary until the following Shabbat when they are eaten by the priests.
+
+Verse 10
+
+בקדש הקדשים תאכלנו, “in a most holy place you shall consume them;” the place meant (normally) is the courtyard of the Temple. The wording here allows for these portions to be eaten by the priests even inside the Sanctuary when the Temple was under siege by infidels. The wording refers to the state of the priests while eating same, compare discussion in Sifri. It is “most holy,” compared to other sacred sites of lower rank of holiness.
+
+Verse 11
+
+תרומת מתנם, “the heave offering of their gift.” The word מתנם has a letter ת missing, and should have been מתנתם. We have parallel phenomena in Job 11,9, ארכה מארץ מדה, instead of ארוכה מארץ מדה, “its measure is longer than the earth;” A similar phenomenon is found in Zecharyah 4,2, וגלה על ראשה, which should have been וגולה על ראשה, “with a bowl above it.” Our author lists a couple more such examples.
+
+Verse 12
+
+
+
+Verse 13
+
+
+
+Verse 14
+
+
+
+Verse 15
+
+כל פטר רחם לכל בשר, “Everything that opens the womb of all flesh;” this line has appeared in the Torah on three separate occasions. The reason is that the Torah considers the redemption of the firstborn as a most important ritual, so much so that even the firstborn of a ritually impure animal, the donkey, needs to be redeemed.
+אשר יקריבו לה, “which the offer unto the Lord;” this line was added in order to exclude the need for redeeming the firstborn males of free roaming beasts. Seeing that free roaming beasts are not fit as sacrifices, there would be no point in having to redeem the first born male of them.
+
+Verse 16
+
+
+
+Verse 17
+
+קדש הם. “They are holy;” but you will claim the animal itself, whose fat parts are required on the altar, something unique.
+
+Verse 18
+
+ובשרם יהיה לך, “however, their flesh is yours.” This even includes a blemished firstborn, which is donated to the priest, something we do not find elsewhere in the Torah. (Sifri)
+
+Verse 19
+
+ברית מלח עולם הוא, “it is an everlasting covenant of salt.” The word הוא has the vowel chirik, seeing that the noun ברית is a feminine noun. We find something similar in connection with David in Chronicles II 13,5: כי המלוכה לדוד ולזרעו ברית מלח, “for David’s kingship over Israel is forever, to him and his sons by a covenant of salt.”
+
+Verse 20
+
+אני חלקך, “I am your portion;” G-d is announcing that He, personally, is the priests’ “portion.” [as opposed to terrestrial earth in the Holy Land. Ed.]. Seeing that this is so, you are free, (timewise) to perform your duties in the Tabernacle/Temple once you are all settled in the Land of Israel. Seeing that you have these duties, you are relieved of the need to work for a living for six days a week, and the many difficulties that this involves. You need not engage in trade and commerce either.
+
+Verse 21
+
+ולבני לוי וגו, and as far as the Levites are concerned, etc.” in the Sifri on this verse the letter ו at the beginning of the word ולבני, is a conjunctive letter, linking the basic functions and lifestyle of the Levites to that of the priests to the extent that the special covenant of salt between G-d and the priests includes them also.
+
+Verse 22
+
+ולא יקרבו עוד בני ישראל, “and the Children of Israel shall no longer come close, etc.” the word עוד here cannot mean ���still,” but must mean “again,” as they had already come near as we know from verse 5, else why was G-d described as angry there? (Sifri)
+
+Verse 23
+
+
+
+Verse 24
+
+כי את מעשר בני ישראל , “but (instead) the tithes of the Children of Israel.” The reason why the word מעשר is vocalised with a patach under the letter ש instead of the usual vowel t’zeyreh, is that it is in the construct mode to the expression בני ישראל.
+
+Verse 25
+
+
+
+Verse 26
+
+בנחלתכם, “as your inheritance;” in lieu of a piece of land as an inheritance. This is why you have to tithe the tithes you receive from the Israelite farmer also as if it had been your inheritance of an ancestral piece of land.
+
+Verse 27
+
+וכמלאה מן היקב, “as though it were the corn from the threshing floor.” Both wine and oil are called מלאה, seeing that the container into which it is poured cannot be filled beyond the rim. (B’chor shor)
+
+Verse 28
+
+כן תרימו, “thus you shall set apart, etc.” just as the Israelites do. [They have to set the tithes etc. apart before the remainder may be consumed or used by the farmer who grew the crop.” Ed.]
+מכל מעשרותיכם, “of all your tithes;” i.e. from all the other tithes that you are obligated to give away, and which are subject to tithes from the fields which have grown for you.
+
+Verse 29
+
+מכל מתנותיכם תרימו, “out of all that has been given to you, you must set aside, etc.; this is to teach you that even what grows on the fields which have been allocated to the Levites as a kind of enlarged garden adjoining their houses, the Levites are obligated to give tithes to the priests. The Levite is not allowed to claim that he need not tithe what he has himself grown on these plots, using logic to support their argument. His logic would run as follows: “seeing that I receive from others part of what they have grown, surely I am entitled to keep what I have grown myself with the sweat of my brow.” This is why the Torah emphasises that everything that the Levite has been allocated by the Torah is in the nature of a “gift,” מתנותיכם, “a gift for you,“ you did not have to labour hard in order to obtain it. Compare the text of the Torah in Numbers 35, 2: ומגרש לערים סביבותיכם תתנו ללוים, “and open land round about of the cities inhabited by the Levites you shall give to the Levites. “
+מכל חלבו את מקדשי ממנו, “of all the best thereof, even the hallowed part thereof out of it.” This is a reference to the t’rumah, the 2% (average) given to the priest from the gross amount of the harvest, before the tithe is set aside for the Levite.
+
+Verse 30
+
+
+
+Verse 31
+
+אתם וביתכם “you and your households;” this includes the larger family, based on the patriarch of each family, who is considered the head within his tribe.
+
+Verse 32
+
+ואת קדשי בני ישראל לא תחללו ולא תמותו, “and the holy things of the Children of Israel you shall not profane so that you will not die.” Once you have set aside the tithes there is no danger of your having profaned the holy things or of your dying on account of that. All the 24 different items designated as gift to the priests are completely secular and will not be subject to the rules of holy items that have been desecrated. Of these 24 categories of “gifts,” 12 were given to the priests in Jerusalem, the other 12 in any part of the Holy Land. Our author lists all the 24 items here once more, [but I see no reason to repeat what has been spelled out by the Torah. Ed.
+
+Chapter 19
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+
+
+Verse 2
+
+זאת חקת התורה, “This is the statute of the law of the Torah;” The “statute” referred to here are the laws of ritual defilement and subsequent rites of purification. They were communicated to the people on the first day of Nissan, on the day the Tabernacle was erected ready for service. (Talmud, tractate Gittin folio 60). It had to be communicated on that day, as on the following day the red heifer, the instrument without which purification could not take place, was burned. Without knowledge of these procedures, the Passover, which would be offered on the fourteenth day of that month could not have been offered. The Torah had stipulated in verse 4 of our chapter that the location for the sprinkling of the waters containing the ash of that red heifer was opposite, i.e. facing the Tabernacle. It had to be inserted here as there were people, who as a result of the rebellion of Korach had become ritually contaminated.
+אשר צוה ה, “which the Lord had commanded;” we do not find where the Lord had commanded this previously, a phenomenon we referred to already in our commentary on Exodus 10,3.
+ויקחו אליך, “they shall bring to you;” seeing that the priests had been charged with ensuring that the Tabernacle precincts would not be breached by unauthorised Israelites, they had to be provided with the means to purify people who had violated these rules through ignorance or carelessness. This is also what is meant in verse 3, where G-d includes Elazar, Aaron’s, son as a recipient of this red heifer who is to attend to the ritual involving it. It is a gift to the priests from the community.
+
+Verse 3
+
+ונתתם אותה אל אלעזר הכהן, “you (pl.) are to give it (the red heifer) to the priest Elazar. Rashi explains why this procedure was entrusted to Elazar, whereas all future red heifers were slaughtered etc., either by the High Priest or even an ordinary priest. Some commentators, explaining the plain meaning of our verse, suggest that seeing that handling the red heifer would contaminate the High Priest, so that he would be incapable of performing his duties for at least seven days, the task was entrusted to his deputy. Here, the deputy High Priest was entrusted with this task; according to Rashi, meaning that he was in overall charge of the entire ritual. He took the heifer out of the camp, slaughtered it, took some of its blood, sprinkling it in the direction of the Tabernacle, appointed a ritually pure man and deposited the ash of the heifer after it had been burnt in the vessel assigned for this. He took a little branch from a cedar tree and some hyssop, plus some red wool and cast it into the flames surrounding the red heifer. Some commentators note that seven ordinary priests were involved in preparing the ashes of the Red Heifer, one for each activity enumerated in this comment.
+והוציא אותה, “he will transport it (the red heifer) outside the camp; this verse has been abbreviated, seeing that the Torah did not tell us who was to take the red heifer outside the camp. Neither did it name who performed the other tasks, slaughtering, burning, collecting ashes, etc. ושחט אותה לפניו, “he is to slaughter it in his presence.” The reference is to Elazar’s presence. At this point, Rashi adds that a non priest, a layman, performed the slaughtering. Some versions add that Elazar was watching this procedure. Apparently Rashi’s point was to inform us that the slaughtering did not require to be performed by the deputy High Priest. (Compare Rashi in Talmud Yuma folio 45, as well as Targum Yonatan ben Uzziel). It is not unusual to describe the task performed by an ordinary priest as having been performed by a “stranger,” i.e. not a high ranking priest. [There had been only three priests at that time. Ed.] The term: זר may be understood as “layman,” not a ranking official. We find an example of this in the Talmud tractate Baba Batra, folio 110. [The subject under discussion there is a misunderstanding concerning this word having more than one possible meaning. עבודה זרה was understood as idolatry there, whereas it was supposed to mean: “unfamiliar work.”] According to Rabbi Yitzchok, slaughter of the red heifer by a non priest was inadmissible.
+
+Verse 4
+
+ולקח אלעזר הכהן והזה, “Elazar the priest is to take from the blood and sprinkle;” at this stage it appeared as if the sprinkling of the blood was the most important part of the ritual, and required the deputy High Priest to perform it.
+
+Verse 5
+
+ושרף את הפרה לעיניו, “someone is to burn the red heifer in the presence of Elazar.” Elazar’s watching the procedure is equivalent to the Torah having written: “the deputy High Priest is to watch this procedure.”
+את עורה, “its skin,” including the hair on the skin;
+ואת בשרה, “and its flesh;” including its bones.
+ואת דמה,”and its blood,” including its horns and claws.
+על פרשה, “together with its entrails containing their dung.”We have a parallel to this kind of construction in Exodus12,9, where the Torah writes: ראשו על כרעיו ועל קרבו, “its head, its legs and its entrails.”
+
+Verse 6
+
+אל תוך, “into the midst of the burning heifer.” The words אל תוך were used instead of the prefix letter ב. The Torah uses a similar construction both in Exodus 25,16, אל הארון, “into the ark,” instead of בארון, and in verse 17 in our chapter אל כלי, “into a vessel,” instead of בכלי.
+
+Verse 7
+
+וכבס בגדיו הכהן, “and he shall wash the priests’ clothing,” (in a ritual bath,) This refers to the same person who had thrown the parts of the slaughtered red heifer into the fire.
+
+Verse 8
+
+השורף אותה יכבס את בגדיו, “the person who had burned the red heifer is to immerse his clothing in a ritual bath;” (as well as his body). According to the plain meaning of the text, the people handling the red heifer did not have to immerse their clothing in a ritual bath prior to these activities, as at that point its purpose could not have appeared to onlookers as different from presenting other animal offerings, all of which require slaughtering of the animal in question and sprinkling its blood. The Torah described the final stages of this ritual before having completed describing the task of the man burning the red heifer, seeing this part of the ritual occurred prior to the completion of all the steps he was to perform.
+
+Verse 9
+
+ואסף איש טהור, “and a man who is ritually clean is to collect, etc.” According to the plain text I might have thought that seeing that the man who had burned the parts of the red heifer had already become ritually contaminated, that he was the one who should also now collect the ash of the red heifer. Why would another person have to do that and also become ritually contaminated in the process? The Torah therefore had to spell out that a man who had not become ritually contaminated had to perform that task.
+והניח מחוץ למחנה, “and he is to deposit it outside the camp;” according to Rashi, that for the future this means that the High Priests will undergo their purification rites on Mount Olives, as part of that ash will be stored there. Future rituals involving the red heifer will also take place there, i.e. people who had become ritually contaminated by this ritual would also undergo their purification rites there.
+
+Verse 10
+
+וכבס האוסף, “and he that gathers the ashes shall wash his clothes (in a ritual bath);” according to the plain meaning of the text, the person gathering in the ash is required to do this, whereas the person depositing it outside the camp is not required to do this before aJi the stages of the ritual have been concluded. Seeing that it is physically impossible to collect the ashes in such a manner that none of is blown away by the wind, and contaminates the garments of the person handling it in the process, and the ash itself is holy, and it might end up in a ritually contaminated area, the person handling it will require immersing his clothing in a ritual bath earlier, similar to what the Torah described in connection with the sin offering in Leviticus 6,20: ואשר יזה ממנו מדמה על הבגד תכבס, “and anything he sprinkles from it (by mistake) on his garment you must immerse in a ritual bath in holy location” What was written there also applies to other kinds of animals whose bodies had to be burned for one reason or another, (because their meat was not consumed in time, etc.) and therefore it is clear that the same procedure is required here, even though it has not been specifically spelled out.
+וכבס האוסף, “why did this detail have to be written here at all? If the person who only sprinkles blood with the hyssop contaminates his clothing when any of the blood touches his garments, and he therefore has to purify it in a ritual bath, is it not logical that the same rule applies to the person collecting the ash of the red heifer, who is far more likely to have had his clothing come into touch with some of that ash?” We would have to answer that we apply the rule that penalties can not be deduced by using logic unless they had been spelled out by the Torah. (Sifri). An alternate interpretation: The Torah teaches us here about the concept of tumat hesset, that though a ritually contaminated person may even involuntarily transfer such contamination by just moving objects by body movements without touching them with his hands. Although concerning other holy objects, once they have been reduced to ashes, their holiness has ceased, and the ash cannot confer impurity, in the case of the red heifer this is not so. This is in order to warn us not to come into contact with it, other than for its purpose to help a ritually contaminated person to regain purity when the procedures outlined in this chapter have been followed meticulously.
+וכבס האוסף את בגדיו, “and the person who has collected this ash has to immerse his garments in a ritual bath.” If even his clothing has to undergo purification in a ritual bath, how much more so does his body have to undergo such a process! We also know this from the Torah having written: וטמא עד הערב, “he remains ritually impure until evening,” i.e. after having immersed himself in a ritual bath, (verse 19) where he is declared as ritually pure as a result of the sun having set. We find a parallel to this sequence in verse 19 where the stages are: “the ritually pure person will sprinkle water containing the ash of the red heifer on the ritually impure person, who will proceed to immerse his clothing in a ritual bath and wash with water, as a result of which he will regain his ritual purity in the evening.”
+
+Verse 11
+
+הנוגע במת, “if someone has been in physical contact with a corpse, etc.;” why does this have to be spelled out, when we have already been told that even being in an enclosed room sharing the same air space with the corpse, he has become contaminated? The answer to this question is the same as above when we stated that penalties in the Torah cannot be imposed as the result of our using our mental faculties, unless the Torah has spelled this out (Sifri).
+
+Verse 12
+
+הוא יתחטא בו, “the same person shall purify himself;” with this ash. If someone were to pose the question: what is the logic behind a red heifer on the one hand being the instrument for purifying the ritually impure, while at the same time conferring ritual impurity on its handlers?We could answer as follows: we find something similar in nature, where one and the same object performs two diametrically opposite functions. Fire, i.e. heat, melts metal, whereas the same fire when used to boil eggs makes the interior of these eggs get harder as time proceeds while it is in the pot. [We have not heard anyone criticising nature for performing such contradictory functions, so why criticise the Creator for legislating something parallel? Ed.] We find a similar phenomenon in medicine. A medicine which heals a sick person, makes a healthy person sick when he swallows it. Rashi in the Talmud, tractate Pessachim on folio 42 quotes such examples with cures for diarrhea. The cure, when taken by a healthy person, brings on that very ailment. Knowing this, we have no reason to question why the Creator saw fit to introduce such a concept into His Torah legislation. Furthermore, we find in books on natural science (hinted at in the Talmud tractate Beytzah folio 43), that if one places water into a vessel made of white glass, and exposes it to sunshine it will eventually burst into fire.
+ואם לא יתחטא ביום השלשי, but if he does not purify himself on the third day, etc,” what is the reason for this clause after the Torah had already written that the ritual for purification involves sprinkling of the water containing the ash of the red heifer on him on the third and seventh day? I might have thought that if he had forgotten to undergo this procedure on the third day, he could perform it twice on the seventh day; the Torah decrees that this is not acceptable, as three days have to elapse between the first sprinkling and the second sprinkling.
+
+Verse 13
+
+עוד טומאתו בו, “his ritual impurity is still part of him.” He should not say to himself that seeing that if after seven days of counting this did not avail him anything to enter the sacred precincts around the Temple, at least it was good enough so that if he comes into contact with people, at least he will not transfer his ritual contamination to them; the Torah therefore states that having only performed part of the ritual is completely ineffective, he is as contaminated as previously.
+
+Verse 14
+
+זאת התורה, “this is the law;” what has been introduced at the beginning of this chapter is a statute of the Torah.
+כל הבא אל האהל, “anyone who enters the tent (or house) in which there is a body of a human being, (and any item in the house at the time);” the reason that this has been spelled out is that you could have thought that ritual impurity originating in a dead body is transferred only through touching that body, but not through sharing the air under the same roof as that in which the body reposes. The novelty of this legislation is such that it needs to be spelled out. וכל אשר באהל, “and everything inside that tent (or house).” Why did this have to be written? if the Torah declared anyone entering such a tent as becoming ritually impure, i.e. before he had even entered with his whole body, it is understood that things inside that tent already and completely, will have the same status, no less. The answer is again that a penalty for something must be spelled out, and cannot be decreed merely by reasoning, however logical. Some commentators understand the line: כל הבא אל האהל, as including even living creatures other than human beings that are in that tent at the same time as the corpse is still there. The same would be true for chattels that had been in that tent while the corpse was still alive. (Source unknown)
+
+Verse 15
+
+
+
+Verse 16
+
+וכל אשר יגע על פני השדה, “and anyone in an open field who touches, etc.;” seeing that it is under open skies, only actual touching of the body confers ritual impurity.
+בחלל חרב, “regardless if death occurred as a result of the sword,” you should not say that the Torah had ruled only natural death as conferring ritual impurity on those touching the corpse, not unnatural death such as by violence of any kind, instruments designed to be used as weapons.
+או בעצם אדם, “or by a human bone,” this verse teaches that in order to confer ritual impurity the corpse does not to be whole, even a bone suffices to confer such impurity (if a little flesh or skin is attached to it). The impurity this conferred on a person last a minimum of seven days even when all the rules of purification have been observed.
+או בעצם אדם או בקבר, “or direct contact with the bone of a human being, or contact with a grave;” of all the types of ritual impurity the one caused by a human copse is the most severe. This is why the sages define a human corpse as אבי אבות הטומאה, ”the original forefather of all ritual impurities.” The reason appears to be that the Torah wishes to insure that living human beings not spend their time with the corpses out of their love for the departed, nor out of the mistaken belief that these corpses could reveal secrets of the afterlife to them, or that they would make idols of the skins of such corpses, seeing that the skins could be preserved indefinitely when turned into leather. Alternately, they would demean their parents by making utensils out of their skins or bones, the very reverse of revering them. Even if the motivation is simply to treat the dead with respect, the Torah prohibits this as not the way to mourn and show respect for one’s ancestors. [The Nazis have demonstrated how by making lampshades out of Jews’ skins, they had found dead Jews useful, whereas they had no use for living Jews. Ed.] Our sages in tractate yadayim, chapter 4, Mishnah 6, already forbade making carpets out of human skins, i.e. walking on the skins of their parents. They similarly forbade using one’s parents’ bones to convert them into spoons and similar utensils. All of this is forbidden even if intended to be proof of how beloved one’s parents had been by their children, so that they felt the need to keep part of them around to remind them of their having existed. This may be why the bones of donkeys are not ritually unclean and do not confer ritual contamination, while the bones of one’s parents are.
+
+Verse 17
+
+
+
+Verse 18
+
+ועל הנגע בעצם, “and on someone who had touched the bones of the dead.” The letter ב in the word בעצם has the definitive vowel kametz, as it refers to the word עצם in verse 16, i.e. only human bones. This is also the reason why the vowel under the words בקבר, and במת have the definitive vowels patach in our verse. Each refers to a previously mentioned grave or corpse.
+
+Verse 19
+
+והזה הטהור על הטמא ביום השלישי וגו, “and the ritually pure person shall sprinkle on the ritually contaminated person on the third day, etc.: previously the Torah had spoken of people who had touched a whole corpse; here the Torah speak of people who had touched only parts of a corpse, such as a bone, or merely touched the grave.
+
+Verse 20
+
+ואיש אשר יטמא ולא יתחטא, “but the man that shall become ritually contaminated and does not take steps to purify himself, etc.;” the reason for this verse is unclear as the substance of it has already appeared in verse 13, where the Torah spoke of such a person having entered sacred areas around the Temple, and having become guilty of contaminating that area, and deserving punishment. The Torah wishes to make clear that we should not think that the penalty of which the Torah spoke in verse 13 applies only if such a ritually contaminated person entered sacred domains after having previously touched the dead, not if he had only been in the same covered airspace with the dead, when he would not be punished with extermination of his family; therefore the Torah repeats this legislation here. [Anyone who is not a priest is not obligated to cleanse himself from ritual impurity until he has to make the pilgrimage to Jerusalem for the festivals, or unless for one reason or another he is obligated to offer a sacrifice. Ed.] We have now heard about the penalty for failing to purify oneself, where did we have the commandment to do so? We find it in Numbers 5,2: “anyone stricken with a serious degree of ritual impurity has to be sent outside the camp of the Israelites.” Who would like to remain ostracised?
+כי את מקדש ה' טמא, for he has ritually contaminated G-d’s Temple.” He did so when entering its precincts while in a state of ritual impurity.” Why did the Torah in verse 13 speak of the person having contaminated the Tabernacle, and here it speaks of the person having contaminated the Temple? Are they not two sides of the same coin? If the Torah had only written this about the Tabernacle, I would have thought that the sanctity of the Tabernacle is greater, as it had been anointed with the oil of anointing. If the Torah had written this only about the Temple, I would have thought that the sanctity of the Temple was greater than that of the Tabernacle, as theTabernacle was designed only as a temporary structure. (Talmud tractate Shevuot, folio 16).
+
+Verse 21
+
+ומזה מי הנדה יכבס בגדיו, “and the person who sprinkles the waters containing the ash of the red heifer, called here מי הנה, “water designed to purify by removing the offending substance.” This verse has been abbreviated; its meaning is as follows: “the waters designed to remove the offending substance;” however, the person coming into contact with these waters must subsequently immerse himself in a ritual bath, as well as his clothing, and he remains in a state of ritual impurity until the evening of that day.
+והנוגע במי הנדה יטמא, “anyone coming into contact with that water will become ritually unclean.” This is the answer to the deviationist cults among Jews who claim that the reason why the red heifer confers ritual impurity on all the people involved with it, is, because the whole ritual was performed outside the camp of the Jews. They claim that if people involved with it would not become ritually impure, we are afraid that anyone could henceforth claim a special status of superior sanctity for himself and take from the ash of the cow and sprinkle himself with this “holy” water, claiming that thereby they would achieve a higher degree of purity. To forestall such practices, the Torah decreed that everyone involved with the red heifer would become ritually unclean as an immediate result of this. (Compare B’chor shor) If you were to ask that if a mere sprinkling of the water caused ritual impurity, should not direct physical contact, touching it, do so even more so? So why did this have to be spelled out in our verse? The answer is again that penalties for incorrect behaviour must have been spelled out, and cannot be meted out when based only on our logic. I am not like many commentators who query the words of our sages, all of which are words of truth; [Our author is absolutely correct. [This editor has never come across a commentator whose work he has translated, in which some of these commentators have not only disagreed with the words of their colleagues usually of former years, so that these commentators could no longer defend their opinions, but they even questioned those commentators’ very legitimacy, and berated them. Ed.] Nonetheless, I cannot conceal that I am puzzled by a statement in the tractate פרה, chapter 3, mishnah 3, where we read that at the entrance to the עזרה, courtyard of the Temple, was set ready a pitcher of the ashes of the red heifer, a sin offering, and they brought a male from the sheep, and tied a rope between its horns and they tied at the end of the rope a stick with a pine cone and threw it into the pitcher, and the male was struck so that it fell over backwards, and he took it and sanctified it so that the ashes became visible above the waters in the pitcher to the onlookers. [The purpose of all this was to avoid the person handling the ashes to have to touch it personally and thus contract ritual impurity. Eliezer HaKalir composed a liturgical poem based on the text of this mishnah, recited in many synagogues in the morning prayer on the Shabbat on which this section of the Torah is especially read out of turn shortly before Passover. Ed.] According to our author that everyone involved in these procedures requires to have himself sprinkled in order to regain ritual purity, how can the last person in the chain regain it? By whom will he be sprinkled?[Rabbi Chavell in his annotations quotes the Talmud in Yuma folio 14 as answering this by saying that a minor who is not subject to becoming ritually impure was used to do this. Ed.]
+
+Verse 22
+
+וכל אשר יגע בו הטמא יטמא, “and whatsoever the ritually contaminated person touches will be unclean as a result.” Our verse speaks of people touching the person still in contact with the corpse. Seeing that the chain had not been broken, that person will also incur severe ritual contamination, i.e. requiring not just a ritual bath to cleanse himself, but the whole procedure, as if he himself had been in contact with the corpse.
+והנפש הנוגעת, “and anyone touching a person who had become contaminated by contact with the corpse but was no longer touching same at that time, will confer a milder degree of ritual impurity on those touching him, who will only have to immerse themselves in a ritual bath and become automatically pure again in the evening.
+
+Chapter 20
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+ויבאו בני ישראל, “The Children of Israel arrived, etc.;” the arrival of which the Torah speaks were was during the fortieth year of their wanderings. Their lengthy detour around the territory of Edom who had denied them passage and whom G-d had not allowed them to harass in any way, had now been completed. It had commenced at Kadesh Barnea, and was concluded in the desert of Tzin. The Torah summarises this period here although it comprised 18 separate moves during which the Tabernacle had been erected and taken apart each time. In Numbers 33, 1936, the details of these moves have been recorded for posterity. The first encampment was at a place called Ritmah, the last at the edge of the desert of Tzin. Concerning that period we read Moses recalling in Deuteronomy 2,5: ונפן ונסע המדברה דרך ים סוף ונסב את הר שעיר ימים רבים, “we turned around and journeyed toward the desert in the region of the sea of reeds and marched around Mount Seir, for many years.” That period concluded there in verse 8 with: “we detoured our brethren the children of Esau that dwell in Seir, from the way of the Aravah from Eilat to Etzion Gaver.” From there they arrived at Kadesh, boundary of the Kingdom of Edom, as stated in Numbers 33, 36: “they journeyed from Etzion Gaver and encamped at the desert of Tzin, at Kadesh. What is missing here is only G-d’s warning not to harass the people of Edom (Compare Deuteronomy 2,5).
+וישב העם בקדש, “the people had settled down at Kadesh;�� they remained there for four months until the month of Av when they arrived at Mount Hahar, where Aaron died. This was not the same Kadesh as the one mentioned in Deuteronomy 1,46, as at that Kadesh they stayed for many years. (19 years according to our sages.) It was the Kadesh from where the spies had been dispatched on their ill fated expedition.
+ותמה שם מרים, ”Miriam died there;” seeing that the dying of the people condemned to die as a result of their acceptance of the spies’ majority report had commenced there, Miriam’s death as well as Aaron’s, is also reported at this juncture.
+
+Verse 2
+
+ויקהלו על משה ועל אהרן, “and they assembled together against Moses and Aaron.” They were not punished at this stage as during other complaints, as they were justified in complaining for having no water.
+
+Verse 3
+
+
+
+Verse 4
+
+
+
+Verse 5
+
+
+
+Verse 6
+
+
+
+Verse 7
+
+
+
+Verse 8
+
+קח את המטה, “take the staff!” G-d referred to Aaron’s staff. This is clear from what the Torah writes: Moses took the staff that had been in the presence of the Lord, i.e. in the Tabernacle, the staff that had produced almonds in Numbers 17,23. Compare also Numbers 17,25, where Moses had been told to return his staff to the Tabernacle as an ongoing reminder to the obstinate community of Israel that a member of his family had been chosen to be High Priest. It was appropriate for this staff to be used again when dealing with a people that were in a rebellious mood. In this episode Moses committed his first error when he took the wrong staff, seeing that he thought he was supposed to strike the rock. The only reason that G-d had told Moses to take this staff, was that it had been used in conjunction with the rebelliousness of the Jewish people, as opposed to the obstinacy of Pharaoh.
+ודברתם אל הסלע, “and speak to the rock (pl.).” The prefix ה before the word: הסלע teaches that the rock involved was the one that used to provide water for the people as long as Miriam had been alive. The people would draw their water from that rock. It used to move with the people whenever they moved. This was the rock that Moses now struck and that refused to yield its water on account of Miriam having died. It resumed yielding water due to the merit of Moses and Aaron, as our sages have explained in the Talmud tractate Taanit, folio 9. This is why G-d told both Moses and Aaron to speak to the rock. Some commentators understand what happened during this episode as follows: the words: ודברתם אל הסלע refer to what occurred in Exodus 17,7; this is totally erroneous, if only since there the Torah never used the expression סלע when speaking about the rock, but only the term צור. Moreover, it is clear that that episode occurred near Mount Sinai, as the Torah testifies that the waters emanated from the rock known as Chorev. (Exodus 17,6)
+ונתן מימיו, “it will yield its natural waters,” i.e. just a few drops, as a result of being spoken to.
+והוצאת להם מים, “you will extract for them water;” i.e. a great quantity of water, by striking the rock. According to that view, the reason why G-d had told Moses to take along the staff, although on the face of it sounded as if quantities of water would be released from the rock by merely speaking to it, was that it had never been intended that more than a few drops of the rock’s own moisture would be released by speaking to it. Moses had misunderstood G-d, as he was upset at the time so that he had never spoken to the rock at all, apart from not having known which of the numerous rocks all around he was to address. The critical rock was surrounded by many others which all looked alike.
+
+Verse 9
+
+
+
+Verse 10
+
+?המן הסלע הזה נוציא לכם מים, “Are we supposed to extract water for you from this rock?” The Israelites understood Moses’ exclamation at face value, i.e. that he thought that it was quite impossible to extract water from the rock he pointed at, (or they had pointed at). Actually, what Moses had meant to say was: “did you think that what we are going to do to this rock is the same as what we did for your fathers 40 years ago, i.e. by striking it?”G-d’s command to speak to the rock was precisely to teach them that it was not even necessary to strike the rock. Moses had not been precise in his exclamation.
+
+Verse 11
+
+ויך את הסלע, “he struck the rock with his staff twice.” Rashi’s explanation here is too short when he writes that after the first strike the rock produced only a few drops of water, Moses struck the rock again and then it produced ample amounts of water because G-d had never instructed him to hit the rock at all, but had said to Moses and Aaron: “speak to the rock.” According to Rashi, they then spoke to another rock. The result was that no water emerged from that rock at all. They then thought that this second rock should have been struck just like the first one, and when they proceeded to do this a lot of water came out. When the rock had failed to produce water, they had thought that they must have spoken to the wrong rock. (Our author amends what he thought that Rashi had meant to write)
+
+Verse 12
+
+לכן לא תביאו, “therefore you will not bring, etc.” Whenever the expression לכן, appears, it indicates that the speaker is saying something in the nature of an oath. Compare: Samuel I 3,14: לכן נשבעתי לבית עלי, “therefore I have sworn concerning the house of Eli;” compare alsoDeuteronomy 4,21: וישבע לבלתי עברי, “therefore He swore that I may not cross, etc.”If you were to query that we read at the end of Exodus 6,7 that Rashi explains the words: עתה תראה, “now you will see,” that Moses, while witnessing the Exodus from Egypt, will not witness the crossing of the Jordan into the land of Canaan, (as a penalty for having questioned G-d’s handling of the Israelites since his appointment as their leader) he had already forfeited the right to cross into the land of Israel 40 years earlier, so what is new about G-d’s oath here? We may answer that both incidents combined to deny him entry to the Holy land; [alternately, in Exodus, the matter had only been hinted at, (thus preventing Moses from apologizing and doing teshuvah) and had not been confirmed by G-d with an oath thus making it irrevocable. Ed.].
+
+Verse 13
+
+ויקדש בם, “He was sanctified through them.” The phenomenon that caused G-d to become sanctified here was the water that came forth from the rock. (Not in accordance with Rashi) As a result, the name of this place henceforth was Kadesh, a sanctified location.
+
+Verse 14
+
+וישלח משה מלאכים, “Moses dispatched messengers;” the Torah here explains in detail what Moses refers to in Deuteronomy at the beginning of chapter two there. Some details missing there have been supplied here, whereas others have been augmented there but omitted here.
+
+Verse 15
+
+
+
+Verse 16
+
+בקדש עיר גבולך, “at Kadesh, a town on the border of your Kingdom.” This was at the southeastern end of the land of Canaan.
+
+Verse 17
+
+ולא נשתה מי באר, “and we will not drink water from your wells.” Moses reassures the Edomites that the Israelites will not deprive them of water they had had to dig for, but would only drink from water which flowed in the streams coursing through their territory, water that would not be used by them anyways. These waters are not owned by anyone.
+דרך המלך נלך, “we will march along the king’s highway.” We will march along a route indicated by the King.
+
+Verse 18
+
+לא תעבור בי, “do not trespass on anything that I own; even though the Israelites offered to pay the King of Edom a head tax for every Israelite who would use the King’s highway, a huge income for him, the King refused adamantly. He was afraid that the Israelites would use the opportunity to invade and conquer his Kingdom.
+
+Verse 19
+
+ויאמרו אליו במסילה נעלה, “they said to him: we will go up by the highway and we will pay for everything, etc.” they even offered to pay for water drunk from the rivers.
+
+Verse 20
+
+ויאמר לא תעבור, “the King said: “you must not cross (the boundary).” After confronting soldiers at the borders, the Israelites decided, in conformity with G-d’s command, not to violate Edom’s territory.
+
+Verse 21
+
+
+
+Verse 22
+
+כל העדה הר ההר, “the entire congregation, to Hor Hahar.” Even though the King of Edom had sent troops with an aggressive posture the Israelites did not incur a single casualty.
+
+Verse 23
+
+
+
+Verse 24
+
+
+
+Verse 25
+
+
+
+Verse 26
+
+ואהרן יאסף, “and Aaron will die (be gathered in to his forefathers). In verse 24 it stated this specifically. At that point we had not been told where Aaron would die. This information is being supplied in our verse.
+
+Verse 27
+
+
+
+Verse 28
+
+
+
+Verse 29
+
+ויראו כל העדה, “the entire congregation saw, etc.” since this verse cannot be understood literally, the Jerusalem Targum renders it as meaning that when the people witnessed Moses and Elazar returning without Aaron, they drew the appropriate conclusions, [especially, seeing that Elazar wore the garments of the High Priest, as described in verse 28. Ed.] They observed Moses having ash on his head and having rent his garments, calling out to Elazar, “woe for my brother Aaron!”An alternate interpretation: we find that the expression ראיה, “seeing” is also used to describe “knowing,” i.e. seeing with one’s mental eye. Prominent examples are: Genesis 40,16, where the chief of the bakers is described as “seeing” that Joseph had properly explained the dream of the chief of the cup bearers. Another example of the root: ראה describing “understanding,” rather than seeing with one’s eyes, is found in Genesis 42,1 where our patriarch Yaakov is credited with seeing that there was grain for sale in far off Egypt, i.e. וירא יעקב כי יש שבר במצרים, “Yaakov “saw” that there was trading in grain going on in Egypt.” The author cites more examples.
+
+Chapter 21
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+יושב הנגב, “who resided in the southern part of the Land of Canaan;” in other words, Amalek; we have proof that Amalek resided in that part of the land from Numbers 13,29, from the report of the spies. If these people were indeed Amalek, why did the Torah not call these people by their real name but called them Canaanites? [Amalek is descended from Esau, i.e. is a Semitic tribe. Ed.] When G-d saw that Amalek attacked the Jewish people a second time, He said to Israel: “they are not out of bounds to you as are the Edomites, although genetically they are as close to you or even closer than the Edomites, Amalek having been a grandson of Esau. You may, or even must destroy them, in due course. What applies to the Canaanites, i.e. that any of them who do not voluntarily leave their land you have to kill, men women and children, applies to them also. (Compare Rashi, who says that the Israelites mistook these attackers for Canaanites as they had dressed as such. They had done so in order to cause the Israelites to pray to G-d to help them against the Canaanites, not against the Amalekites.) Rashi apparently did not accept the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer hakalir, in his liturgical prayer recited on Parshat Zachor, according to whom, on the contrary, the King of Arad (Canaanite) and his soldiers wore the uniforms of Amalekites. Some commentators on this paragraph understand our verse as having omitted a word, i.e. “and Amalek,” after the word “Arad,” in our verse. We have indeed found elsewhere that the tribe of Canaanites under the control of the I King of Arad, lived in close proximity to the Amalekites. (Compare (Numbers 14,25) Compare also verse 45 there.
+דרך האתרים, the correct spelling ought to be התארים, the letters having been inverted similar to when we find כבשים spelled as כשבים, (sheep) or שמלה as שלמה (garment). Compare Joshua 15,9: ותאר הגבול, “and the boundary curved, i.e. was inverted;” When the Amalekites heard that the Israelites had marched around the territory of Edom from north to south, as stated in Numbers 21,4, they concluded that they would now attack from the southern region of Edom. They used this as an opportunity to attack them as they had displayed fear of the Edomites.
+
+Verse 2
+
+
+
+Verse 3
+
+ויקרא שם המקום חרמה, “Israel called the name of the place where this occurred: Chormah, “utter destruction.” It is not to be confused with a place by an identical name referred to in the Torah in Numbers 14,45.
+
+Verse 4
+
+ויסעו מהר ההר, “they journeyed on from Hor Hahar;” the Torah now returns to the subject which had been interrupted when it described the detour around the territory of Edom. It had been interrupted by the report of the death of Aaron and the battle against Amalek as a result of that.
+מהר ההר דרך ים סוף, “from Hor Hahar, in the direction of the sea of Reeds, i.e. from north to south in order to detour around Edom. This was not a detour around Mount Seir, of which we are told in Deuteronomy 2,1. Here we are speaking of the twenty first year of the Israelites, immediately after the nineteen years the Israelites had remained in Kadesh Barnea the point from which the spies had been sent out. After that they detoured around the territory of Edom until they came to the Kadesh in the desert of Tzin. The detour around Edom occurred in the fortieth year after the Exodus, and was due to the King of Edom’s refusal to grant the Israelites the right to use his territory as transit toward the Jordan river. They also detoured around the southern part of the Kingdom of Moav, as the Torah had not given them the right to harass that country, as we read in Judges 11,17. When they arrived at a place called Ovot, (verse 10) which was located at the south eastern corner of the Kingdom of Moav, they turned north and turned left in the direction of the river Arnon, as we read in verse Deuteronomy 919. The number of way stations during that period, have not been enumerated, although each has been mentioned in Parshat Massey, but some may have had more than one name. (Numbers 33,4143).
+ותקצר נפש העם בדרך, “and the people became impatient because of the length of the way.” The root קצר in the sense of impatient, occurs also in Exodus 6,9, when the people did not respond to Moses’ promises, i.e. ומקוצר רוח, “on account of an impatient spirit.” In this instance, the lengthy and strenuous detour around the boundaries of the Kingdom of Edom had tried their patience to breaking point. Rashi explains why the meaning of the word could not possibly be the “shortness of the way,” as after 38 years plus they perceived themselves as getting further away from their destination rather than closer to it. An alternate interpretation: The protective clouds shielding the people from the hot rays of the sun had ceased to function, as a result of Aaron’s death as these had been due to his merit, just as the water supply had been due to Miriam’s merit.
+
+Verse 5
+
+כי אין לחם....ונפשנו קצה בלחם הקלוקל, “for there was no bread (that was the product of the earth) and the insubstantial bread from heaven (the manna) the people had become fed up with.”The expression קצה is familiar to us from when Rivkah experiencing so much tension with her daughters-in-law, the wives of Esau, told her husband that if Yaakov were to marry wives from a similar background she would become fed up with living. (Genesis 27,46, קצתי בחיי.)
+בלחם, “with the bread;” the letter ב at the beginning of this word has the vowel patach to show that a certain well known “bread” was meant.
+הקלוקל, as in Ezekiel 21,26: קלקל בחצים, “like flashing arrows,” a simile for the word בדולח, “shining crystal,” a word used by the Torah to describe the appearance of the manna in Numbers 11,7. An alternate interpretation: the word is a variation of קלקול, as in Jeremiah 4,24: וכל הגבעות התקלקלו, “and all the heights, (low hills) are disintegrating.” They are not providing man with strength.
+
+Verse 6
+
+את הנחשים, “the snakes.” According to Rabbi Yudan, the Torah, by not writing: נחשים, but הנחשים instead, claims that the cloud over the Jewish camp as long as Aaron had been alive, used to burn the snakes, and thus make them harmless, as far as the Jewish people were concerned. Now that Aaron had died there was no remedy against being bitten by snakes. They became frequent sources of harm.
+
+Verse 7
+
+את הנחש, “the snake;” sometimes the word נחש appears in the singular, and sometimes in the plural mode. This is not unique, as we experienced it with the frogs in Exodus 8,2, also.
+
+Verse 8
+
+
+
+Verse 9
+
+נחש נחשת, “a copper snake.” This metal was chosen, as, when polished, it shines and reflects light and therefore is highly visible. We know this from Ezekiel 1,7, where the prophet describes his vision of angels whose hooflike feet were described as sparkling like burnished copper. Even though the area of the Israelites camp was three miles square, anyone who had been bitten by a snake could see the copper snake that Moses had mounted on a pole.
+והביט אל נחש הנחשת, “and when he looked at this replica of a copper coloured snake (he would live);” looking at this phenomenon automatically would make such a person think of heaven, and that his only hope for surviving the snakebite would come from heaven. (Rashi). The reason that G-d chose this particular phenomenon was to remind the victim that the cure for his ailment had to be found in reversing the source of his affliction.[Just as the original sin by the first woman was described as caused by a snake who had seduced the first woman, so this source had to be discredited in the eyes of the afflicted person as symbolising that he had allowed himself to sin just as the first woman had been guilty of believing the snake, a mere creature, rather than the command of its Creator. Ed.] The miraculous powers of the Creator to heal, would best be demonstrated if it was shown that He could use the source of the affliction as the medicine that would cure it. [I have departed from the author’s use of the “chisel,” which to this Editor is rather meaningless, although it was taken from the commentary of B’chor shor. Ed.]
+
+Verse 10
+
+ויסעו בני ישראל ויחנו באובות. The Jewish people continued journeying and they encamped at Ovot. Their previous encampment had been at Punan as reported in Numbers 33,43.
+
+Verse 11
+
+ויסעו מאובות, “They journeyed on from Ovot;” from this point onwards they turned in a northerly direction. The text proves that this took place here, as the next encampment is described as being at B’iyey Haavarim which is located facing the territory of Moav which was to the east.
+ויחנו בעיי העברים, “they made camp at a location known as B’iyey Haavarim. According to Rashi, this was a place from which it was easy to cross to the land of Canaan, and it was near Mount Nebo, the mountain containing Moses’ unknown grave. Moses viewed the land of Israel from the summit of that Mountain. The author speculates that what is reported here took place before the conquest by the Israelites of the lands of Sichon and Og to the west of this location, reported later in this chapter. It appears as if Mount Nebo is not mentioned until after 3 further encampments as explained in the portion Massey, and as far as Rashi explaining further that Mount Nebo intervened between Moav and the Emorites, perhaps prior to the war between Sichon and the first king of Moav this may have been so. But during that war, Sichon appropriated his whole land from him commencing from Mount Nebo as far as the river Arnon. (compare verse 26) The letter ע in בעיי, may have substituted for the letter א here.
+
+Verse 12
+
+משם נסעו, “from there they continued their journeys;” The word “there,” refers to B’iyey Haavarim.
+ויחנו בנחל זרד, “they encamped in the valley of the river Zered.” In Parshat Massey, however, we read that the Israelites first came to Divon Gad, but there only land locations are mentioned, whereas here rivers are mentioned also. The reason may be that the Torah was interested here to report what occurred at Beer.
+
+Verse 13
+
+ויחנו מעבר ארנון, “they encamped across from the river Arnon.” If the Torah had written instead: בעבר ארנון, this would have meant that they had had free choice where along the banks of the river Arnon to make camp. The letter מ in stead of the prefix ב, means that they had only been able to make camp on the part of the banks of that river which came from the boundary with the Emorites, as Rashi has explained.
+מעבר ארנון, where across from that river? The part in no man’s land, desert, where it had left the boundary of the territory belonging to the Emorites. Apparently, there was a small island in the middle of that river that afforded a relatively easy passage across the river, in a neutral area between the territory of the Emorites and that of Moav. This is what is referred to as Almon Divlatayma in Numbers 33, 46. The river Arnon was the boundary between these two kingdoms.
+כי ארנון גבול מואב בין מואב ובין האמורי, “for Arnon was the boundary between the Emorites and the Moabites.” In earlier times, the territory of Moav had extended in a westerly direction to the river Jordan and in a northerly direction as far as Mount Nebo, which used to be the boundary with the Kingdom of Sichon. The latter had conquered a large slice of the original kingdom of Moav, (which due to that fact had no longer been included in the Moabite territory G-d had put out of bounds to the Israelites). This has been documented in verse 26 of our chapter.
+
+Verse 14
+
+על כן, “this is why” concerning the territories forbidden to the Israelites to conquer or harass, “it is stated in the book documenting the wars of the Lord, etc.” There are numerous books dating back to that period which have become lost in the course of the centuries in which more of the accomplishments of the Israelites in warfare had been preserved, including this war. Also numerous of the poems of King Solomon and his many parables have become lost throughout those centuries, though the people had been aware of their existence at one time. The book that indicated the boundaries of the lands that they were prohibited from entering was called מלחמות ה׳‎ “wars conducted with the approval of the Lord.” We recall that Avigayil had said to David in Samuel I 25,28: כי מלחמות ה' אדוני נלחם, “my lord (David) has fought wars for the sake of the reputation of the Lord.” יאמר, “it is said;” the letter א in this word is vocalised with the vowel patach, (not tzeyre).
+את והב בסופה, “Vaheiv” is the name of a location at the extreme end of the territory of Moav, a place that the Israelites had crossed and where miracles had been performed for them similar to the ones at the sea of reeds. Compare a reference to this in what Balak told Bileam about the location at that time of the Israelites’ camp. (Numbers 22,5.)
+
+Verse 15
+
+ואשד הנחלים, this was another location that the Israelites were not allowed to invade as part of it was overhanging airspace belonging to the Moabite Kingdom.
+
+Verse 16
+
+ומשם, “and from there,“ i.e. from the boundary of Moav; the warning against harassing that nation becomes effective extending as far as the place known as Beer, which is identical with Kadesh, which is part of Edom, where G-d gave them the well.
+
+Verse 17
+
+אז, “then,” i.e. after G-d had provided them with the well from which to slake their thirst, they broke out in a song of thanksgiving. This song has not been recorded at the time it had been sung because at the same time this location had become the one at which both Moses and Aaron had been punished. When the time came to make a specific reference to that well, the Torah also reported this song that the Israelites had sung. An alternate interpretation about the meaning of the line: 'בספר מלחמות ה, “in the Book recording the wars of the Lord:” This book was comparable to the Book of Chronicles kept by every nation in which a record has been made of all the wars between one nation and its neighbours, in which its victories have been recorded.
+The expression: את והב (verse 14) is to be understood as being a single word, just as the word אתיהב, where the letter ו has been exchanged for the letter א. We have a parallel for this in Genesis 45,1 where Joseph is described as misrepresenting himself with the word: בהתודע, a word from the root ידע. Another example of such an unusual construction is found in Genesis 27,29, where Yitzchok in his blessing to Yaakov is quoted as saying: הוה גביר לאחיך, “be senior over your brothers.” We would have expected the word: היה instead of הוה. It, i.e. the word והב is intended as an alternative to נתינה as in “gift,” as in Numbers 26,62, כי לא נתן להם נחלה, “for no ancestral piece of land had been given to to them.” The Targumim, translators into Aramaic, render the word נתן there as אתיהב. Here where we hear about the defeat of the King of Moav against Sichon of the Emorites, the words ואת והב בסופה, mean that that king at the end of that war had had to cede lands to the victor. 
+This included the valley of the river Arnon. The well (through the rock) from which the Israelites were provided with water after Miriam’s death therefore was directly connected to what had once been Moav.
+
+Verse 18
+
+חפרוה שרים, ”which the princes had dug;” the “princes” mentioned in this poetic song are Moses and Aaron, who had hit the rock. It was they that had been commanded to speak to the rock. (20,8)
+במחוקק במשענותם, “with the scepter and with their staffs.” By striking the rock they made a deep impression on it, and split it. The expression מחק occurs in this sense in Ezekiel 8,10: מחוקה על הקיר, “depicted (engraved) over the whole wall.”
+וממדבר מתנה, “and from the desert to Matanah.” This still refers to the previous phrase, i.e. ויחנו בעבר ארנון אשר במדבר, “they encamped in Ever, which is situated in the desert.”From this Ever in the desert which is identical with Almon Divlataymah, they came to Matanah, which is identical with place a called Mount Haavarim in the portion of Massey (Numbers 33,47). The reason why the place was called Matanah, was that it was from here on in that the Israelites began to receive the gift of the land of Israel. The reason that the expression which we have so become used to, i.e. ויסעו ויחחנו, “they journeyed, they encamped,” is not used here, is that the people were still standing in Ever of Arnon in the desert as reported in the Book of Deuteronomy 2,26: ואשלח מלאכים ממדבר קדמות אל סיחון (Moses speaking) “I sent out messengers to Sichon from the desert k’deymot. i.e. from the desert to the east of his land, as opposed to: “from the desert to the south of his land.” In that chapter reference is made to the conquest of the lands of Sichon and Og.
+
+Verse 19
+
+וממתנה, “and from Matanah;’” they came to Nachaliel, the word being a combination of river and valley. In Numbers 33,48, the Torah refers to this as the Israelites journeying from the chain of mountains known as Harey Haavarim.” From that point onwards, the Israelites made camp in the wilderness also known as שדה מואב, “the field or fields” of Moav. This was the last place where they made camp before crossing the Jordan river into the Holy Land.
+ומנחליאל, “and from Nachaliel;” they spread out from there to Bamot, called בית הישימות in Numbers 33,49. The Emorites would refer to places where they worshipped their idols: Bamot, “elevated places,” whereas the Israelites called the same sites Beyt Hayeshimites, “houses of desolation.” Our sages in the Talmud tractate Avodah Zarah, folio 46, go into more detail about all this.
+
+Verse 20
+
+ומבמות, and from “Bamot” the Israelites spread out into the valley referred to in Numbers 33,39, as “Avel Hashittim.” The word; avel means: valley, steppe.
+אשר בשדה מואב ראש הפסגה, “that is in the field of Moav, by the top of the Pissgah; the word ומבמות which introduced this phrase means combined: “the elevation in the field of Moav which is beside the top of summit, which in turn looks down on pney hayeshimon, is the great desert.” Seeing that at one time this tract of land had belonged to Moav, it was still described by the Torah as such, as it had been known as such by the Israelites who were familiar with the region. This is also why the Torah still speaks about ערבות מואב, “the region formerly belonging to Moav, and still referred to by many as such.”A different approach to these verses commencing with וממדבר מתנה. The well of which the Israelites spoke in their song had great significance seeing that in a desert, a place completely devoid of water, they had been provided with ample water completely free of charge, i.e. as a gift, .מתנה
+וממתנה נחליאל, “and from the place called Matanah as far as Nachaliel” there could not be found any other wells capable of supplying the water needed for the Israelite nation. Once they had received this gift of water from G-d, the river Arnon swelled way beyond its normal flow. (B’chor shor)
+The letter י in the word נחליאל, is superfluous, just as it is superfluous in Psalms 123,1 היושבי בשמים, and in Psalms113,5, 113,6. The ending אל in the word expresses strength, as it does in Ezekiel 17,13: ואת אילי הארץ לקח, “and the mighty of the land he took away.”We also find this spelled out in Numbers 20,11 where the Torah stressed that a large amount of water came forth, i.e. far more than was needed. [there was no other reason to emphasize this just as it was not emphasized in Exodus 17, 6, where Moses had struck a rock for that purpose a first time. Ed.]
+
+Verse 21
+
+וישלח ישראל מלאכים, “Israel sent messengers;” in a different report in Deuteronomy 2,26 we are told that Moses sent messengers. Our sages conclude from this that two letters were sent to Sichon, one by Moses asserting Israel’s peaceful intentions when traversing his territory, the other by Israel, threatening war. (no source quoted). The second certainly sounds very peaceful. Ed.]
+
+Verse 22
+
+
+
+Verse 23
+
+לקראת ישראל המדברה “in the direction of the Israelites, toward the desert.” We had been told that they had encamped in the desert at that time in verse 13 of our chapter.
+
+Verse 24
+
+מארנון עד יבוק, “from Arnon to the river Yabok.” Both the land of Moav and the land of the Bney Ammon are situated east of the land of Canaan (the west bank of the Jordan). The lands of Sichon were in between the land of Moav and Bney Ammon. Just as Sichon had taken land from Moav from the southern region along the river Jordan as far north as the river Arnon, so he had taken land from the Bney Ammon from the north as far as the river Yabok. As a result of this it had become permitted to the Israelites to take away these lands from Sichon, as they no longer were considered as either belonging to Moav or the Bney Ammon. In the words of our sages in the Talmud tractate Chulin folio 60, “Ammon and Moav had been cleansed by Sichon.”
+כי עז גבול בני עמון, “for the border between the Bney Ammon was strong; but south of the river Yabok Sichon had not been able to conquer, as that region was easier to defend, the river acting as a formidable obstacle.
+
+Verse 25
+
+
+
+Verse 26
+
+
+
+Verse 27
+
+על כן יאמרו המושלים, “this is why the people speaking in parables (Bileam and B’or according to Rashi)) would say, etc.” B’or was the father of Bileam whom Sichon had hired to curse Moav. (Tanchuma, Chukat, section 24)
+באו חשבון, “come to Cheshbon to dwell there!” It will be built up now that it has come under the rule of Sichon. As long as it had been under the rule of Moav, people were afraid to settle there as the King of Moav did not offer much in the way of protection to his subjects.
+תבנה ותכונן, “let it be rebuilt and firmly established!” More so than previously.
+עיר סיחון, “Sichon’s capital!”
+
+Verse 28
+
+כי אש יצאה מחשבון, “for a fire has gone out from Cheshbon. The inhabitants of Cheshbon rebelled against your king of Moav.
+להבה מקרית סימון, “a flame from the city of Sichon;” i.e. the city that has now become Sichon’s. עיר סימון, “Sichon’s capital!”
+בעלי במות ארנון, “the lords of the high places of Arnon.” Our author, quoting Samuel II 6,2, understands the word בעלי here as referring to a plain or plateau. In other words, the lands described here were all relatively high, though level.
+
+Verse 29
+
+אוי לך מואב, “woe unto you, Moav;” this is all part of the parables referred to earlier.
+אבדת עם כמוש, “you are undone people who worship Kemosh.” Do not be amazed at the word אבדת which usually means: “you are lost;” in this instance it means the same as in Micah 7,2 אבד חסיד מן הארץ, “the pious have vanished from the earth;” they have not literally disappeared, but have become passive as if they did not exist. The same applies to the Moabites now under the rule of Sichon.
+נתן בניו פליטים, “he has made its sons fugitives;” a reference to the under age male children in Moav who though they escaped his sword have been turned into fugitives. They were allowed to grow up as prisoners in Sichon’s palace, as the Moabites saw no other way to keep them alive.
+
+Verse 30
+
+ונירם אבד חשבון עד דיבון, “in the meantime) we (the Israelites) came and threw over the rule of Sichon, not only Cheshbon has perished but even Divvon.” 
+The word ניר, means: ”heir;” in the meantime no heir is left of the original Moabites (Compare Kings I 11,36, for the meaning of the word ניר.) An alternate interpretation. The word ניר, is derived from ירה, “to shoot, to throw,” as in Exodus 15,4: ירה בים, “He tossed into the sea.” In other words, the Israelites are boasting that they had tossed the Emorites, etc., out of their land, or in ordinary Hebrew, ונשליכם. If you were to explain our verse according to the Targum, the letter ו at the beginning should have a short vowel patach, instead of the regular patach. Still another interpretation: the word ניר is a variant of חרישה, “the act of ploughing,” as in Jeremiah 4,3: נירו לכם ניר, “break up the untilled ground!”
+ונשים, “we laid waste;” related to שממה, desolation.” The Israelites declare that they plowed over all the structures of the former inhabitants. [unlike what happened on the west bank of the Jordan when they captured all the Canaanite infrastructure 100% intact, and could make immediate use of it. Ed.]
+
+Verse 31
+
+
+
+Verse 32
+
+ויירש את האמורי, “and drove out the Emorite.” The word is read as if it had been spelled ויורש, “and inherited.”
+
+Verse 33
+
+ויפנו ויעלו, “they turned around and ascended;” in a northerly direction. Seeing that anyone who walks from the south of the land of Israel northward must automatically be ascending, [as is due to the topography of the terrain, Ed.] he must ascend via Bashan, the land ruled by King Og. Seeing that the Kingdom of Og has been described as part of the land of Canaan, the commandment to kill anyone from that Kingdom who did not voluntarily leave, man woman or child; the Israelites did not send a letter offering to cross his land peacefully only in transit. (compare Deuteronomy 20,16) [The commandment not to allow survivors also applied to the Emorites, i.e. to Sichon and his country. Og, personally, a survivor of the deluge according to tradition, obviously could not have been a Canaanite, as they did not exist at that time. Ed.] Sichon, on the other hand, ruled over some lands that were not originally Canaanite, such as parts of Moav and Bney Ammon.
+ויצא, “he (Og) came forth, provocatively, in a hostile manner.” Our author refers us to his having explained why Og lived as long as he lived, i.e. at least 850 years. (Genesis 14,13)
+
+Verse 34
+
+אל תירא אותו, “do not fear him!” Rashi explains that the reason why Moses was afraid of Og was that the merit of having alerted Avraham to Lot having been taken prisoner by the armies of Kedorleomer might have protected him. This seems highly unlikely, as Rashi himself explains elsewhere that Og far from having noble intentions, wished Avraham dead, so that he could marry Sarah. We therefore must look for a different reason why Moses would have feared him. In the Talmud Horiot folio 10, we have a statement that a person should engage in Torah study even if his intentions are not wholly religiously motivated. As a proof the Talmud cites that the 42 sacrificial animals that Balak, who had hired Bileam to curse the Jewish people, offered to the Jewish G-d was rewarded by Ruth the Moabite, and ancestor of the Messiah through her great grandson David would be born and be married to Boaz. Moses was similarly concerned that if Og had survived thus far, G-d had had a mission in mind that he must fulfill and that mission had not yet been fulfilled by him. Only after G-d had set Moses’ mind at ease did he cease worrying about the outcome of the military encounter that was imminent. It was only after G-d reassured him that his mind was set to rest about the imminent military encounter involving also such a giant.
+
+Verse 35
+
+
+
+Chapter 22
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+ויסעו בני ישראל, “The Children of Israel resumed journeying;” after the victory of the men over Og and his army they brought their wives and children to encamp on the east bank of the Jordan river in the region between the rivers Arnon and Yabok.
+
+Verse 2
+
+וירא בלק, “Balak saw,” (realised) Balak heard, as in Exodus 20,15: וכל העם רואים את הקולות, “and the whole nation saw the thunder.”
+
+Verse 3
+
+ויגר מואב, “Moav was afraid;” when the Moabites saw that the Israelites after having conquered the land of Sichon, part of which the latter had conquered from Moav, had not restored that part to them, the original owners, they suspected the Israelites of having designs on their land also. Moreover, they realised that seeing that the Israelites had overcome Sichon, who had previously overcome them, they would have no problem overcoming the remaining part of Moav. They did not realise that legally speaking, the lands formerly belonging to Moav had been acquired by the Israelites legally, as they had conquered it from a nation that had made war on them although not provoked. (Compare Talmud, tractate Chulin folio 60)
+ויגר מואב,”Moav was afraid (of the Israelites) but not the Bney Ammon, as Rashi has explained on Deuteronomy 2,9, where the Israelites were told by G-d not to harass the Moabites.
+
+Verse 4
+
+ויאמר מואב אל זקני מדין, “Moav said to the elders of Midian, etc.;” They were their neighbours and they were contractually allied to them. We know this from Genesis 36,35: where Midian is referred to as having made common cause with Moav. Combined, they had defeated Haddad ben B’dad.
+עתה ילחכו, “now they will lick up, etc.” after the Israelites had defeated Sichon and surrounding areas, they were afraid it would be their turn next.
+כלחון השור, “like the ox licks up, etc.;” the ox licks the grass with its tongue, which acts like a comb as it has no upper dentures, like all the beasts that are pure and allowed to be slaughtered by the Israelites.
+
+Verse 5
+
+ארץ בני עמו, “the land of his people,” the people of Bileam.
+
+Verse 6
+
+אולי אוכל נכה בו, “perhaps I can inflict a defeat on it;” the plural mode in the word נכה i.e. “we will inflict a defeat,” is not as surprising as it appears at first glance. We find a parallel in Song of Songs: 1,4: משכני אחריך נרוצה, “draw me after you, let us run.”An alternate interpretation: “Let us inflict a defeat on it, you and me by engaging it in war; “I will wage war, and you will do the cursing.” The use of the word הכאה, “striking” in the sense of cursing is also not unique, as we find it in Jeremiah 18,18: לכו ונכנו בלשון, “come and let us strike him with the tongue.
+ואגרשנו מן הארץ, “so that I may drive them out of the land.” Balak is referring to the land that Sichon had taken from Moav during the rule of Moav’s first king.
+
+Verse 7
+
+וקסמים בידם, “with tools of divination in their hands.” The “tools” were books of instruction on that subject, as explained by Rashi. This is also how the Jerusalem Targum understands this phrase. We find a parallel of this when even in our time, sorcerers utter curses by sticking needles into dolls symbolising the party to be cursed. An alternate interpretation: Balak’s emissaries took financial rewards with them to pay Bileam for the use of these instruments used in sorcery. Compare Targum Yonatan on Nachum 3,17, according to Rabbi Chavell.
+
+Verse 8
+
+וישבו שרי מואב עם בלעם, “the emissaries of Moav stayed overnight with Bileam. They did so as they did not know anyone in Midian who would offer them hospitality. On the other hand, the dignitaries of Midian who had been accompanying them, had where to spend the night, as they were well known there.
+
+Verse 9
+
+
+
+Verse 10
+
+
+
+Verse 11
+
+
+
+Verse 12
+
+לא תאור את העם, ”do not curse the people.” G-d was well aware of the plague that would strike many Israelites who would worship Baal Peor, as a result of Bileam’s advice to seduce the Israelites by becoming sexually licentious. G-d did not want that plague to be attributed to Bileam’s curse.
+
+Verse 13
+
+ויאמר אל שרי בלק, “he said to Balak’s emissaries, etc.” the emissaries of Midian are no longer mentioned as they were only of secondary interest their land not bordering on the land of Canaan and not under threat by the Israelites.
+
+Verse 14
+
+
+
+Verse 15
+
+שרים רבים, “more and higher ranking emissaries.” We have a parallel for this in Esther 1,8 where the word רב in the singular is used in the same sense, i.e. על כל רב ביתו, “over the highest ranking officials of his household.” Compare also Jeremiah 39,13: וכל רבי מלך בבל, ”and all the commanders of the King of Babylonia.”
+
+Verse 16
+
+
+
+Verse 17
+
+
+
+Verse 18
+
+
+
+Verse 19
+
+ואדעה מה יוסף ה' דבר עמי, “and I will know what G-d will say to me in addition.” Even though G-d had told him already: “do not go with them!” Bileam was so anxious to find a way to go and curse the Israelites that he was convinced that his curse would be effective. He said to himself: “if G-d considered my curses as ineffective, why did He bother to try and stop me?”
+
+Verse 20
+
+אם לקרא לך, “if these men simply extended an invitation to you to visit Balak, etc.” G-d referred to a social visit, involving food and drink. If you were to ask what happened in the interval so that G-d appeared to give Bileam an opening now that He did not know about previously, whereas previously He had spoken to him in absolute terms: “do not go with them!?”We must interpret G-d’s previous instruction as having meant only: “do not go with them to curse the people,” but not as an absolute refusal to let Bileam make the journey. A different interpretation: there was no change in G-d’s attitude at all; this time G-d related to a new delegation of officials, and whatever G-d permitted now was not relevant to what He had forbidden to an invitation issued by lower ranking emissaries. A third possible interpretation: “if these people are so foolish as to believe that I will change My basic attitude whichI already expressed to Bileam the first time, go ahead and travel with them, and you will see soon how useless this journey will be.”
+
+Verse 21
+
+וילך עם שרי מואב, “he went with the emissaries from Moav.” He did not literally go with them, i.e. keep pace with them, but he followed them. Had the Torah written: וילך אתם, this would have meant that he literally accompanied them.
+
+Verse 22
+
+ויחר אף ה' כי הולך הוא, “The Lord was angry that he was going;” G-d’ had not given a “green light,” although Bileam made believe that he had obtained full approval. He should have understood from the first nocturnal conversation with G-d that it was not His intention for him to be going. We find something similar in the story of the spies that Moses sent out to evaluate the land of Canaan. G-d had said: שלח לך אנשים, “send out for your own peace of mind men, etc, (Numbers 13,2)” It had been quite clear to Moses that when G-d had agreed to the people’s demand to send spies, that G-d had entertained reservations from the start about the success of such a mission. An alternate interpretation of the line: “G-d was a angry, etc.” He had told Bileam that he was not able to say what he wished but could say only the words G-d would put in his mouth. Surely this was a clear warning to Bileam to desist, as he was going to make a fool or worse of himself if after having come all the way from Midian to Moav he could not deliver what was expected of him. At least he should have asked G-d what precisely he was allowed to say once he faced Balak in person. He was too hasty due to his hatred of the Jewish people. The paragraph about Balak and Bileam, which did not directly impact on the Israelites, was written to teach us why G-d deprived the nations of the world of any share in holy spirit, as it demonstrates the effect of granting holy spirit to the wrong kind of people, who would use it to try and manipulate G-d for their desires instead of to help them to serve Him better.
+ושני נעריו עמו “accompanied by his two loyal servants.” He took only two. G-d arranged it so in order that the strangebehaviour of Bileam’s ass could not be attributed to the ass having become confused in the presence of so many people.
+
+Verse 23
+
+וחרבו שלופה בידו, “with his sword drawn in his sword.” This is a case of the punishment fitting the crime, i.e. Bileam had said that he would kill his ass for its rebellious behaviour; (verse 29) now the angel makes Bileam realise that the one who deserved to be killed for rebelling against G-d was not the ass but Bileam himself.
+
+Verse 24
+
+גדר מזה וגדר מזה, “with a fence being on either side.” There are some commentators who claim that this “fence” was the same as the stone piles erected by Yaakov and Lavan, at the time they parted company; the same commentators also identify Bileam as being the reincarnation of Lavan, as he displayed the same attitude towards the Jewish people as had Lavan towards the first Jewish family. They go further and identify Bileam as Kushan Rishatayim, Judges 3,8 (compare Talmud tractate Sanhedrin folio 105), where they describe all three characters as basically the same, each a reincarnation of the former. At this point Bileam/Lavan is perceived as having violated the pact concluded at that stone pile between Yaakov and Lavan (Genesis 31, 4454) It was logical therefore that this stone pile would now threaten Bileam for violating the oath sworn by Lavan to Yaakov at the time. The קיר, wall, mentioned in our story is a clear reference to the stones erected by both Lavan and Yaakov at that time. If Bileam is described a little while later as being lame, this is attributed to the ass having pressed him against that wall as punishment for his violating the original oath of peace between Yaakov and Lavan. (Compare 23,3, וילך שפי, “he walked with a limp.”)
+
+Verse 25
+
+
+
+Verse 26
+
+ויוסף מלאך ה עבור, “and the angel of the Lord went further;” according to Rashi he hinted to him that a people founded on the merits of three patriarchs such as Avraham, Yitzchok, and Yaakov, would hardly be intimidated by the curses of the likes of a moneyoriented Bileam. In Lavan’s time Yaakov had not yet been able to draw on the merits of three patriarchs as could the Israelites in the meantime. When Bileam thought that the fact that Yishmael and the sons of Keturah, all of whom Avraham expelled, were asign of spiritual weakness in that house, the merit acquired by Yitzchok at the binding of him at Mount Moriah, offset any such notion. When Bileam thought that the fact that Yitzchok had also sired Esau showed spiritual weakness in the family of that patriarch, the fact that all of Yaakov’s children had remained true to the Abrahamitic tradition blocked his attempts in that direction to harm the Israelites by cursing them. This is the implied meaning of the words: אשר אין דרך לנטות ימין ושמאל, “where there was no way to turn either to the right or to the left.”
+
+Verse 27
+
+ותרבץ תחת בלעם ויחר אף בלעם, “when she lay down beneath Bileam, Bileam became very angry.” His anger was prompted by the fact that his ass had chosen to deny him her services at the very moment when her master had been injured and was in need of her more than ever before.
+ויך את האתון במקל, “he struck the ass; the first time with the palm of his hand, the second time with a kind of riding whip, and the third time with his walking staff, as one does to obstinate domestic beasts.
+
+Verse 28
+
+מה עשיתי לך , “what have I done to you?” [It did not dawn on the ass that her master had not seen the angel barring the path. Ed.] The letter ל in the word לך, has a semivowel sheva.
+
+Verse 29
+
+
+
+Verse 30
+
+אשר רכבת עלי, “the one upon which you have ridden.” There are several interruptions in the cantillation signs in this verse, indicating that the ass did not immediately add the words: “all your life.”
+מעודך עד היום הזה, “from the time you have learned how to ride.” These words complement the ass’ question if it had ever been in the habit of acting so strangely. You should have asked yourself what could possibly be the reason for my having acted so strangely and out of character. Surely I must have had a valid reason for acting as I did.
+
+Verse 31
+
+
+
+Verse 32
+
+כי ירט הדרך לנגדי, “because your way is contrary to me.” The word כי is used here in the sense of “although,” just as in Genesis 48,14: “כי נמשה הבכור, “although Menashe is the firstborn.” The same meaning for the word כי is true inPsalms 41,5: כי חטאתי לך, which correctly translated means: “although I have sinned against You.” It would not make sense to translate this as “for I have sinned against you,” although most translated editions of Psalms translate it this way. One does not ask for mercy because one has sinned, but in spite of having sinned. The angel explains to Bileam that although the latter had undertaken a mission against G-d’s will, G-d gives him this opportunity to desist from his evil intent and the resulting punishment. [This is also why the angel is associated with G-d’s attribute of Mercy, Hashem, instead of with His attribute of Justice, i.e. elokim. Ed.]
+
+Verse 33
+
+.ותראני האתון ותט לפני, “and the ass saw me andturned aside.” It was facing me all the time but attempted to detour either to the right or to the left so as to pass me. If it had turned backwards on account of your having struck it, I would have killed you as you had abused it.
+מפני, “only on my account;” only on account of her having seen me. She was totally innocent, as her behaviour was due to my not having given her any other choice.
+ואותה החייתי, “but I would have let her live,” as she acted under duress, as opposed to you. There is a difference between the words: לפני, and מפני. as in Deuteronomy 7,22: The latter means “out of your sight; ונשל הגוים האלה מפניך, “He will fling out these nations before you (so that you will no longer see them;)” or Deuteronomy 9,4: “He will dispossess them so that you will no longer see them.)
+גם אותך הרגתי “but I would have killed you also;” according to Rashi, this is a truncated phrase, and we have to translate it as if the word גם had been written before the word הרגתי so that the meaning is: “not only would I have impeded the ass’ progress, but I would even have also killed you in order to prevent your progress any further.” Now that the phrase has been truncated, taking into consideration that your own ass has already remonstrated with you, I have only “killed” the ass but have let you live. An alternate interpretation: If I had interpreted this verse strictly in accordance with how it appears here, I would have placed you on the same level as your ass, and the meaning of the phrase would have been: “I also would have killed your two loyal servants.”
+
+Verse 34
+
+חטאתי כי לא ידעתי, “I have sinned for I did not know;” the word כי here is to be understood in the sense of אשר, “in that,” i.e. Bileam explains that he had not known previously why his journey would not be successful.”
+
+Verse 35
+
+
+
+Verse 36
+
+
+
+Verse 37
+
+
+
+Verse 38
+
+
+
+Verse 39
+
+
+
+Verse 40
+
+
+
+Verse 41
+
+ויעלהו במות בעל, “he brought him up to the heights of Baal;” the word בעל as a description of a plain, also occurs in Numbers 21,28: when it describes a similar plain in the region of the river Arnon. Our author draws the reader’s attention to what he had written on that verse. It also occurs in this sense in Joshua 11,17 בעל גד.
+
+Chapter 23
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+בנה לי בזה שבעה מזבחות, “build seven altars for me in this location!” Bileam wanted to equal the numbers of altars which righteous people had built in honour of G-d up until now. They were Adam, Hevel, Noach, Avraham, Yitzchok , Yaakov, and Moses. By sacrificing offerings to the Jewish G-d on each of these altars he hoped to stave off the destruction decreed by G-d on the seven Canaanite nations. This is also why he composed seven separate poems extolling G-d. (Compare 23,7, 1824.)
+שבעה פרים ושבעה אלים, “seven bullocks and seven rams.” Matching the number seven was a common custom amongst people in those days, and even the Torah, on occasion, also reflects this custom.
+
+Verse 2
+
+פר ואיל במזבח, “a bullock and a ram to be offered on each of these altars.”
+
+Verse 3
+
+וילך שפי, “he was limping,” as a result of the ass having squeezed his leg against the wall. He was so consumed with hatred for the Jewish people that he did not even take time out to wait until his injury had healed.
+שפי, the expression in this sense occurs in Job 33,21: עצמותיו and his bones were rubbed away.”
+
+Verse 4
+
+ויקר אלוקים, “and G-d met;” the letter ק has the vowel patach under it, to make sure we would understand that this “meeting” of G-d with Bileam would be understood as if per chance, מקרה. Bileam was not able to prearrange a date with G-d. Other examples of the use of this word in a similarly adjusted construction, are found in וירא, instead of ויראה, from the root ראה “to see.” Here we would have expected ויקרה.
+
+Verse 5
+
+וכה תדבר, “and thus you shall say;” there was no need to spell out the precise wording Bileam was to use at this stage, as long as he would know what would follow.
+
+Verse 6
+
+
+
+Verse 7
+
+מהררי קדם, “from the mountains of the East.” This was a repetition as we know that Aram is in the East, (Isaiah 9,11)
+
+Verse 8
+
+מה אקוב וגו, “how can \_ curse where G-d has not cursed;” seeing that Bileam stood on the top of high rocks, as we have read in 22,41.
+
+Verse 9
+
+
+ומגבעות אשורנו, “and from the hills I see it.” They encamp by themselves and are totally self sufficient. No other nation can hope to attack them successfully as their Creator has assured them of His ensuring their security. This was the promise we read in Leviticus 25,19, and 26,5.
+
+Verse 10
+
+ מי מנה עפר יעקב, “Who has counted the dust of Yaakov?” Who can even count the small dust particles of Yaakov, the young children. They have small children en masse that are never part of any census. The only Israelites that have ever been subject to a census are the ablebodied men between the ages of 2060. In other words, the number of Israelites who have never been couned by far outnumber those that have been counted. Even if we were to assume that some of the adults had been guilty of some sins, the vast majority of them, the children, certainly have not been guilty of any sins. Therefore I am unable to make any curses effective against them.
+ומספר את רובע ישראל, “nor who has numbered even one quarter of Israel?” Balak himself had told Bileam that only a small section of it was visible from their vantage point. (verse 13)
+תמות נפשי מות ישרים, “let me die the death of the righteous!” He had foreseen in the stars that he was destined to die by the sword.
+
+Verse 11
+
+
+
+Verse 12
+
+
+
+Verse 13
+
+לך נא אתי אל מקום אחר, “please go with me to another location.” The letter ך here is as if it had been repeated, even though the root is still הליכה, “walking.”
+
+Verse 14
+
+
+
+Verse 15
+
+ואנכי אקרה כה, “and I will go toward a meeting yonder.” The letter א in אקרה has the vowel chirik.
+
+Verse 16
+
+
+
+Verse 17
+
+
+
+Verse 18
+
+
+
+Verse 19
+
+לא איש אל ויכזב, “G-d is not man who is apt to deceive;” Bileam tells Balak that G-d will not revoke a blessing once He had bestowed it, seeing that the blessings Bileam had bestowed on the Jewish people in His name had been bestowed on a people free from sin.
+ובן אדם ויתנחם, “nor is He a human being liable to repent what He had said.” There are three different kinds of “repents.” 1) One does not keep one’s word.” 2) One cannot keep it for reasons beyond one’s control. 3) One fails to keep a promise because the intended recipient had committed a sin against the party who made the promise. Concerning the latter two, Bileam says: “nor a human being who repents.”
+
+Verse 20
+
+וברך ולא אשיבנה, “and when He has blessed, I am unable to reverse this.” The reason is explained in the verse following, i.e. that he had not seen any iniquity amongst the Israelites.
+
+Verse 21
+
+ותרועת מלך בו, “and their King’s acclaim is in their midst.” A reference to the camp of Israel; Bileam refers to what we have read in Numbers 10,9 about the efficacy of the trumpets.
+
+Verse 22
+
+כתועפות, like the lofty horns;” the construction of this word implies that there is more than one of these horns. Our author cites Zecharyah 5,2 as a parallel, מגלה עפה, “a flying scroll.” The horns of the Reem, are twice as strong as ordinary horns. Although there is no known animal nowadays that is called Reem, the Torah uses the mythical animal as an example of this creature possessing strong horns. People in Moses’ time were still familiar with that species.
+
+Verse 23
+
+כי לא נחש ביעקב, “for there is none in Yaakov who relies on enchantments.” Compare use of that term in Genesis 30,27, where Lavan credits his financial success during Yaakov’s stay with him to such enchantments. We find it again when Joseph’s servant upon searching for the missing goblet credits his master with using it as such an instrument (Genesis 44,15). Here it is used by Bileam to tell Balak about the futility of engaging in such enchantments when dealing with the Jewish people. No sorcery will succeed in bringing a curse on Israel.
+כעת יאמר ליעקב, “now it will be said of Yaakov;” Bileam refers to the year following after the Israelites have crossed the river Jordan. At that time many of the miracles that G-d has performed on behalf of the Jewish nation will be recited in public. The expression is similar to: 'מה רבו מעשיך ה, “how great and manifold are Your works o Lord.” (Psalms 104,24) We know the expression 
+כעת, as referring to the same time in the following year when the angel announces to Avraham that his wife will have son at the same time a year hence. (Genesis18,14)
+ליעקב ולישראל, concerning Yaakov and Israel;” but not concerning Avraham and Yitzchok, as only Yaakov/Israel had managed to raise all his children in the Avrahamitic tradition.
+
+Verse 24
+
+ודם חללים ישתה, “and he shall drink the blood of the slain.” This refers to the statement about the lion drinking the blood of the prey he has slain. He eats the flesh and drinks the blood.
+
+Verse 25
+
+גם ברך לא תברכנו, “at least do not bless it!” Bileam was concerned that Bileam’s blessings for the Jewish people were referring to the immediate future. He had no idea that Bileam spoke of what would occur in the distant future.
+
+Verse 26
+
+
+
+Verse 27
+
+
+
+Verse 28
+
+
+
+Verse 29
+
+
+
+Verse 30
+
+
+
+Chapter 24
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+ולא הלך כפעם בפעם, “and he did not go aspreviously time after time;” seeing that there was no point in continuing to manipulate the G-d of the Israelites, Bileam knew that he had G-d’s approval as the Torah wrote in Numbers verse 2 that the spirit of the Lord had settled upon him. (B’chor shor)
+וישת אל המדבר פניו, “and he raised his eyes in the direction of the desert.” This was the region where the fields of Moav were located, the area where the Israelites were located at the time.
+
+Verse 2
+
+
+
+Verse 3
+
+
+
+Verse 4
+
+אשר מחזה שדי יחזה, “who sees the vision of the Almighty;” an expression announcing that what follows is of prophetic dimension. It is similar to Numbers 23,3 where Bileam looked forward to being shown parts of the future so that he could reveal it at this time.
+
+Verse 5
+
+מה טובו אוהליך יעקב, “how goodly are your tents o Yaakov.” The reason that Bileam complimented the Jewish people in these terms is that Yaakov had been described by the Torah as: איש תם יושב אהלים, “a quiet man, a dweller in tents.” (Genesis 25,27)
+
+Verse 6
+
+
+
+Verse 7
+
+יזל מים מדליו, “water shall flow from his branches.” This is not the only time when the Bible uses the singular mode when speaking of מים, water, which is mostly used in the plural mode. A relatively well known example of “water” being used in the singular mode is found in Numbers 19,20 מי נדה לא זורק עליו, “the water used to cleanse menstruants has not been sprinkled upon him.”
+מדליו, “ from its branches.” We find this word in this sense also in Jeremiah 11,16: ורעו דליתיו, “it breaks its branches.” The meaning there seems to be that the water dripping from the branches drips to its roots (harming them).
+וזרעו במים רבים, “and his seed shall be in many waters.” This is why it never has to worry about failing to produce fruit. This is the parable, followed by the declaration that David’s kingdom will outrank that of Agag, King of the Amalekites.
+
+Verse 8
+
+וחציו ימחץ, “piercing them with his arrows.” He (Israel) will use its arrows to pierce its opponents. There are numerous words in the Torah where the letter ב that we would have expected has been omitted. The word וחציו instead of ובחציו, is one of such examples.
+
+Verse 9
+
+מברכיך ברוך ואורריך ארור, “those who bless you will be blessed and those who curse you will be cursed.” Bileam ridicules people who wish to curse the Jewish people, as in so doing they only bring a curse upon themselves. The Torah had made this point already in Genesis 12,3, when G-d said so to Avraham when he set out to migrate to the land of Canaan. In addition, Yitzchok had passed on this blessing to his son Yaakov, when he said to him in Genesis 27,29: “those who curse you will themselves be cursed, whereas those who bless you will be blessed.”
+
+Verse 10
+
+
+
+Verse 11
+
+ועתה ברח לך אל מקומך, “and now flee to your place!” Balak urges Bileam to disappear with all possible speed before he will express his anger in stronger terms. The expression: ברח, “flee!” is used in this context in Song of Songs 8,14, ברח דודי, “flee my beloved;”An alternate interpretation: the words “ועתה ברח לך,” are not so much a dismissal of Bileam, as a reversal of what Bileam had been saying to him repeatedly when exploring if there was a place from which cursing the Israelites might be effective. He would no longer accompany Bileam to any place suggested, as he knew that he would not curse the Jewish people when he would come to such a place. The best thing for Bileam to do therefore would be to return home at once.
+
+Verse 12
+
+
+
+Verse 13
+
+
+
+Verse 14
+
+לכה איעצך, “come and I will advise you, etc.” Moses does not spell out precisely what advice Bileam gave Balak at that point seeing that it was something Bileam had not done publicly. However, when the Torah describes the portion dealing with the Midianites, it becomes clear to the reader what Bileam must have suggested to Balak, i.e. to find a way to seduce the Israelites into promiscuous conduct with the females of Moav and Midian and thus pull down their G-d’s wrath on themselves. (Compare what Moses said in Numbers 31,15 to the soldiers bringing female Midianite prisoners of war home with them)
+אשר יעשה העם הזה לעמך, “what this nation will do to your nation.” Seeing that this prophecy concerned events far in the future, Bileam consoled Balak that he had nothing to fear from the Israelites in the immediate future. The details will be spelled out shortly, Bileam again emphasizing that he does not speak about the immediate future. (verse 17)
+
+Verse 15
+
+
+
+Verse 16
+
+ויודע דעת עליון, “and who knows the knowledge of the Most High;” he knows that it is not “G-d’s intention to have the Israelites cursed as long as they are not guilty of trespasses.
+מחזה שדי יחזה, “and who sees the Vision of the Almighty.” He sees Him both when he is reposing and when he is fully awake with both eyes. In other words, Bileam boasts of having prophetic insights both at night and by day.
+
+Verse 17
+
+אראנו ולא עתה, “I see him but not now;” this is a reference to King David, who would not rule over Israel for another 400 years. (Ibn Ezra)
+אשורנו ולא קרוב, “I behold him but not in the near future;” this is part of a poetic formula, the poet repeating himself with different words meaning the same.
+דרך כוכב מיעקב, “a star shall step forth emanating from Yaakov;” the word is used describing walking, just as Deuteronomy 1,36: אשר דרך בה, “who walked on it.” Bileam describes the Israelites as having reached a level that includes walking among the stars, whom they enlisted in their support.
+וקם, “and there will arise, etc.;” both scepter and royalty,
+ומחץ פאתי מואב, “and shall smite even the corners of Moav.” Bileam prophesies that in the future Israel will also capture the territories of Edom, Moav and Ammon. A practical example of this is found in Judges 5,20 during the war between the armies of Barak and Sisera, the Field Marshal of Ammon. During that period even the stars were perceived by the Canaanites and Ammonites as engaging in war against them on behalf of Israel (song of victory by the prophetess Deborah) G-d, in His initial promise to Avraham had included these lands in the ones promised to Avraham’’s descendants. (Genesis chapter 15,1921).
+וקרקר כל בני שת, “and break down all the sons of Sheth.” Some commentators understand this prophecy as referring to the Moabites as the latter were the descendants of an incestuous relationship between the daughters of Lot with their father. (Genesis Compare Isaiah 20,5, for use of the word שת in this sense.)
+
+Verse 18
+
+
+
+Verse 19
+
+וירד מיעקב, “and out of Yaakov one shall have dominion.” A dictator will arise from Yaakov and destroy the last vestige of the Edomites. Bileam refers to David’s general Yoav, of whom it has been reported in Kings I 11,16: “for Yoav and all Israel stayed there for six months until they had killed off every male member of the Edomites.” וירד מיעקב, “of this man it is said: “he will not leave a remnant of the house of Esau.” (Ovadiah, 18)
+
+Verse 20
+
+וירא את עמלק, “He saw (with his mental eye) Amalek, i.e. the descendants of Amalek; seeing that this was the first nation to engage the recently liberated Israelites in battle, Bileam details its eventual demise as separate from all the other nations who will share a similar fate.
+
+Verse 21
+
+וירא את הקיני, “He envisioned the Kenite;” Here the reference is to the people known as Ammon, the Kenite mentioned in Genesis chapter 15 not the descendants of Yitro. This tribe is mentioned there as a part of a group comprising the Kenite, K’nisite, and the Kadmoni. (Genesis 15,19) Bileam had already prophesied about Moav, and Edom of the future; now he adds a prophecy about the future of the Ammonites.
+איתן מושביך, “you considered your dwelling place as secure. You boasted that when G-d had told the Israelites no to harass them that they were invincible.
+ושים, “and for additional safety you positioned your home on top of a rock.” The word ושים should really have been ושימת, “you have positioned,” in the past tense.
+
+Verse 22
+
+כי אם יהיה לבער קין, “nonetheless Kayin shall be wasted;” his descendants will be wiped off the earth.
+עד מה אשור תשבך, “How long? Until Ashur shall carry you away captive;” He will not give you rest unless you will make common cause with him until you will burn up.
+The expression כי אם, occurs frequently as meaning: אלא, but.
+קין, this word here is a reference to the name of a place. This is why Ammon here is identified with the place known as Kenite. (According to most interpretations the descendants of Yitro, if they distance themselves from Amalek, will not share in Amalek’s destruction, but will survive together with Israel)
+
+Verse 23
+
+
+
+Verse 24
+
+
+
+Verse 25
+
+ויקם בלעם, “Bileam arose;” he had been lying down while his eyes had been wide awake.
+וישב למקומו, he returned to his place, i.e. to Aram Naharayim.
+
+Chapter 25
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+
+
+Verse 2
+
+
+
+Verse 3
+
+
+
+Verse 4
+
+נגד השמש, “facing the sun;” concerning this apparently irrelevant detail, Rashi quotes a Midrash which states that it is the sun that reveals who are the sinners. The cloud retreats from the sinner exposing him as such. The “cloud” referred to is the protective cloud that enveloped the Jewish people for almost forty years until the death of Aaron.
+
+Verse 5
+
+הרגו איש את אנשיו, “slay every man each of the men (that have worshipped the Baal Peor) the bodies to be hanged.!” The leader of each tribe was charged with that task.
+
+Verse 6
+
+ויקרב אל אחיו את המדינית, “and he publicly presented to his brethren the Midianite woman;” the root קרב has been chosen by the chosen by the Torah to describe carnal relations, for instance in Genesis 20,4. Compare also Isaiah 8,3 ואקרב אל הנביאה, “I was intimate with the prophetess.”
+והמה בוכים, “while these were weeping;” they wept when they heard Moses’ instructions to kill the guilty persons. In many instances it meant that they had to kill their own relatives.
+
+Verse 7
+
+וירא פינחס, “when Pinchas saw, that no one acted upon Moses’ instructions;”
+
+Verse 8
+
+וידקור את שניהם, “and he stabbed both of them to death at the same time.” If in the process he became ritually unclean, there was nothing wrong with this, as our sages have said Pinchas only became a priest after he had killed Zimri, so that he had not been subject to the commandment not to knowingly become ritually unclean.
+אל קבתה, “through her belly.” The word is used in the sense of piercing a hole in Kings II 12,10: ויקב חור בדלתו, “he bored a hole through its door.”
+
+Verse 9
+
+
+
+Verse 10
+
+
+
+Verse 11
+
+השיב את חמתי, “he turned away My wrath;” this has been spelled out when the Torah wrote on Numbers 25,8: ותעצר המגפה, “the plague stopped.” This being so, no Israelite had any reason to hate Pinchas for having killed Zimri, as it had resulted in a blessing for the other Israelites. The leader of the tribe of Shimon had certainly proved to be unworthy of that position.
+
+Verse 12
+
+את בריתי שלום, “My covenant of peace.” He has no reason to fear the vengeance of either the relatives of Zimri or of Cosbi, the Midianite princess.
+The expression: את בריתי שלום, is to be understood as if the Torah had written: את בריתי, ברית שלום, “My covenant, the covenant of peace.” We find a similar construction in Psalms 45,7: כסאך אלוקים, “Your throne, G-d,” which is to be understood as if the author had written: כסאך כסא אלוקים, Your throne, the throne of G-d. We also find such a construction in Joshua 3,14: הארון הברית, which is to be understood as if the author had written: ,הארון ארון הברית, “the Ark, the Ark of the covenant.” The author states that he could cite numerous such examples. An alternate interpretation of the expression: בריתי שלום: Pinchas had been worried that as a result of his having killed a human being, something forbidden to do for a priest, he might have to forego his status as a priest. G-d therefore assured him that seeing that his intention was to glorify the name of the Lord, he need not fear such consequences. This will be spelled out forthwith.
+
+Verse 13
+
+ברית כהונת עולם, “the covenant of an everlasting priesthood;” All the High Priests following the High Priest Pinchas, who succeeded his father Elazar, who functioned during the period of the first Temple, and even beyond, during the early period of the second Temple were direct descendants of Pinchas as spelled out in Chronicles I 5,30.
+
+Verse 14
+
+אשר הכה את המדינית, “who had been slain with the Midianite woman;” the word: את, here means the same as עם, “with.” Our sages state that if Zimri had separated his body from Cosbi in time, he would not have been killed by Pinchas’ lance. (Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin, folio 82.)
+
+Verse 15
+
+
+
+Verse 16
+
+
+
+Verse 17
+
+צרור את המדינים, “Harass the Midianites!” The use of the infinitive mode tzaror, indicates that this was not a command to be carried out immediately. We know this from the fact that the details for the preparations of the punitive expedition against Midian have only been spelled out in Numbers 31,2. It has been mentioned here in order to put at ease the mind of the Israelites who had lost 24000 men of military age due to the involvement of Midianite women at the instigation of their husbands in a quarrel that had not concerned them at all, and they appeared to have gotten away with that.
+צרור את המזינים, “the commandment to harass the Midianites and not the Moabites, was because whatever the Moabites had done, they had done because they had believed that they had a legitimate reason to fear for their lives from the Israelites. Furthermore, the Israelites had already taken possession of lands which used to be theirs before Sichon had conquered it from them in war.
+
+Verse 18
+
+כי צוררים הם לכם, “for they have initiated hostilities with you by their wiles. The Israelites therefore would now be instructed to carry out the principle that if someone has demonstrated that he means to kill you, it is up to you to preempt him before he can carry out his evil plan. The Midianites’ sin was to try and seduce the Israelites into committing sexually forbidden carnal activities with their wives. Therefore the Israelites, instead of avenging themselves on Pinchas, were to avenge themselves on the Midianites who had even sacrificed a princess as part of that scheme. [The Land of Midian was hundreds of kilometers south of the land of Canaan on the Arabian peninsula. Ed.]
+Although Cosbi was not literally the daughter of the highest ranking Midianite, “their sister,” as stated in our verse, seeing that three verses previously she had been described as of lower rank, i.e. the daughter of Tzor, one of the princes of Midian, but not the highest one, the fact that she sacrificed her life for what she perceived as her highest patriotic duty, was the reason that she was accorded a higher rank here, as equivalent to being a leader of her nation.
+
+Chapter 26
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+ויהי אחרי המגפה, “it was after the plague;” the “plague” referred to here is the dying in the desert of the generation of the adult Israelite males who had been redeemed from Egypt, but had lacked the faith to try and conquer the land of Canaan. This short phrase is described as an entire chapter despite its containing only three words. Our sages separated these three words from what preceded them by a cantillation mark indicating that a paragraph had been concluded. This is followed by another census of the Jewish males of military age prior to the crossing of the river Jordan.
+
+Verse 2
+
+שאו את ראש כל עדת בני ישראל, “take the sum of all the congregation of Israel from twenty years old and up;” once the count had been completed the Torah continues (verse 53) “to these the land will be divided up.” It describes that the amount of or quality of the various parts of the country will vary with the size of each tribe, so that it will be distributed fairly. (Numbers 26,54)
+
+Verse 3
+
+וידבר משה ואלעזר הכהן אותם, “Moses and Elazar the priest spoke with them;” They told them that G-d had commanded that another census be taken. An alternate interpretation: the word אותם (spelled without the letter ו) means that they spoke “with” the people not to the people. Compare Ezekiel 16,60: וזכרתי את בריתי אותך בימי נעוריך, “I remembered My covenant with you made when you were in your youth.”.
+
+Verse 4
+
+כאשר צוה ה׳ את משה ובני ישראל היוצאים מארץ מצרים .“as the Lord G-d had commanded Moses and the Children of Israel when they were departing from the Land of Egypt.” At that time the males twenty years and older had also been counted. (Rashi and B’chor shor)
+
+Verse 5
+
+משפחת הפלאי, “the family of the Paliy.” Actually, this family did not reach the land of Israel as the Reuvenites except for the family of Nemuel, the latter’s great grandson perished during the uprising of Korach. (Compare verse 89)
+
+Verse 6
+
+
+
+Verse 7
+
+.אלה משפחות הראובני, “These are the families of the tribe of Reuven, etc.” the letters ה and י, symbolising the name of G-d at the beginning and end respectively of the names of some of these tribes during the census are found only for the tribes Reuven, Shimon and Zevulun. In the case of Reuven and Shimon the reason was to appease them because of Reuven’s their founding father’s indiscretion with his father’s concubine Bilhah, and of the far more recent disgrace of so many of the tribe of Shimon who had become guilty of sleeping with Moabite women at Shittim. In the case of Zevulun, the reason is because members of this tribe had risked their lives several times and they had been commended for this by Devorah in her song of victory in Judges 5,16.
+
+Verse 8
+
+
+
+Verse 9
+
+.'ב��צותם על ה, “when they agitated against the Lord.” Rav Chisda (in Sanhedrin folio 110) stated that anyone who agitates against his Rabbi is as if he had agitated against the Lord Himself. [Korach had agitated against Moses, his Rabbi. Ed.]
+
+Verse 10
+
+
+
+Verse 11
+
+ובני קרח לא מתו, “and the sons of Korach had not died;” [during the uprising. Ed.] Even though they were Levites, the Torah here refers to them as if they had been part of the tribe of Reuven, seeing that the wickedness of the members of the tribe of Reuven, Datan and Aviram, had been greater than that of Korach, even. Korach’s sons not having joined the rebellion, or having repented in time, was therefore even more remarkable.
+
+Verse 12
+
+לנמואל, this person is the same as the one who appears elsewhere with the name ימואל. (Genesis 46,10, i.e. ובני שמעון ימואל)
+
+Verse 13
+
+לזרח, Rashi comments here that the family of Ohad, had become extinct. He adds that also five of the sons of Binyamin’s family had become extinct. Rashi writes further that what was true of the family of Ohad of the tribe of Reuven, also applied to the family of Etzbon of the tribe of Gad. He explains that that Ozni in verse 16 of our chapter was in fact identical with Etzbon. According to the plain meaning of the text this was because they had not founded a family, i.e. had not married. If you were to ask that if this is correct where was the seventh family of which Rashi wrote that it had become extinct? We might have to assume that the missing family is that of Yishveh of the tribe of Asher. (Compare Genesis46,17, and Numbers 26,44, and the discrepancy in those two verses.) Rashi also writes that four families of the tribe of Levi appear to have disappeared between the first and the second census, i.e. the families of Shiee, Azieli, and some of the family of Yitzhar of whom only the family of Korach is listed here. This is certainly not meant to be an enumeration as only one third of the family are mentioned here when compared to the list in Exodus 6,21. Our author continues to quote lengthy comments by Rashi on this problem. [I have decided that the interested reader will prefer to read the text of Rashi for himself. Ed.]
+
+Verse 14
+
+
+
+Verse 15
+
+לצפון, this man is identical with צפיון in Genesis 46,16.
+
+Verse 16
+
+לאזני, according to Rashi, he is identical with Etzbon, as I have already explained on verse 13.
+
+Verse 17
+
+
+
+Verse 18
+
+
+
+Verse 19
+
+
+
+Verse 20
+
+לפרץ, the sons of Peretz were divided into three families; one bore the name of its founder, and the other two were Chetzron and Chamul.
+
+Verse 21
+
+
+
+Verse 22
+
+
+
+Verse 23
+
+
+
+Verse 24
+
+לישוב, he is identical with Yov (in Genesis 46,13) in that one ש was added to him from the two ש of his father (יששכר), and therefore, (the 2nd Shin) is not read in his father's name. 
+
+Verse 25
+
+
+
+Verse 26
+
+
+
+Verse 27
+
+
+
+Verse 28
+
+
+
+Verse 29
+
+בני מנשה למכיר, “as for the sons of Menashe, the ones of Machir, etc.” The names of all the tribes are listed here in the same sequence as they have been listed in Numbers chapter one, with the exception of Ephrayim andMenashe; in this instance Menashe has been named first. The principal reason maybe that it numbered so many more men of military age than the descendants of Ephrayim. While the Jewish people had been in the desert, the number of members of the tribe of Ephrayim had been greater than that of the descendants of Menashe. Furthermore, the flag of Ephrayim’s army group had been the leader of its group, and in that chapter the subject of the flags had first been mentioned, and a tribe leading such a contingent takes precedence over one that merely is an adjunct. In our chapter where the subject is the impending distribution of parts of the Holy Land to the various tribes of the Jewish people, mentioning Menashe, Joseph’s firstborn son first seems appropriate. After all, half of that tribe had also took a substantial portion of their inheritance on the east bank of the Jordan, alongside the tribes of Reuven and Gad.
+למכיר “to Machir;” the sons of Machir were divided amongst eight families, one bearing the name of its founding father, and the other bearing the name of Gilead, and the remaining six of the sixth bore the names of six of Gilead’s sons
+
+Verse 30
+
+
+
+Verse 31
+
+
+
+Verse 32
+
+
+
+Verse 33
+
+
+
+Verse 34
+
+
+
+Verse 35
+
+לשותלח, Shutelach’s family was divided into two families one named after its head and the other after Eyran.
+
+Verse 36
+
+ואלה בני שותלח, “and these are the sons of Shutelach, etc.; Rashi invites us to count all the families listed arriving at a count of 57 families for the 12 tribes plus eight families from the tribe of Levi. Actually, a look at our portion shows that the tribe of Levi comprised only 5 and a half families.
+
+Verse 37
+
+
+
+Verse 38
+
+לבלע, to Bela, etc;” the sons of Bela were divided into three families, one named after its founder, two after Arad and Naamon,
+לאחירם, he is identical with Ehi.
+
+Verse 39
+
+לשפופם, he is identical with מופים, in Genesis 46,21.
+לחופם, he is identical with חופים, in the verse just quoted. Five of Binyamin’s sons had died, i.e. בכר, גרא, נעמן, ראש and ארד. This is what Rashi had referred to on verse 13, when he wrote that 5 of Binyamin’s family were extinct.
+
+Verse 40
+
+בני בלע ערד ונעמן, the sons of Bela, Ard and Naamon; Bela had named his two sons in commemoration of two of his brothers who had died.
+
+Verse 41
+
+
+
+Verse 42
+
+
+
+Verse 43
+
+
+
+Verse 44
+
+בני אשר the sons of Asher. Yishveh is missing in this list, and this is why Rashi explains concerning Ozni, that he was identical with the family of Itzbon. If we were to assume that the family of Itzbon had died or been killed in war, there would be eight families missing from the previous census not only seven, five from Binyamin, Ohad, Itzbon, and Yishveh.
+לבריעה, of Beriah; the sons of Betriah were divided into three families, one was named after its founder, and Chever and Malkiel.
+
+Verse 45
+
+
+
+Verse 46
+
+.ושם בת אשר שרח, “whereas the name of Asher’s daughter was Serach.” We would have expected the Torah to write simply בת אשר סרח, “Asher’s daughter was Serach.” It appears that the reason why the Torah chose this longwinded version of saying the same thing was because it wished to give us a reason for why she was called “Serach.” She was generally referred to as “Asher’s daughter,” seeing she had grown up in his house although she was not biologically his daughter but his wife’s daughter. This also seems to be confirmed by the Targum who wrote: “and the name of Asher’s wife daughter was Serach.” The question remains open what was the name of her mother, if one of the sons of Yaakov had sired her, why did he not give her his name? If she was sired by a gentile, why was she counted as part of Yaakov’s offspring in Genesis chapter 46 and as a sister to Asher’s sons?Perhaps we may speculate that since she was known by her first name primarily as she had performed many worthy deeds, the title: “and her name was,” preceded her actual name, as a compliment. In the list of Yaakov’s offspring who went down to Egypt with Yaakov her name is listed preceding her status. (Genesis 46,17). This may have been due to her being much older than her younger brothers. The word: ושם, “and the name of,” before her actual name, suggests that “her name preceded her,” she had been well known for her deeds of charity, etc.
+
+Verse 47
+
+
+
+Verse 48
+
+
+
+Verse 49
+
+
+
+Verse 50
+
+ואלה משפחות נפתלי, “and these are the families from the tribe of Naftali;” this concludes the total of the families from the various tribes excluding those from the tribe of Levi, fifty seven families in all. The southern army command headed by the flag (tribe) of Reuven had four families from Reuven, five from Shimon and seven families from the tribe of Gad. The eastern army command headed by the tribe of Yehudah, had five families from that tribe, four families from the tribe of Issachar, and three families from the tribe of Zevulun. The western army command headed by Menashe comprised eight families from that tribe, four families from the tribe of Ephrayim, and seven families from the tribe of Binyamin. The northern army command, headed by the tribe (flag) of Dan, had one family from that tribe, five families from the tribe of Asher, and four families from the tribe of Naftali.
+
+Verse 51
+
+אלה פקודי בני ישראל וגו, “these were those who were numbered among the Children of Israel, six hundred thousand, seventeen hundred and thirty.” This total is smaller than the total reported at the previous census by eighteen hundred and twenty. If this total had been greater than the previous total they would have said that they were now numerically strong enough to take on the Canaanites militarily. G-d wanted to demonstrate to the people under the command of Joshua that though there were slightly fewer Israelite soldiers than forty years earlier when the spies had considered themselves too weak to conquer the Canaanites, they still would manage to do so, not because of their numbers but because of G-d’s assistance. When one enjoys His assistance numbers become irrelevant. (This point was made even more pronouncedly during the days of Gideon in Judges 7,7.)
+
+Verse 52
+
+
+
+Verse 53
+
+לאלה, “to these,” i.e. to the heads of these fifty seven families enumerated in this chapter the land will be divided up as ancestral inheritance. Each would receive a share corresponding to the number of family heads that had been numbered.
+
+Verse 54
+
+לרב תרבה וגו, to the numerically more numerous, etc.” they did not all receive equally sized plots of land, but the number of males in each family determined the number of plots each would receive. This is why the Torah referred to “its numbered.” 
+The word איש was added to exclude the number of women in each family as being irrelevant in this instance. It also excluded people of indeterminate sex. (Sifri)
+
+Verse 55
+
+ אך, nonetheless the aforesaid, Joshua and Calev, did not receive the share of the land according to the criteria mentioned, i.e. through lots, but by a direct command from G-d.
+אך בגורל יחלק את הארץ, “but the land is to be divided up by the use of lots (lottery)” But before the land would be divided up into 57 parcels by lot naming each tribe’s family heads, it would be divided into 12 sections, one for each tribe excluding the tribe of Levi. These twelve sections would each be given the name of one of the tribes and be tossed into a container with the names of the twelve tribes separately, and the respective parcels of land separately. The person monitoring the lottery would pull out of one section of the container the name of a tribe and out of the other section of that container a slip of parchment with the boundaries of the section allocated to the tribe so named. It would be found miraculously that tribes with larger populations had drawn larger sections of the land to be settled on. He would show both these pieces of parchment to all those assembled, so that it would be clear that no favoritism had occurred. If the land had been divided initially into 57 parcels according to the names of the heads of these 57 families, and only subsequently into 12 sections, different families would find that they were to be located on land belonging to the portion of a different tribe. When Bileam, with his mind’s eye viewed the Jewish people on their land, he described them as וירא את ישראל שוכן לשבטיו, “he envisioned Israel as dwelling in an orderly fashion according to its respective tribes, (Numbers 24,2) something which resulted in his being overcome by holy spirit. We also have a verse in Numbers 36,7 according to which when a female inherited some land before the original division she could not marry out of her tribe so that her husband could not through inheriting her share of the land diminish that tribe’s ancestral part of the land of Israel.
+לשמות מטות אביתם, “according to the names of the tribes of their fathers.” This appendix is meant to exclude converts and freed slaves from participating in that lottery.
+
+Verse 56
+
+על פי הגורל, “according to the lot, etc.” i.e. after the 12 boundaries of the tribal territories had become known.
+תחלק נחלתו, “shall each family’ share of inherited land be determined in accordance with the number of families in each tribe, i.e. four for the tribe of Reuven, and five for the tribe of Shimon, etc.”
+בין רב למעט, “between the more numerous ones and the less numerous ones.” How did this work out in practice? Four sections of land were accorded to the four families of Reuven, two of whom were large families and two of whom were relatively small families. The large family had to divide up their parcel into three shares according to the parchments used in the lottery two shares of ancestral land went to the two larger families, the third section being redivided and distributed to the two families who had fewer members. A pattern of distribution using the lottery was used throughout. All the families of the 12 tribes received their shares through having participated in a lottery. בין רב למעט, the letter ל in the word למעט has a dot under it, making the vowel chirik.
+
+Verse 57
+
+ואלה פקודי הלוי, “and these were they that were numbered among the Levites;” the purpose of that count was to apportion the 48 towns in which the Levites were to make their homes, fairly. This is spelled out in greater detail in the portion of Massey
+
+Verse 58
+
+
+
+Verse 59
+
+
+
+Verse 60
+
+
+
+Verse 61
+
+
+
+Verse 62
+
+שלשה ועשרים אלף, “twenty three thousand.” According to Bamidbar Rabbah 5,1 the Levites who carried the Holy Ark suffered losses in their numbers due to flashes of lightning emanating from that Ark from time to time.[This editor presumes that what is implied it is that not all the Levites all the time when engaged in that task had their minds on their holy task as they should have had. Or, seeing that the Levites had been counted not from the age of 20, but from the age of only one month, a number might have succumbed to sickness before they were strong enough. The number of adult Israelites involved in the census had hardly changed.
+
+Verse 63
+
+
+
+Verse 64
+
+
+
+Verse 65
+
+
+
+Chapter 27
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+ותקרבנה בנות צלפחד בן חפר, “The daughters of Tz’lofchod son of Chefer, approached; when they realised that only the males were being counted preparatory to the division of the land in the Land of Israel, including those of the family of Chefer, but not including them, and Tz’lofchod their father had also not been included.
+
+Verse 2
+
+
+
+Verse 3
+
+והוא לא היה בתוך העדה, “and he had not been among the rebels in the uprising of Korach against Moses;” neither had he been twenty years of age when the debacle with the spies had occurred, so that he could not have been included in the Israelites that G-d had vowed that they would not live to take part in the conquest on the land of Canaan at the appointed time. He had died as the result of a very personal sin, none that would result in his being denied a claim to ancestral land in the Land lof Israel.
+
+Verse 4
+
+
+
+Verse 5
+
+ויקרב משה את משפטן, “he submitted their legal claim to G-d;” Moses knew that women are entitled to inherit. What he did not know or agreed with, was if people such as Tz’lofchod had only a potential claim to such land, and that seeing that he never set foot on the land that he was still entitled to pass on that claim to his daughters.
+
+Verse 6
+
+
+
+Verse 7
+
+נתון תתן להם נחלה, “you are certainly to give them ancestral land as their inheritance.” It was really the inheritance of their father.
+בתוך אחי אביהם, “among the inheritance of their father’s brothers, i.e. this was all a part of their grandfather’s inheritance.
+להם אחוזת נחלה בתוך אחי אביהם, this is already thefourth time that the Torah refers to the daughters of Tz’lofchod with the masculine pronoun instead of the feminine one. [Note that Moses does not refer to them with the masculine pronoun ending. Ed.
+
+Verse 8
+
+
+
+Verse 9
+
+
+
+Verse 10
+
+
+
+Verse 11
+
+
+
+Verse 12
+
+ עלה אל הר העברים, “ascend the Mount Avarim!;” what is missing before this verse is that Moses had prayed to cross the Jordan in order to see the Holy and, and that G-d had told him that he would see it only from afar, i.e. from the top of Mount Avarim. [Compare Deuteronomy 3,23, Ed.]
+
+Verse 13
+
+כאשר נאסף אהרן אחיך, “just as your brother Aaron has been gathered.” G-d refers to the reason of their dying before entering the Holy Land, not to the manner of their death, [seeing that Moses had buried his brother Aaron, whereas no one was present at his own death.] Their “premature” death had been due to their having failed to exploit an opportunity to sanctify the Holy Name of Hashem. (Numbers 20,12). This is what Rashi comments on our verse. He adds that this verse is really not at the place where we would have expected it. It really belonged to the portion of Haazinu, where the Torah describes the sin of Moses and Aaron in different terms, [i.e. violating a negative commandment not just failing to observe a positive commandment. (Compare Deuteronomy 32,51)] According to the commentary in Sifri, the verse is appropriate here as the sin Moses and Aaron had been guilty of occurred in the desert of Tzin, immediately after Miriam had died and been buried, not in the fields of Moav where Moses made his final speech to the nation. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar is on record as saying that both Moses and Aaron died prematurely as a result of failing to sanctify the name of G-d as stated in Numbers 20. It is possible that out of deference to the image of Moses and Aaron, Rashi preferred not to mention the statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar. He only quoted the last item in that comment by Sifri.
+
+Verse 14
+
+
+
+Verse 15
+
+
+
+Verse 16
+
+ה' אלוקי הרוחות לכל בשר, “Lord, G-d of the spirits of all flesh;” compare Ezekiel 1,12 for a better understanding of this expression; Moses describes G-d as inspiring the spirit in man to proceed with any worthwhile undertaking and to persevere in pursuing it undaunted.
+
+Verse 17
+
+
+
+Verse 18
+
+
+
+Verse 19
+
+
+
+Verse 20
+
+ונתתה מהודן עליו, “and you shall divert part of your majesty to him;” we find a similar formulation to this in Daniel 11,21: ולא נתנו עליו הוד מלכות, “upon whom they did not confer the majesty of kingship.” Moses is asked by G-d to honour Joshua publicly as his successor, so that the people will accept him as such and will obey his instructions.
+
+Verse 21
+
+ולפני אלעזר הכהן יעמוד, “and he will stand in the presence of the High Priest Elazar;” so that he will not consider himself as superior to him and become boastful.
+
+Verse 22
+
+
+
+Verse 23
+
+ויסמוך את ידיו, “he laid his hands upon him.” This was similar to people offering animal sacrifices placing their hands and weight on these animals prior to their being slaughtered. The owner of the animals symbolically transferred his essence to the animal which would take his place instead, seeing that he really should have been the sacrifice. From this action it became clear that Moses transferred his authority to Joshua willingly, as instead of placing only one hand on him as G-d had commanded him, he did so with both of his hands. [Army commanders in the future would also be appointed by their superiors placing their hands on their juniors when promoting them. Compare author on Numbers 2,2.]
+
+Chapter 28
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+
+
+Verse 2
+
+תשמרו להקריב לי, “you shall observe in order to offer for Me.” Just as the word שמירה in connection with the lambs for the Passover meant: “close supervision, to prevent any blemish developing,” so here too the meaning is “close supervision prior to slaughtering the daily communal animal sacrifices.”
+להקריב לי במועדו, “to present to Me at its appointed time.” This applies even if the appointed time occurs on the Sabbath, or if the person offering it is temporarily ritually unclean. (Compare Sifri) [I did not find the reference to ritual impurity in my edition of the Sifri. Ed.] According to the author, it must mean that if no priest can be found on that day that is ritually pure. This offering must not be skipped even during time of war. [There are stories in the Talmud describing that the priests paid fortunes to the besieging Babylonians or Romans to supply such animals for them. Ed. We find that the angel remonstrated with Joshua for not having seen to it that this offering was offered while the army laid siege to Jericho (Talmud, tractate Megillah folio 3) An alternate interpretation: the emphasis here is on the word במועדו, “at its appointed time,” it must neither be offered too early in the morning nor too late in the afternoon.
+
+Verse 3
+
+
+
+Verse 4
+
+את הכבש אחד, “the one sheep;” Rashi explains that although this commandment had already been written in Exodus 29,38, at that time it applied only to the days during which the priests were consecrated. Now it applies permanently. If you were to argue that we find the word: לדורותיכם, “for your generations,” in the passage containing this law in Exodus, the word there might be understood as applying only to the minimum number of generations, i.e. two generations, whereas here it applies to all future generations when the Temple would be standing. This is also why it is introduced herewith the word: צו, “issue a command!” (verse 2) (Sifra, at the beginning of the portion Tzav.)
+
+Verse 5
+
+ועשירית האיפה סלת, “and the tenth of an eyphah of fine flour;” just as the “fine flour” mentioned in the passage in Exodus referred to flour from wheat, so here too it refers to flour ground from wheat. (Exodus 29,42). Whenever the Torah mentions the word סלת, it refers to fine flour made from wheat.
+בשמן כתית, “with beaten oil;” the olives were ground in a mortar and oil resulting was squeezed out by hand. It was not stored in a vat to prevent any residue from accumulating at the bottom of the vat. (B’chor shor)
+רביעית ההין, a quarter of a hin, i.e. three logs.
+
+Verse 6
+
+עולת תמיד העשויה בהר סיני, “it is a continual burnt offering which was offered at Mount Sinai. In other words, this practice began when the Jewish people were encamped around Mount Sinai, as we know from Exodus 24,5: וישלח את נערי בני ישראל ויעלו עולות, “Moses sent forth the young men of the Children of Israel and they offered burnt offerings. He intended that this practice should remain in use forever.
+
+Verse 7
+
+
+
+Verse 8
+
+וכנסכו, “and as its drinkoffering;” this is a reference to the libation consisting of wine, as well as to the drink offering accompanying the communal gift offering presented every morning.
+
+Verse 9
+
+וביום השבת, “and on every Sabbath, etc.” All of the offerings are described as being offered with either the word עשיה, something being carried out, or with the word הקרבה, something being presented. Seeing that basically such activities as offering sacrifices are forbidden on the Sabbath, the Torah avoids the use of these terms in connection with the communal offerings that are mandatory on the Sabbath nonetheless. The reader may therefore be misled by the absence of these words in connection with the communal offerings on the Sabbath.
+שני כבשים, “two male sheep” the Torah did not demand more than the minimal as additional communal sacrifices on the Sabbath. In fact that additional offering is equal to the daily morning and evening offerings. No sin offering is offered on the Sabbath as a communal offering, contrary to the musspah, additional offerings on the various festival days. The major reason is that seeing that parts of the sin offerings were meant to be consumed by the priests, the Torah did not want them to benefit from animals that were slaughtered on the Sabbath, something that in their private lives they were not allowed to do on the Sabbath. The Sabbath was “desecrated” only for offerings which were presented only to G-d. This is why the Torah adds the words: רצית קרבנותיה, “You received the offerings pertaining to the Sabbath with goodwill.” The exception to this rule is when New Moon occurs on the Sabbath and there is an additional offering including a sin offering on that day, due to the calendar day occurring on the Sabbath. (B’chor shor) At any rate, on ordinary Sabbath days the Torah made a distinction.
+ונסכו, “and the drink offering thereof.” This again refers to a libation consisting of wine.
+
+Verse 10
+
+עולת שבת בשבתו, “the burnt offering for the Sabbath, on its Sabbath; Festival days and New Moon both have an element of enabling atonement connected to them. This is why the Jewish people are advised of these days ahead of time, and are called upon to do repentance on them. Our sages tell us in the Talmud tractate Megillah folio 31, that as long as we read from the Torah the sections dealing with these days on their respective days or on the Sabbath preceding them, we are considered as if we had offered the sacrifices ordained to be offered on those days even if we had been prevented from doings so, such as when in exile and there being no Temple to do so. [On some of the festivals G-d sits in judgment of parts of His creation, such as the fruit of the earth, the trees, or if there will be sufficient rain, etc.. Since His decisions affect us greatly, doing some penitence even on those days is very appropriate, and is reflected in our liturgy on those days, and we do not restrict ourselves to Rosh Hashanah and the Day of Atonement. Ed.] In connection with the additional communal offerings on the Sabbath, no hint of the day serving as atonement in any form is given. The offerings on that day have only one objective, to provide G-d with a pleasant fragrance from His children, i.e. ריח ניחוח. This is also why the Mussaph prayer on the Sabbath is quite differently worded from the parallel prayers on the festivals. In those prayers the fact that we have been sinful and are therefore still in exile, is not mentioned with a single word or hint.
+ונסכה, “and its drink offering.” This is a reference to the drink offerings consisting of wine accompanying the daily communal burnt offerings.
+
+Verse 11
+
+ובראשי חדשיכם, “and on your New moon days, etc.;” this paragraph refers specifically to the day ushering in the month of Nissan, the month in which we were redeemed from Egypt our national birthdayas specifically stated in Exodus 12,2.
+פרים בני בקר שנים ואיל אחד, “two young bullocks and one ram;” The same animals are to be offered as mussaph offerings on Passover and on the festival of weeks, 50 days later; New Moon and these festivals are occasions when a great number of Jewish people are assembled around the Temple in Jerusalem. On Rosh Hashanah, the Day of Atonement and Sh’mini Atzeret, only one young bullock is offered as part of the mussaph offering. On Rosh Hashanah the reason is that there is anyways another bullock that is the burnt offering of the new Moon which occurs on the same date. On the day of Atonement, the bullock offered by the High Priest on his own behalf consists of a young bullock. Also, one of the male goats serves as a sin offering for the whole people, a source for their atonement on that day. On Shimini Atzeret, after for seven days a total of 70 bullocks had been offered on behalf of the seventy nations of the world, one, such young bullock is offered on behalf of the Jewish people.
+
+Verse 12
+
+
+
+Verse 13
+
+
+
+Verse 14
+
+בחדשו, of every new moon, i.e. at the time when the lunar cycle renews itself. It must be offered on that day, and no other day.
+
+Verse 15
+
+ושעיר עזים, “as well as one he-goat;” this is to serve as sin offering for the whole Jewish community. It symbolises the guilt of the whole Jewish people, i.e. the 10 brothers of Joseph who had been involved in his sale, and who had never offered an atonement offering at the time. In connection with this he-goat, the Torah adds the words: “for the Lord,” meaning that all of these sin offerings had to be offered as “for the sake of heaven.”
+על עולת “together with the burnt offerings already mentioned.”
+על עולת התמיד יעשה ונסכו, “it shall be offered as a continual burnt offering together with its drink offering.”
+ונסכו, this word, as on previous occasions, refers to the libation consisting of wine as a gift offering on a daily basis.
+
+Verse 16
+
+
+
+Verse 17
+
+
+
+Verse 18
+
+מקרא קדש, “a holy convocation.” Although the word מקרא appears with the letter א at the end, it is to be understood as if it had been spelled with the letter ה at the end meaning: ”a happening.” The Targum renders the verse as referring to a מערע, “a happy gathering involving food and drink, and fancy dress.”
+כל מלאכת עבודה, “any manner of servile work;” this type of work is prohibited to be carried out on such a day, whereas work involving the preparation of food and drink is permissible. This is the reason why the Torah here did not write as it did concerning Sabbath and on Yom Kippur: כל מלאכה לא תעשו, “you must not perform any manner of מלאכה, but on Yom Tov only forbade: “servile type of work.” כל מלאכת עבודה.
+
+Verse 19
+
+תמימים יהיו לכם, “they shall be free from blemish, for you.” If animals used as communal offerings on the Sabbaths or festivals should have a blemish disqualifying them as offerings, slaughtering such animals on the Sabbath or festival would be a grave sin. It would even be forbidden to remove the skins of such animals on either the Sabbath or the festival. This is why the prophet Ezekiel, Ezekiel 22,8 stated: קדשי בזית ואת שבתותי חללת, “you have despised My holy things, and you have profaned My Sabbaths.” This is also why no mention is made of the animals for the offerings on New Moon having to be free from blemish. It is clear that all animals for offerings must be free from blemishes on any day of the week, but if these animals are offered on a day when certain work must not be performed, if such an animal is nonetheless being offered, the person doing so has committed an additional sin, that of profaning the holiness of the day.
+
+Verse 20
+
+
+
+Verse 21
+
+
+
+Verse 22
+
+
+
+Verse 23
+
+
+
+Verse 24
+
+כאלה תעשו ליום שבעת ימים, “After this manner you shall present offerings for seven consecutive days;” previously, when this festival had been discussed in Leviticus in the latter part of chapter 23, where not the offerings but the location of them in our own land are the central focus of the Torah, the blessings related to these festivals are highlighted, and therefore our gratitude for them. In this chapter the Torah highlights the details of the offerings to be presented on those occasions.
+ונסכו, and its drink offering;” the verse refers to the words: 'לחם אשה לה, at the beginning of our verse, i.e. “the food of the offering for G-d made by fire;” what is meant specifically are the drink offerings accompanying the animal offerings as gift offerings, מנחה, including the meal (baked flour) parts of such offerings.
+
+Verse 25
+
+
+
+Verse 26
+
+וביום הבכורים, “And on the day of offering the first fruits, etc,” The reason why this day is called: “the day of the first fruits,” is that commencing with that date the farmer can present such fruit from the current harvest in the Temple as his gift to G-d, i.e. the priests, His terrestrial representatives. The verse failed to mention the month, and from which day of that month this regulation applies. I have already explained the reason for this omission in my commentary on Leviticus23,21.
+בשבועותיכם, “on your feast of weeks;” the word is translated by the Targum as בעצרתיכון; since the Targum appeared, or in deference to its author, in the rabbinic literature the name of the festival has been changed to Atzeret. [Presumably, this is on account of the stoppage of counting the omer. Ed.] Previously, this festival had been known as Shavuot.
+
+Verse 27
+
+
+
+Verse 28
+
+
+
+Verse 29
+
+
+
+Verse 30
+
+שעיר עזים אחד, “one male goat;” we have a statement recorded near the end of the Babylonian Talmud tractate Rosh Hashanah, that in the land of Israel the scholars quoting Rabbi Mesharshia in the name of Rabbi Acha, draws attention to the fact that whereas with all the other such sacrifices the term used is חטאת, “sinoffering,” whereas here the reference to sin is omitted. He explains by quoting the Lord saying to the Israelites: “seeing that this is the anniversary of the day on which you voluntarily accepted the yoke of My Torah, I consider this as if you had not committed any sins to be atoned for prior to this day.” (Jerusalem Talmud Rosh Hashanah chapter 4, halachah 10)
+
+Verse 31
+
+מלבד עולת התמיד, “beside the daily burnt offering;” if you were to ask why the Torah did not write: beside the two showbreads, etc. etc., which are all part of the offerings presented on Atzeret (as the Torah had done in connection with the New moon offerings, and the offerings on the Day of Atonement?) We would respond to this question by reminding the reader that earlier, in verse 26, these details had already been recorded so that there was no need to repeat them here again. Beside they referred to the gift offerings, not the principal offerings.
+ונסכיהם, “and their drink offerings.” This refers to the wine libations on the day of Shavuot and the meal offerings accompanying the principal offerings.
+
+Chapter 29
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+
+
+Verse 2
+
+כבשים בני שנה שבעה תמימים, “seven unblemished male sheep one year old.” If you were to ask how this can be squared with the opinion of the scholar that on New Year the animals attain their “birthday,” [as opposed to the anniversary of their date of birth. Ed.] so that they are no longer one year old but are already in their second year, (Talmud tractate Niddah folio 47) and we need a male sheep exactly one year old? (Tractate Parah chapter 1 Mishnah 3)? We would have to answer that according to that scholar the eighth day of life of these sheep occurs on New Year’s so that they just began to qualify as potential offerings and had not yet entered their second year. They could not have been called two years old as the count of years did not begin until they were old enough to qualify as potential sacrifices. (From the eighth day of their lives) Therefore, on the day when they were offered as sacrifices they had not entered their second year of “life.” The Torah had hinted at such a scenario when it wrote (Leviticus 22,27) “and from the eighth day onwards it is fit as a potential offering acceptable by G-d with goodwill.”
+
+Verse 3
+
+
+
+Verse 4
+
+
+
+Verse 5
+
+
+
+Verse 6
+
+מלבד עולת החדש, “in addition of the New Moon burnt offering;” if you were to ask why the Torah did not simply write: “in addition to the sinoffering for the New Moon,?” We would have to answer that all the burnt offerings have equal power to achieve atonement for its donors both those who transgressed negative commandments unintentionally and those who failed to perform negative commandments that are linked to the performance of a positive commandment. This works as follows: the burnt offerings of the new Moon achieve atonement for sins committed inadvertently, the sinner not having been aware of his sin when he committed it, nor after he had completed it. [He might have learned about the existence of such a commandment only after having become guilty of transgressing it. Ed.] Our sages explain this based on what is written in connection with the offering, the word 'לה, in verse 15 being apparently superfluous, [unless we consider the Midrash which interprets it as a sin offering actually offered on behalf of G-d, Who makes amends for having reduced the moon in size, as the plain meaning of the text. (Compare Talmud tractate Chulin folio 60. Ed.] On the other hand, (according to B’chor shor) the New Year burnt offerings presented on the same day affords atonement to sinners who did not know when they began to commit the transgression in question that it was a transgression, but who had become aware of the nature of their transgression before having completely carried it out. On account of this nuance, the Torah mentions both kind of offerings.
+ונסכיהם, “and their respective drink offerings.” This refers to the drink offerings accompanying the offerings on Rosh Hashanah. It also includes the libations both of wine and meal offerings of both the burnt offering of the New Moon, and that of the daily communal burnt offering.
+
+Verse 7
+
+ובעשר לחודש השביעי הזה, “and on the tenth day of the seventh month in this year, etc.” the word: “this” refers to the month which the Torah had just kept calling the seventh month of the year [although the year began on the first day of this month. Ed.] The Torah therefore used the word “seventh” as referring to a year which had commenced with the month of Nissan. In Kings I 8,2, the author describes the month of Tishrey, i.e. ירח האיתנים, the month in which we celebrate the festival of Sukkot, as the seventh month, in connection with the consecration of the Temple which Solomon had built[, and the celebrations for a full week after the festival of Sukkot]. Targum Yonathan on that verse states clearly that it was the month that the Torah had just described as the seventh month.
+
+Verse 8
+
+
+
+Verse 9
+
+
+
+Verse 10
+
+
+
+Verse 11
+
+שעיר עזים אחד חטאת, “one male goat, a sinoffering.” The words: ”in order to atone for you,” did not need to be added as the Day itself is a day of Atonement. [If that were not so, how could we secure atonement every year on that date when we are in exile and have no Temple in which to present animal offerings? Ed.]
+מלבד חטאת הכפורים, “beside the sin offering of atonement;” Rashi comments on this: the reference is to the male goat offered on the altar inside the Sanctuary, the one referred to in Leviticus 16,9. The reason the Torah did not mention this here is that we are dealing here only with the communal offerings, paid for by the Jewish public. The bullock offered on the Day of Atonement on behalf of Aaron was paid for by Aaron personally.
+ונסכיהם, “and their drinkofferings.” This refers to the libations of wine and meal offerings of all the offerings that were presented on the Day of Atonement.
+
+Verse 12
+
+
+
+Verse 13
+
+פרים בני בקר שלשה עשר, כבשים בני שנה ארבעה עשר .“thirteen young bullocks, fourteen male young sheep (who had not completed the first year of their lives.).” Seeing that the festival of Sukkot is more joyous than all the other festivals, because the year’s harvest had been brought to their barns prior to that time, and the people had acknowledged this with erecting a Sukka booth and parading the palm fronds and citron, etc., it is not surprising that the communally financed mussaph offerings should also reflect that additional joy and thanksgiving by being correspondingly more generous. (B’chor shor).
+
+Verse 14
+
+
+
+Verse 15
+
+ועשרון עשרון, “and a separate tenth of a hin of wine as a libation for each male sheep;” (Compare commentary by Minchat Shay)
+
+Verse 16
+
+ונסכה, “and its drink offering.” This refers to the libations of wine and meal offerings belonging to the special offerings for the festival.
+
+Verse 17
+
+וביום השני פרים שנים עשר, “and on the second day of the Sukkot festival, the mussaph offering is to consist of twelve young bullocks, plus;” just as the fruit which the pilgrims had brought with them to Jerusalem, diminished daily, so did the requirements for the additional number of animals for the communal mussaph offerings. This is a phenomenon that we did not find on the other festivals. If the people had been required to finance the same amount of money for the additional animals required for the mussaph offerings they might have resented this and it would have spoiled the happy atmosphere prevailing.
+
+Verse 18
+
+
+
+Verse 19
+
+ונסכיהם, “and (together with) their drinkofferings.” When the expression נסך is used elsewhere it always refers to libations of wine and the oil and meal offerings. Seeing that the mussaph offerings on the festival of Sukkot are different each day, the Torah here has to refer to these offerings repeatedly each day separately, as they were not the same as on the day mentioned previously. This was not the case with the mussaph offerings on the seven days of Passover.
+
+Verse 20
+
+
+
+Verse 21
+
+
+
+Verse 22
+
+
+
+Verse 23
+
+
+
+Verse 24
+
+
+
+Verse 25
+
+
+
+Verse 26
+
+
+
+Verse 27
+
+
+
+Verse 28
+
+
+
+Verse 29
+
+
+
+Verse 30
+
+
+
+Verse 31
+
+
+
+Verse 32
+
+וביום השביעי פרים עשרה, “and on the seventh day, ten young bullocks.” The total number of young bullocks offered on the seven days of Sukkot was seventy. This corresponded to the fifty two Sabbath days in the year, seven days of Passover, one day of Shavuot, one day of New Year, one day of Atonement, and eight days of Sukkot/Sh’mini Atzeret. According to Rashi the seventy bullocks represent the seventy nations of the world. In the days of the Temple these sacrifices protected them against suffering and misfortune, as the Prophet Zechariah said (14.18-19) that the festival of Sukkot protects them more than any other precept.
+
+Verse 33
+
+
+
+Verse 34
+
+ושעיר חטאת אחד, “and one male goat;” the words: לכפר עליכם, “to atone on your behalf,” do not appear in connection with the ones offered on the other days of the festival, as they were offered on behalf of the gentile nations, whereas on the last day of the festival the mussaph offering was presented on behalf of the Jewish people. Their atonement, if any, had no connection with the atonement granted to the Jewish people. An alternate interpretation of this: the Israelites were not yet in need of any atonement having been forgiven their sins on the Day of Atonement four days before the commencement of the Sukkot festival, and having spent the last eight days busy with performing a large number of additional commandments. Proof of this is that we do not read about: “to atone on your behalf,” on any day after the Day of Atonement in this chapter.
+
+Verse 35
+
+ביום השמיני, “on the eighth day;” the Torah does not use the connective letter ו when introducing this paragraph, in order to teach us that this day was considered a festival in its own right.
+עצרת תהיה לכם, “it is to be an assembly for you;” (alternative translation: a restriction) this is why it is called:, “the eighth day, the festival of assembly.” שמיני חג העצרת. This is also why the shavuot festival is also called: עצרת, as the Torah has written in 28,26: בשבועותיכם which the Targum translated בעצרותיכן, “on your gatherings, detention;” this term has not been applied to the seventh day of Passover, where it only said: “for the Lord your G-d.” [The Torah also had given specific permission for the people who had made the pilgrimage to Jerusalem for Passover, to leave for home on the morning after having consumed the Paschal lamb. (Deut. 16,7) Ed.]
+ביום השמיני עצרת תהיה לכם, “on the eighth day you shall have a solemn assembly.” If all this is so important why did the sages permit us to leave the sukkah on the seventh day already? The reason is so that we would feel the need to pray for the rain of the rainy season to commence falling. If we still had to sit in the sukkah, we could not be expected to do this wholeheartedly.
+
+Verse 36
+
+פר אחד, איל אחד, “one bullock, one ram. G-d requested the minimum number of sacrifices from the Jewish people on that day, to show that He detained them only because of His fondness of them. (B’chor shor)
+
+Verse 37
+
+
+
+Verse 38
+
+
+
+Verse 39
+
+לעולותיכם, “as your burnt offerings, etc.” for example the male sheep offered as such on Sabbath days when these occurred on Passover or Sukkot.” [as at least one Sabbath had to fall on each of these festivals. Ed.]
+
+Chapter 30
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+
+
+Verse 2
+
+אל ראשי המטות, “to the leaders of the tribes;” It would be their task to enforce this law. An alternate interpretation by Ibn Ezra: this paragraph was revealed to the people after the punitive expedition against Midian, seeing that these verses are continuous until the end of verse three. Rashi claims that the manner in which Moses ensured that the respective legislation reached the people was the same as in this instance, and he proves it from Exodus 34,3132 where the Torah wrote: 'וישובו אליו אהרן וגו, “and all of them returned to Moses, i.e. Aaron, the princes, etc.”This particular verse was spoken by Moses when he had just descended from Mount Sinai on the Day of Atonement equipped with all the commandments. Rashi adds here that the reason this formula has been used here by the Torah especially, is in order to teach that annulling vows can only be done by a judge authorised to do so, or in the absence of such by three laymen. This law has a unique feature in that a single judge, if an expert in that legislation is empowered to do so. The reference to the leaders of the tribes shows that such individuals possess special powers, whereas the words: “and to the Children of Israel,” mean that three laymen can accomplish the same as an expert without a colleague. This is stated in the Talmud tractate Nedarim folio 78, where Rav Acha says that the words: “Aaron, his sons, and the Children of Israel,” teach that an ad hoc court of three laymen can perform this task. If so, why does the Torah stress that this legislation be revealed foremost to the heads of the tribes, suggesting that these are people of superior knowledge? This suggests the opposite, i.e. that laymen are excluded!? Rabbi Chisda states that this is to teach that when an individual is indeed an expert in the legalese required, he can act independently.
+זה הדבר אשר צוה ה, “this is the matter that the Lord has commanded:” The Torah did not reveal where G-d commanded the following law to Moses. This is only one of numerous prophetic announcements by Moses where the time and location where Moses received these instructions has not been revealed. Examples quoted by our author are: Exodus 10,3, Exodus 11,4, Exodus 32,27 and his commentary there.
+
+Verse 3
+
+או השבע שבועה לאסור איסר, “or swears an oath to declare something permitted to others as forbidden to himself;” what is the difference between making a “vow” and “swearing an oath,” seeing both place something out of bounds to the party making such a declaration?When making a vow the object of the vow is placed out of bounds to the party who makes such a vow, whereas when swearing an oath, the party swearing it places himself out of bounds to the object or people that are the subject of such an oath. Even though the Torah has not spelled this out specifically, we find hints that this is so in the wording used by the Torah to describe these two kinds of self imposed restrictions. (Compare Sifri) If someone says: “by the Life of Hashem and by your own life, I am not going to abandon you,” he is stating that Hashem is alive, and that the party to whom he makes such a statement is alive. Using the name of the Lord as relevant to one’s own standing, is something which makes it such a severe sin if it turns out that one does not honour such a vow or oath.
+לא יחל דברו, “he must not delay fulfillment of his words indefinitely.”Alternately, he must not profane his own solemn undertaking by not honouring it.” We find this expression used in this sense in Psalms 130,7: 'יחל ישראל אל ה, “keep faithfully waiting, o Israel for Hashem fulfilling His undertakings” where the Psalmist has G-d urging Israel to wait patiently for G-d to honour His vows. G-d can be depended on to fulfill His vows or oaths. The party failing to fulfill his vow must not profane himself by doing so. However, others, i.e. a legal court have the power to release him from the obligations he imposed himself at a time of personal stress, not realising all the implications of what he had said at that time. (Talmud tractate Chagigah, folio 10).
+
+Verse 4
+
+
+
+Verse 5
+
+ושמע אביה, “and her father has heard about it (the vow).” The Torah speaks only about when the father has heard about his daughter’s vow from her directly. What is the legal status if he heard about her vow only from others? This is why the Torah continues that “all her vows remain in force.” Even if he heard about it only indirectly, he can use his authority to annul it.
+
+Verse 6
+
+
+
+Verse 7
+
+או מבטא שפתיה, “or the utterance of her lips;” this does not refer to a casual few words, but is an alternate formula describing an oath, as we know from Leviticus 5,4: כי תשבע לבטא בשפתים, “or if one swears clearly with his lips etc.”
+
+Verse 8
+
+ושמע אישה, “and her husband hears about it;” here Rashi comments that the Torah implies that her husband had silently approved of his wife’s vow that it remains valid. [Our author appears to have had a different version of Rashi’s commentary from that which appears in our editions. Ed.]
+
+Verse 9
+
+
+
+Verse 10
+
+
+
+Verse 11
+
+
+
+Verse 12
+
+
+
+Verse 13
+
+
+
+Verse 14
+
+
+
+Verse 15
+
+
+
+Verse 16
+
+ונשא את עונה, “and he will bear the burden of her guilt.” She was as if having acted under compulsion, as she was under the impression that her husband was able to cancel her vow even after he had known about it for more than a day.
+
+Verse 17
+
+
+
+Chapter 31
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+
+
+Verse 2
+
+נקום נקמת, “wreak vengeance!” the plain text appears to charge Moses personally with having to wreak this vengeance. However, seeing that he had been raised in Midian and had been saved from Pharaoh’s vengeance during all his years there, it would not have been moral for him to do this himself, just as he did not strike the river Nile during the plagues, as that river, i.e. its banks, had helped to save his life when he was an infant. He sent delegates as we read in verse 6, where the Torah quotes Moses as dispatching the 12000 soldiers to conduct the punitive campaign. [all righteous men who had not been involved in the shameful episode at Shittim, Ed.]
+
+Verse 3
+
+לתת נקמת ה' במדין, “to execute the Lord’s vengeance against Midian. It is peculiar to read this, as G-d’s instructions had been to execute the Children of Israel’s vengeance against Midian. (verse 2) What made Moses change the venue?We must imagine that Moses, upon hearing the instructions, had said to G-d: “the vengeance is really Yours o Lord, as the only reason why the Canaanites, Midianites, etc hate us, is on account of You.” (B’chor shor). This is why the Israelites went to war against the Midianites, who were not part of the Moabites whose measure of guilt had not yet made them candidates for destruction by G-d. The Midianites had meddled in matters that did not concern them, and had no reason to fear the Israelites as their geographic location did not block Israel’s access to the Land of Canaan. The prophet Bileam had already stated that though he could foresee the complete collapse of Moav, he saw it as occurring in the distant future. [700 800 years later the Israelites were still involved in wars against Moav during the time of Elijah and Elisha. Ed.] At any rate, the Moabites had several reasons to fear the aggression of the Israelites so that they could be excused for acting in a hostile manner against them. One of their complaints was that the Israelites had actually conquered land that used to belong to Moav when they defeated King Sichon of the Canaanites, who conquered those lands previously from the Moabites. The Israelites had not returned it to Moav, but had settled it.
+
+Verse 4
+
+לכל מטות ישראל, “of each of the tribes of Israel.” This included even the tribe of Levi. (Compare both Sifri and Rashi) Seeing that the Midianites had had evil intentions also against the tribe of Levi, there was no reason why that tribe should not participate in this punitive campaign.
+
+Verse 5
+
+וימסרו מאלפי ישראל, “there were ‘delivered’ from the thousands of Israelite men of military age, etc.” These men were not volunteers but conscripts as Rashi has explained. G-d had told Moses to select these conscripts by means of lots. (Bamidbar Rabbah 22,3.)
+
+Verse 6
+
+
+
+Verse 7
+
+
+
+Verse 8
+
+על חלליהם, “with their other slain comrades;” the word על here means: “with,” as for instance in Leviticus 25,31. (Compare what our author explains on that verse). Compare also על עולות התמיד in Numbers 28,15, as well as Exodus 35,20 האנשים על הנשים, “the men with the women,” and numerous other examples.
+ואת בלעם, “and Bileam;” after Bileam had returned from Moav to Aram Naharayim, his home base, he traveled toMidian in order to collect a fee from the elders of Midian who had been in the first delegation Balak had sent to him to ask him to curse the Israelites. When he heard that a great plague had befallen the Israelites, he wanted to cash in on this, claiming that he had been the instrument that brought this about, by having suggested that the Moabite women seduce their males into promiscuity by sleeping with their women. (Ibn Ezra) An alternate interpretation explaining Bileam’s sudden presence amongst the Midianites: when he had explained to the Moabites that the reason that he was unable to curse these people effectively was because they had been so loyal to their G-d and His Torah, (Numbers 23,21) the Moabites took the hint and succeeded to lead them into sin. Having succeeded in this, they sent Bileam another invitation stressing that now he could curse them effectively. He followed their advice and was killed as a result.
+
+Verse 9
+
+
+
+Verse 10
+
+
+
+Verse 11
+
+
+
+Verse 12
+
+
+
+Verse 13
+
+ויצאו משה ואלעזר הכהן, “Moses and the High Priest Elazar went out to welcome back the soldiers (before they reached the camp);”they could not admit them to the camp because having killed human beings they had all become ritually impure and required seven days of purification.
+
+Verse 14
+
+
+
+Verse 15
+
+כל נק��ה, “any female;”(among the prisoners taken); this is not the only time when the word כל, does not mean: “each” or “all;” we have other examples such as in Exodus 20,10: לא תעשה כל מלאכה, ”do not perform any menial work;” or Exodus 22,21: כל אלמנה ויתום, “any widow or orphan.” There are quite a few more examples that could be cited.
+
+Verse 16
+
+בדבר בלעם למסור מעל, “to break faith (with G-d) through Bileam’s counsel;” he had taught these women how to lead the Israelites into grievous sin. (see verse 18 for details)
+
+Verse 17
+
+!וכל אשה יודעת איש למשכב זכר הרוגו, “and kill any woman that has known a man by having carnal relations with him!”Rashi questions why the Torah had to repeat the command: “kill” in this verse. He bases himself on Sifri, item 157, where it is explained that without this repetition we might have misunderstood due to the Torah also having stated that certain categories of females were allowed to live. [In other words, we would not have known if to understand the word: כל as “each” or as “any.”] The repetition makes it clear that the meaning is: “any.”An alternate explanation for why the word: הרוגו, “Kill!” had to be repeated at the end of this verse. If any woman old enough had to be killed even though she was still a virgin, surely a woman who had already experienced carnal relations would have had to be killed also! We have a rule that logic is not sufficient to allow us to apply a penalty to someone guilty of such. Therefore the Torah had to spell out that such women had to be killed, and we could not simply use our logic to act upon in such a case. If you were to reason that the Torah could have avoided using this word at the beginning of the verse and written as follows: 'ועתה כל זכר וכל אשה יודעת איש וגו, “and therefore now, every male and every woman who has had carnal knowledge of a man, etc.,” the problem we would have had if the Torah had written this would be that we might have thought that as long as a minor male, not yet capable of indulging his libido, would not become liable to death until he had done so. We would have to deliberately present him with this opportunity in order to justify executing him and his partner. Considering all this, the Torah wrote: ועתה הרגו כל זכר בטף, “therefore kill now every male amongst the children,” i.e. immediately, without waiting, and kill every female if examination proves that she is no longer a virgin, seeing that this is proof that she had carnal knowledge of a male.
+
+Verse 18
+
+וכל הטף בנשים אשר לא ידעו איש וגו, “but any children among the women who have not had carnal knowledge, etc.” you shall let live for your benefit. This formulation prompted Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai to state that a female convert who has not attained the age of three years and a day, is fit to marry a priest. [as she could not have been contaminated through carnal intercourse] (Sifri on this verse)
+
+Verse 19
+
+ואתם חנו חוץ למחנה, “as for you, meanwhile make camp outside the camp of the Israelites;” even though someone contaminated through contact with a corpse is not even permitted to stay within the camp of the ordinary Israelites but even in the area allocated to the Levites, these soldiers did not want to avail themselves of this rule. They were afraid that through physical contact they might cause other people to become ritually impure. There were so many people in the camp that they were unable to not inadvertently touch some of them. As their ritual status was the one called av hatumah, primary source of ritual impurity, this meant that people or vessels touching them would immediately contract a secondary level of impurity at least.
+תתחטאו, “become purified” Rashi explains that the means of purification was the same as if they had become contaminated by contact with a Jewish corpse, although there are opinions that a gentile corpse does not confer ritual impurity on a Jew. This opinion refers only to impurity conferred by being in the same covered airspace with the corpse. All authorities agree that physical contact with the corpse of a gentile does confer ritual impurity on that Jew. The disagreement revolves around the word אדם, whether it could be applied to gentiles. (Compare Ezekiel 34,31) The situations in which this type of ritual impurity occurs are spelled out in Numbers 19,16 as being: “physical contact with someone slain by the sword, death by natural causes, or contact with a grave or human bone,” as requiring a purification period of seven consecutive days. Seeing that this verse does not mention being in the same tent as the dead body or limb, as did verse 14 there, the fact that separate verses are used, supports the opinion that verse 16 applies also to gentile corpses.
+ביום השלישי וביום השביעי “on the third day and the seventh day;” The Torah here stresses the ritual to be performed while purifying themselves when unclean due to having killed Midianites, although it did not do so when the Israelite soldiers killed the members of the Canaanite nations during the war of conquest under the leadership of Joshua. The reason is that only 12000 soldiers were involved in the campaign against the Midianites, whereas the entire male population was involved in the war of conquest, and we know from the Talmud that when the majority of the people are in a state of ritual uncleanness due to contact with corpses, the restrictions applying to people in such a condition are waived. [During wartime even the most repugnant gentile foods etc., are permitted to be eaten by the soldiers when this ensures that they have sufficient nourishment.] The same was true even for the civilian population immediately after the conquest of the land of Canaan, as the Torah refers to the people having been given “houses fully stocked with the necessities of life,” i.e. unless they were allowed to use them, why would the Torah describe them as a “gift” from G-d? (Talmud, tractate Chulin, folio 17, based on Deuteronomy 6,11.) In contrast to the wars of conquest in Canaan, the 12000 soldiers conducting the punitive expedition against Midian, campaign which was primarily a religious war, were not allowed to take advantage of what would be permitted during the wars of conquest for the whole nation. They remained bound by all the laws governing personal purity, and this is why they had to undergo the purification rites on the third and seventh day as indicated here. The fact that they did not sustain a single casualty during that campaign is evidence of the different nature of that campaign. Moreover, the cause of the campaign had been the fact that meant thousands of Israelites had contaminated themselves spiritually, by worshipping the Baal Peor. (Numbers 25,3). The soldiers from the punitive campaign undergoing a purification ritual therefore also had a symbolic significance, seeing that not every soldier may have been involved in killing a Midianite. Therefore, even if there was only a doubt about their having touched a Midianite corpse, the Torah decreed the purification process.
+
+Verse 20
+
+וכל בגד, “and any garment;” as that garment might have touched a Midianite corpse.
+
+Verse 21
+
+ויאמר אלעזר הכהן, “the High Priest Elazar said:” the reason that it was Elazar who issued the instructions following concerning how to purify the loot, was that it had been he who had prepared the first red heifer whose ashes would be the instrument that made the purification process possible. (Numbers 19,3) Although Moses had instructed him in these procedures, of course, and Elazar had quoted him, he was punished for preempting Moses in revealing what the procedures were to be taken now. The punishment was that we do not find that Joshua again required the services of the High Priest Elazar, although when he had been appointed the Torah had written that “he will stand before Elazar the High Priest,” (Numbers 26,21) suggesting that the latter outranked Joshua. (Talmud tractate Eyruvin, folio 63)
+זאת חקת התורה, “this is the statute of the Torah;” he referred to what Moses had told him in verse 19, that anyone who had killed someone had to undergo the purification rites. The details had all been spelled out in Numbers chapter 19 commencing with verse 13 when the details of the red heifer are discussed.
+
+Verse 22
+
+
+
+Verse 23
+
+,וטהר, אך במי נדה יתחטא. “it will become pure, but must still be purified further with the water of sprinkling, called: mey niddah. Rabba bar Avuhi in the Talmud tractate Avodah Zarah folio 75, states that the language of the Torah does not only refer to used utensils, if they had not been used for 12 months, but even for new vessels not produced by Jews if these are meant to be used in the consumption of food or preparation of food. The manner of purifying same is less demanding than the purification of human beings who had been in contact with dead bodies or body parts. When Rabbi Yirmiyah heard of the statement of Rabbi Rabbah, he added that his rule applies only to vessels that have been acquired (purchased or looted) and had been handled by Israelites. If they had only been borrowed temporarily they do not require such purification. Vessels that are made of earthenware cannot be purified unless first broken up when they can be reconstituted by having the shards put in a kiln after treatment by the artisan. Mar bar rav Ashi, is on record as telling people that his father was in the habit of using vessels made from silver that he had received from gentiles as security of loans extended to them. He drank from these vessels (after immersing them in a ritual bath only without submitting them to further purification first). His son was not sure if he did so because he considered them as a loan to him. Or, these vessels were not used to contain matters which had been heated first, such as soup, etc, in which case they would have required a higher degree of purification. (boiling water being poured over them, or if they were small enough, immersing them in boiling water). According to Rashi, Mar bar Rav Ashi’s father was convinced that the borrower who had left this silver vessel with him as security would never demand it back and repay the loan, so that he considered it as his, else he would not have been allowed it as it was given to him for safekeeping. In effect, he had bought it and his payment had been the money he “loaned” to the previous owner.
+
+Verse 24
+
+וכבסתם בגדיכם, “and you have to wash your garments.” It goes without saying that you also have to wash your bodies. We have another example of a similar construction in Exodus 19,10 when the Jewish people are instructed by Moses in the name of the Lord to wash their garments, וכבסו שמלותם, as part of sanctifying themselves in advance of the revelation at Mount Sinai. Another example of this is found in Numbers 19,10, where the man handling the procedure involving the red heifer is required to wash his garments. [“Washing” in all of these instances is not what we call “laundering,” but is a reference for immersion in a ritual bath. Ed.]
+
+Verse 25
+
+
+
+Verse 26
+
+
+
+Verse 27
+
+
+
+Verse 28
+
+מאת אנשי המלחמה, אחד נפש מחמש המאות, “one item in each five hundred, be it a person or chattel or animal.” Seeing that the warriors had born the brunt of the burden of this campaign, their “tithe” for the Lord is relatively much smaller in terms of the percentage they must give to the Temple treasury. It would be handed over to the High Priest Elazar. (verse 29)
+
+Verse 29
+
+
+
+Verse 30
+
+אחד אחוז מן החמשים ונתתה אותם ללוים, (from the half share of the other Israelites) “you shall withhold one in every fifty (humans, cattle, and chattels) and give them to the Levites.” When the Levites received 10 shares out of every thousand, the priests took for themselves one share. [Rabbi Chavell points out that our author appears to have made a miscalculation here. I will not get involved in this. Ed.]
+מן הבקר ומן החמורים ומן הצאן, “from the herds, the donkeys and the flocks.” Why were the camels not mentioned, seeing that there must have been very many of them? In the war against Midian under Gideon (Judges 6,51) the author tells us that the number of camels captured were too many to bother counting. Apparently, only these animals were counted as qualifying for the Temple treasury which were ritually pure, or which the Torah had accorded a special status such as donkeys, whose first born males had to be redeemed. (Exodus chapter 13,15) We may assume that the camels were included in when the Torah wrote: ממל הבהמה, from all of the livestock in our verse.
+
+Verse 31
+
+
+
+Verse 32
+
+יתר הבז, “the excess of the loot;” this refers to what the soldiers had consumed prior to returning to camp.
+
+Verse 33
+
+
+
+Verse 34
+
+
+
+Verse 35
+
+
+
+Verse 36
+
+
+
+Verse 37
+
+
+
+Verse 38
+
+
+
+Verse 39
+
+
+
+Verse 40
+
+
+
+Verse 41
+
+
+
+Verse 42
+
+
+
+Verse 43
+
+
+
+Verse 44
+
+
+
+Verse 45
+
+
+
+Verse 46
+
+
+
+Verse 47
+
+
+
+Verse 48
+
+
+
+Verse 49
+
+ולא נפקד ממנו איש, “and not one of us who had been counted is unaccounted for.” The remarkable thing here was that we have a rule that a headcount is liable to result in a plague, and that there is no remedy against this. Our sages therefore do not understand the word נפקד here in the conventional sense, but they translate it to mean that none of the 12000 soldiers in this campaign had become guilty of a personal sin, which might have resulted in Satan having an excuse to kill him. (Talmud tractate Shabbat folio 64)
+
+Verse 50
+
+ונקרב את קרבן ה', לכפר על נפשותינו, ”we have broughtthe Lord’s offering......to make atonement for our souls.” Wehad made this commitment already before having been counted in order to protect us against the potential harm that might befall us on account of the count. This is why we have now brought it to the Tabernacle. We find confirmation for this interpretation in Exodus 30,16: ולקחת את כסף הכפויים ונתת אותו על עבודת אהל מועד, “and you shall take (accept) the atonement money from the Children of Israel and shall appoint it for the service of the Tent of Meeting;”
+ונקרב את קרבן ה, Rashi adds that they meant that even if they had withstood the temptation to commit a sin, they had not been free from the temptation to do so, and they meant to atone for this by this offering. If you were to counter that the Torah had actually condoned sleeping with prisoners of war due to giving in to their physical allure, (Deuteronomy chapter 21) so what sin or temptation to sin did these soldiers talk about? We would have to refer to the Jerusalem Talmud who states that chapter 21 of Deuteronomy only condones relations with a captured female after the conquest has been completed, not during the war.
+
+Verse 51
+
+כל כלי מעשה, “even jewelry that had been made from such gold.”
+
+Verse 52
+
+
+
+Verse 53
+
+
+
+Verse 54
+
+
+
+Chapter 32
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+
+
+Verse 2
+
+ויבאו בני גד, “The members of tribe of Gad etc. came; the reason why the members of the tribe of Gad were mentioned ahead of the tribe of Reuven, the senior tribe of their army group, is that it was they who had come up with the idea of remaining on the east bank of the Jordan permanently. (Ibn Ezra)
+
+Verse 3
+
+
+
+Verse 4
+
+
+
+Verse 5
+
+
+
+Verse 6
+
+
+
+Verse 7
+
+?ולמה תנואון, “and to what purpose do you want to turn away (the hearts)?” This word is read as we spelled it, but is spelled as a transitive word, the letter י appearing in the text instead of the letter ו, before the last letter.
+
+Verse 8
+
+
+
+Verse 9
+
+
+
+Verse 10
+
+
+
+Verse 11
+
+
+
+Verse 12
+
+בלתי כלב בן יפונה, ”except for Calev, son of Y’funeh.” If you were to ask how come that also Yair, son of Menashe entered the Holy Land (crossed the Jordan) and was killed during the siege on Ai, together with 35 comrades in arms (Talmud tractate Sanhedrin, folio 44) (according to Joshua 7,8) we have to answer that the decree issued after the Sin of the Spies concerning who would not be allowed to enter the Holy Land did not apply to people under the age of twenty at the time it was decreed, nor did it apply to people over the age of fifty, as neither category would have been drafted into military service, so that the spies’ refusal to undertake a campaign against the Canaanites would not have affected them personally.
+
+Verse 13
+
+
+
+Verse 14
+
+
+
+Verse 15
+
+להניחו, “he will again leave you;” the letter ח in this word was exchanged from the original letter ע; we have proof of this in verse 13 in the word ויניעם, “He made them wander.” The word להניחו in this verse means that failure of the tribes of Reuven and Gad to reconsider will extend the length of their whole generation in exile in the desert, which includes constantly having to move. If the two tribes were to decline to settle in the west bank, history would likely repeat itself, and another generation would not get to see the promised Land. There are commentators who understand the word להניחו, as “to abandon it;” this would be analogous to Psalms 119,121: בל תניחני לעושקי, “do not abandon me to those who would wrong me.”
+
+Verse 16
+
+
+
+Verse 17
+
+ואנחנו חלץ חושים, “we will be ready armed to act as vanguard;” These tribes promised, after first having settled their families and livestock, not only to fight along the other tribes but to do so in the most exposed positions. They would be able to do so, precisely because they would not be encumbered by their families and livestock.
+לפני בני ישראל, they would lead the fight on behalf of the people just as they also had taken the lead in settling their families.
+
+Verse 18
+
+
+
+Verse 19
+
+
+
+Verse 20
+
+
+
+Verse 21
+
+
+
+Verse 22
+
+
+
+Verse 23
+
+
+
+Verse 24
+
+
+
+Verse 25
+
+
+
+Verse 26
+
+
+
+Verse 27
+
+כל חלוץ צבא, “every man that is armed for war.” Apparently, the author’s version of the text had the vowel kametz under the letter ח instead of the vowel patach. His commentary presupposes this. As in our editions we have the vowel chataf patach, we need not bother copying his commentary.
+
+Verse 28
+
+
+
+Verse 29
+
+
+
+Verse 30
+
+
+
+Verse 31
+
+
+
+Verse 32
+
+
+
+Verse 33
+
+ולחצי שבט מנשה, “and as far has half of the tribe Menashe is concerned, etc.” they had not requested to be given their ancestral heritage in the lands previously owned by Sichon and Og; but seeing it was their founding father, Joseph’s first born son who had searched the sacks of Joseph who had caused them to tear up their garments when he accused one of the brothers as having stolen his father’s goblet, they were given as compensation two sections of land on the east bank of the Jordan. (Bereshit Rabbah 84,20)
+
+Verse 34
+
+
+
+Verse 35
+
+
+
+Verse 36
+
+
+
+Verse 37
+
+
+
+Verse 38
+
+מוסבות שם, “their names being changed;” originally they had been known as Ammon and Moav; subsequently they became known as Sichon and Og.
+
+Verse 39
+
+
+
+Verse 40
+
+ויתן משה את הגלעד למכיר, “Moses gave the region known as Hagilad, to Machir; this was because he was the firstborn of Menashe’s sons, so that Moses allocated his share to him first. Seeing that at that time Machir was already aged, having been too old to be part of the army, he gave him a fortified city. He remained there during the 14 years that his sons as well as the two and a half tribes were engaged in fighting with the tribes who would settle on the West Bank.
+
+Verse 41
+
+ ויאיר בן מנשה, “meanwhile Yair, son of Menashe,” he was called after his mother, even though he was from the tribe of Yehudah (Ibn Ezra), as it is written that Chetzron. son of Yehudah married a daughter of Machir and sired Seguv from that marriage. Seguv in turn sired Yair, and they owned cities in Gilead. (Compare Chronicles I 2,21) We find a similar situation in Ezra 2,61 where priests were named after Barzilai the Giladi, who was not a priest. We cannot offer an excuse for how it came about that a member of one tribe acquired part of another tribe’s ancestral heritage. We can only surmise that the rules of intermarriage between members of tribes did not apply as strictly in the lands conquered on the East Bank of the Jordan, formerly belonging to the tribe of the Emorites, as it did to the land west of the river Jordan.
+ויקרא אתהן חוות יאיר, “and he named them;” ‘the villages of Yair.’ This was to commemorate Yair who had been killed in the battles for Ai. (verse 7) It is recorded here as it took place before the bulk of the country had been conquered, and was testimony to the bravery of Yair.
+
+Verse 42
+
+ונובח, and Novach, one of the sons of Menashe (not substantiated)
+ויקרא לה, “he named it,” he (Novach) renamed K’nath. The word נבח is spelled “weak,” the letter ב not having a dot in it. This suggests that the renaming was temporary, and lasted only until the members of his tribe returned from helping the other tribes conquer the land on the West Bank (14 years). It had to be named so, so that in the interval no one could stake a claim to this land and take it away from its rightful owner who was an absentee. This is what Rashi explains here, quoting Rabbi Moshe Hadarshan. He wonders how Rabbi Moshe Hadarshan can explain this phenomenon in 2 similar situations in Ruth 2,14 and Zecharyah 5,11.where the words בית and בעז also have no dot in the letter ב. There are some commentators who try to explain the absence of the dots in the 2 examples I just mentioned. Their reasoning is brilliant, but I decided that it is not relevant to us here as texts composed by authors of the books of prophets or Scriptures need not be examined as carefully as those in the Torah. Here we must assume that the sages responsible for the vocalisation in the Torah, had been inspired with Holy Spirit when they performed their task.
+
+Chapter 33
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+אלה מסעי, “these were the journeys, etc.;” whenever a paragraph commences with the word: אלה the reason is to tell the reader that what follows is not connected to what was written previously. What this means here in practical terms is that only the journeys listed from here on in, but not עטרות and דבון, of which the Torah wrote in Numbers 32,3 and the locations mentioned there, are included in what follows.
+
+Verse 2
+
+את מוצאיהם למסעיהם על פי ה,, “their departures and their journeys to the next locations at the direct command from the Lord;” This has already been spelled out in Numbers 9,20. (B’chor shor) [At that point it had been an instruction, but had not yet been carried out. Ed.]
+
+Verse 3
+
+ויסעו מרעמסס בחודש הראשון בחמשה עשר יום וגו, “they began their journeys from Rameses on the fifteenth day of the first month, etc.;” the people had not been warned about the laws of Yom Tov [such as the prohibition of festivals regarding travel beyond the boundaries of their town except as regards the first night, when they had been forbidden to leave their houses on pain of death] except to abstain from eating chametz on that night.
+ממחרת הפסח, “on the morning following the offering (and consuming) of the Passover sacrifice.” Both Passover eve and the first night are called פסח, because these are the periods the people are preoccupied with the Passover offering. If we needed proof for this, we only have to look at Leviticus 23,8 and Numbers 28,16. The remainder of that festival is always referred to as חג המצות, “the festival of unleavened breads.”
+
+Verse 4
+
+
+
+Verse 5
+
+ויסעו...מרעמסס ויחנו בסוכות. Our author refers the reader to his commentary on Exodus 12,37.
+
+Verse 6
+
+ויסעו מסוכות ....ויעברו בתוך הים המדברה, “they journeyed from Sukkot ....and they crossed through the sea till they came to the desert.” The spirit of escaping from slavery in Egypt prevailed until they had run out of water three days after emerging from the sea of reeds. 
+This is alluded to in Exodus 15,22 where they began a march toward an uncertain future in the desert of Shur, one of the deserts described elsewhere as ”this great and terrifying desert.” (Deuteronomy 8,15)
+
+Verse 7
+
+
+
+Verse 8
+
+ויעברו בתוך הים המדברה, “they passed through the midst of the sea into the wilderness;” the same spirit (wind) that had helped them to enter the sea when coming from the desert on the other side, also helped them face the desert when emerging from the sea. (Tossaphot Erchin 15) This was the North wind that G-d had only activated in order to encourage the Egyptians to pursue the Israelites.
+
+Verse 9
+
+ the places called Marah and Eylim have been explained in Exodus 15,23 and 27.
+
+Verse 10
+
+ויחנו על ים סוף, ”they encamped near the sea of reeds between Eylim and the desert of Tzin which stretched from the sea of reeds towards the desert that they had come from. This encampment as well as the ones at Dofkah and Elosh, have not been mentioned in the portion of Beshalach but were lumped together in Exodus 16,1 where the Torah wrote: “the whole community of Israel arrived at the desert of Sin.”
+ויחנו ברפידים, the reader is referred to Exodus 17,1 for the author’s commentary.
+
+Verse 11
+
+
+
+Verse 12
+
+
+
+Verse 13
+
+
+
+Verse 14
+
+
+
+Verse 15
+
+ויחנו במדבר סיני, “they encamped in the desert of Sinai. This is the desert Sin. Our author commented on the names in the portion of Yitro, that the letter, 10) י), was added to the name of this desert to commemorate that the Ten Commandments had been given there.
+
+Verse 16
+
+ויסעו ממדבר סיני וגו, “they journeyed from the desert of Sinai, etc.” These journeys up until verse 20 have been explained by our author in Numbers chapters 11 and 12, up until the point from which the spies were sent out, from the desert of Paran.
+
+Verse 17
+
+
+
+Verse 18
+
+
+
+Verse 19
+
+ויסעו מרתמה, “they journeyed from Ritmah;” this is the place of which the Torah wrote in Numbers 14,25: “tomorrow you will turn around and start traveling towards the sea of reeds.” This is what the Torah referred to when it wrote in Deut. 2,1: ונפן ונסע דרך ים סוף, “we turned around and journeyed in the direction of the sea of reeds.” From that point on they were detouring Mount Seir during all the way stations mentioned up until verse 36 of this chapter, where they were reported to have entered the desert of Tzin at Kadesh. Compare Numbers 20,1: “the entire congregation of the Children of Israel arrived at the desert of Tzin.”
+
+Verse 20
+
+
+
+Verse 21
+
+
+
+Verse 22
+
+
+
+Verse 23
+
+
+
+Verse 24
+
+
+
+Verse 25
+
+
+
+Verse 26
+
+
+
+Verse 27
+
+
+
+Verse 28
+
+
+
+Verse 29
+
+
+
+Verse 30
+
+
+
+Verse 31
+
+
+
+Verse 32
+
+
+
+Verse 33
+
+
+
+Verse 34
+
+
+
+Verse 35
+
+the Jerusalem Targum renders this place as meaning: בכרך תרנגולא, “at a place where one could hear the roosters.”
+
+Verse 36
+
+
+
+Verse 37
+
+הר ההר, this has been explained in Numbers 20,22.
+
+Verse 38
+
+
+
+Verse 39
+
+
+
+Verse 40
+
+
+
+Verse 41
+
+
+
+Verse 42
+
+ויחנו בצלמונה, “they encamped at Tzalmonah.” Both this way station as well as ויחנו בפונון, have not been mentioned by these names in the portion of Chukat in chapter 21,10, but as Ovot, as this was a turning point in their south easterly route, from which they turned northward.
+
+Verse 43
+
+
+
+Verse 44
+
+
+
+Verse 45
+
+ויסעו מעיים ויחנו בדיבון גד, in Parshat Chukat this location is referred to as 21,12) .נחל זרד)
+
+Verse 46
+
+ויסעו מדיבון גד ויחנו בעלמון דבלתימה, this location has been referred to in Parshat Chukat, Numbers 21,13 “from Ever Arnon which is in the desert.”
+
+Verse 47
+
+ויסעו מעלמון דבלתימה ויחנו בהר העברים, “they journeyed on from Almon Divlataymah and encamped around the Mountains of Avarim. In Numbers 31,19 this journey had been described as commencing from the desert called Matanah.
+
+Verse 48
+
+ויסעו מהרי העברים ויחנו בערבות מואב, “they journeyed from the mountains of Avarim and encamped in the plains of Moav. This journey had been referred to in Parshat Chukat as: “from Matanah to Nachliel.” (verse 19).
+
+Verse 49
+
+Once the people had come to this location, they gradually spread out in different directions on that plain.
+
+Verse 50
+
+
+
+Verse 51
+
+
+
+Verse 52
+
+
+
+Verse 53
+
+
+
+Verse 54
+
+
+
+Verse 55
+
+.לשכים בעיניכם, “as thorns in your eyes.” This expression also appears in this sense in Proverbs 15,19: כמשוכת חדק, “like thorns in a hedge.”
+ולצנינים, “and as pricks;” Compare Proverbs 22,5, צנים פחים.
+
+Verse 56
+
+
+
+Chapter 34
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+
+
+Verse 2
+
+אל הארץ, “to the land;” this verse appears in a truncated mode, and according to the rules of grammar it should have been written as: אל הארץ, ארץ כנען, “to the land,” i.e. the land of Canaan. We encounter similar such abbreviations in Numbers 25,12: את בריתי שלום when according to the rules of grammar, it should have been: את בריתי, ברית השלום.
+
+Verse 3
+
+
+
+Verse 4
+
+ועבר צנה והיה תוצאותיו וגו, “and once having passed Tzinah, it will extend southward, etc.”
+מנגב לקדש ברנע, from the south to Kadesh Barnea. There were two places called “Kadesh.” One was located in the land of Canaan, and was mentioned in the Book of Joshua 15,3 as one of the towns in that land. The second one is the one first mentioned in the portion of Mattot, 32,8: בשלחי אתכם מקדש ברנע, “when I sent them, (your fathers) on a mission from Kadesh Barnea,” Moses speaking about the ill fated trip of the spies throughout the land of Canaan some 38 years earlier. It is quite impossible to suppose that Moses dispatched the spies from a town inside the land of Canaan. If he had done so, he would have first have to cross into that land, something that not only G-d had forbidden him, but something that he greatly regretted not having been able to do as we know from his own mouth. The “Kadesh” without an adjective, was situated near the border of the land of Edom 
+ויצא חצר אדר, “and it shall go forth to Chatzar Adar”; here the impression is given that it was a single district; on the other hand, in Joshua 15,3, “Chezron” and “Adar” seem to be two separate districts.
+
+Verse 5
+
+
+
+Verse 6
+
+
+
+Verse 7
+
+
+
+Verse 8
+
+
+
+Verse 9
+
+
+
+Verse 10
+
+
+
+Verse 11
+
+
+ים כנרת, “the sea of Galilee;” this is a lake whose waters do not run off into another larger sea or ocean. It is completely surrounded on all banks by Jewish settlements. [Its waters descend to the Dead Sea, where they become unfit to drink.]
+
+Verse 12
+
+
+
+Verse 13
+
+
+
+Verse 14
+
+
+
+Verse 15
+
+
+
+Verse 16
+
+
+
+Verse 17
+
+
+
+Verse 18
+
+
+
+Verse 19
+
+למטה יהודה, of the tribe of Yehudah. Moses began enumerating the family heads which would start the process of allocating ancestral tracts of land with the members of the tribe of Yehudah, as his name came up first when the lots were drawn. In this instance, Calev would be the head of the tribe.
+
+Verse 20
+
+
+
+Verse 21
+
+למטה בנימין, “of the tribe of Binyamin;” here Binyamin is listed as if the third of the tribes, seeing that these three tribes in the future would cede of their ancestral lands to the Levites all at once, as recorded in the Book of Joshua: 21,4: ויהי לבני אהרן הכהן מן הלוים, ממטה יהודה, וממטה שמעון וממטה בנימין בגורל ערים שלש עשר, “to the descendants of Aaron the priest, there fell by lot 13 towns from the tribe of Yehudah, the tribe of Shimon, and the tribe of Binyamin.” This is why they were lumped together by Moses already at this point.
+
+Verse 22
+
+ולמטה בני דן נשיא, “and of the tribe of Dan, a prince;” the reason that the word: “prince” has not been mentioned with the first three tribes listed here, is because we knew already that Calev of the tribe of Yehudah, as the only survivor of his tribe that had been an adult at the Exodus would be the leader after Nachshon had died. He had already been called by G-d Himself as “My servant.” (Numbers 14,24) As far as the tribe of Binyamin is concerned, we know that Eldod, a colleague of Meydod, both from this tribe had been elevated to the status of prophets. According to another interpretation, seeing that at a later stage involving the concubine a Givah, (Judges chapter 20) he would be dishonorably involved, he is not here referred to as a prince. The same consideration applies to the tribe of Shimon, whose prince in short order will be involved in the shameful episode with the Midianite woman Cosbi, Moses did not bestow the title prince upon him posthumously. Rashi had pointed out already in his commentary on Parshat Balak, that the people of the tribe of Shimon had treated Zimri as their leader. (Numbers 25,6) There had been no need for a leader of the tribes of Reuven and Gad to be appointed, as these tribes had already received their ancestral heritage on the east bank of the Jordan. There seems to be no logical order to the listing of the tribes here. It does not follow the birth-order of the tribal ancestor, nor the order in which the tribes marched for forty years in the desert, nor the birth-order of the tribal mothers.
+
+Verse 23
+
+
+
+Verse 24
+
+
+
+Verse 25
+
+
+
+Verse 26
+
+
+
+Verse 27
+
+
+
+Verse 28
+
+
+
+Verse 29
+
+
+
+Chapter 35
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+
+
+Verse 2
+
+ערים לשבת, “cities to dwell in;” while the Levites were not given ancestral lands, at least they were given houses, i.e. some real estate where to make their permanent homes. (B’chor shor)
+
+Verse 3
+
+ולכל חיתם, “and for all their livestock.” The choice by the Torah of the word: חיה for livestock, instead of בהמה, is to underline that the Levites’ function on earth is to promote constructive life not burial rites, as pointed out by our sages in the Talmud, tractate Makkot folio12.
+
+Verse 4
+
+
+
+Verse 5
+
+
+
+Verse 6
+
+ועליהם תתנו ארבעים ושתים עיר, “and in addition you will add 42 towns” (which can also serve as cities of refuge). The difference between the six cities of refuge named and the cities of the Levites is that the former serve as such regardless of if the unintentional killer is aware of their function or not, whereas the 42 cities of the Levites serve as such only if specifically chosen by the unintentional killer for that purpose. Talmud tractate Makkot, folio 10.
+
+Verse 7
+
+
+
+Verse 8
+
+
+
+Verse 9
+
+
+
+Verse 10
+
+
+
+Verse 11
+
+
+
+Verse 12
+
+למקלט מגואל, “as refuge from the potential avenger of the slain person.” They are to calm the fears of the person who killed unintentionally who worries about becoming the victim of such relatives of the slain person.
+ולא ימות הרוצח, “so that the manslayer will not have to die.” The Torah had to stress this, seeing that it had written in verse 27 of this chapter: ורצח גואל הדם את הרוצח, “and the avenger of blood will slay the manslayer.” This taught that if these two meet elsewhere, the avenger would be culpable for having killed unless the manslayer had stood trial and been convicted of murder. (Sifri)
+
+Verse 13
+
+
+
+Verse 14
+
+את שלש הערים, “the three cities;” we do not read here about the difference of the status of these cities that Moses had selected on the east bank of the Jordan and the three that were designated as cities of refuge on the west bank. (the word מקלט describing the function of the three cities on the east bank is absent in this verse. Ed.] This had been spelled out, however, in Deuteronomy 4,41-43. Rashi explains that a) the three cities which Moses had designated on the east bank did not become functional as long as the land on the west bank had not been conquered and settled. b) He also points out on our verse that whereas three such cities served in the west bank where nine and a half tribes had made their homes were on the east bank where only two and a half tribes had made their homes were served by the same number of cities of refuge. He views this as proof that Moses viewed the likelihood of these cities being needed on the east bank was far greater as in Gilead murders would be more common than in the “Holy Land” on the west bank. He backs up this surmise by quoting Hosea 6,8: גלעד קרית פועלי און עקובה מדם, “Gilead is a city of evildoers, tracked up with blood.” This suggests that initially even intentional killers were in the habit of using these cities as cities of refuge. The Mishnah in Makkot folio 9, states that in the early periods both intentional and unintentional killers used to flee to the cities of refuge, pending a trial to determine who had been an intentional killer and who had been an unintentional killer. This explains what the Torah had written in verse 12 that no one was to be executed until he had stood trial. According to Sifri, the courts would dispatch messengers to bring the offending parties to trial in the location under their jurisdiction, i.e. depending on where the killing had occurred. They would execute the guilty and free the innocent, i.e. bring them back to the city of refuge.
+
+Verse 15
+
+
+
+Verse 16
+
+ואם בכלי ברזל הכהו, “but if he struck him with a metal instrument or tool;” why did the Torah have to give us this example if it had already told us that wooden or stone vessels or tools are considered as lethal weapons? Surely it is understood that metal tools are at least as dangerous?! This is to teach us that penalties cannot be imposed on the basis of logic, especially in capital crimes, but only if the written Torah had decreed them. (Compare Rashi quoting the Talmud in Sanhedrin and by the commentaries.) A minute metal instrument, a needle is already capable of causing death, i.e. is a lethal weapon.
+
+Verse 17
+
+
+
+Verse 18
+
+
+
+Verse 19
+
+
+
+Verse 20
+
+ואם בשנאה יהדפנו, “and if he had attacked him from above out of a feeling of hatred,” [possibly without intent to kill but only to harm, Ed.]
+
+Verse 21
+
+
+
+Verse 22
+
+
+
+Verse 23
+
+ויפל עליו “and he threw it down upon him;” from the wording of this verse the Rabbis concluded that killing by dropping something on the victim makes the killer subject to spending the rest of his life until the death of the High Priest in a city of refuge. If the killer had looked at what was below him he would have seen that dropping an object or throwing an object down was something dangerous. (Talmud tractate Makkot folio 7) On the other hand, if the victim was struck by the killer having thrown something up into the air, this is considered an accident, and the person who had thrown the object does not have to be confined to the city of refuge. The basic principle is that one has to look in front if there are obstacles, but not behind or above. Normal people do not look in all directions before throwing an object.
+
+Verse 24
+
+
+
+Verse 25
+
+וישב בה עד מות הכהן הגדול, “and he has to dwell there until the death of the High Priest.” The reason is so that people at large will not accuse the High Priest as not having fulfilled his task of seeing to it that murder does not go unpunished (Deuteronomy 17,12). They would not be able to blame the new high Priest as the killing had not occurred while he was in office.
+
+Verse 26
+
+את גבול עיר מקלטו, “beyond the boundary of his city of refuge;”
+
+Verse 27
+
+
+
+Verse 28
+
+אחרי מות הכהן הגדול ישוב הרוצח וגו, ”after the death of the High Priest, the “murderer” will return” (home). All the cities of the Levites are under the direct authority of the High Priest. It is an undisputed law that that such unintentional “murderers” go free at the death of the High Priest. Our sages have a saying that “death brings in its wake atonement.” (Talmud Makkot folio 11), where it is clear that the “death” referred to is that of the High Priest. We find something analogous in Isaiah 14,17: אסיריו לא פתח ביתה, “who never released its prisoners?” [The prophet decries such a cruel practice. Jewish law which basically does not provide for prison as a form of punishment, certainly would not countenance life imprisonment. Ed.]
+
+Verse 29
+
+
+
+Verse 30
+
+ועד אחד לא יענה בנפש, “a solitary witness must not testify against a person (in a capital case).” We might have thought that seeing that the penalty for capital crimes is so severe that the testimony of a single witness is relevant. The Torah tells us that it is not.
+
+Verse 31
+
+ולא תקחו כופר לנפש רוצח, “you must not accept a financial ransom in lieu of the life of the murderer.” Seeing that in almost all situations the Torah is willing to accept punishment in the form of money or its equivalent, why does the Torah not accept it as atonement for a life taken? Life, as opposed to limbs, is something that cannot be valued in terms of money, in terms of material things. The only instance in which financial atonement (partial at best) is acceptable is when the penalty for the sin committed is death at the hands of heaven, but not by a human tribunal. This is why the Torah added: אם כופר יושת עליו, (Exodus 21,30) “if payment of a ransom had been imposed upon the guilty party.” This type of punishment is not really a full compensation, but since G-d has reserved to mete out His own judgment, it will fill the bill in the meantime. [You will not find that a person convicted of theft and murder will be assessed the financial penalty, as the loss of his life is the ultimate penalty, and the Torah does not impose anything beyond that. Ed.]
+
+Verse 32
+
+
+
+Verse 33
+
+ולא תחניפו את הארץ, “this verse is to be understood at face value, i.e. “you shall not flatter the land;” this is a warning for wealthy people who had become guilty of the death penalty not to be allowed to plead to a lesser charge, and to make generous financial restitution to the party whom they had harmed or to the family of that person. 'כי הדם הוא הוא יחניף וגו, “for the blood spilled (and not atoned for) would contaminate” the soil of the Holy Land. This is why G-d warns us not to contaminate the land he has given us by allowing bloodshed to go unpunished according to the principle of נפש תחת נפש, “a life for a life,” a principle spelled out already in Genesis 9,6, a principle applicable to all of mankind.
+ולארץ לא יכופר, “and no expiation can be made for the land;” the Torah, of course, refers to the inhabitants of the land even more so, [seeing that the earth had been completely passive. Ed.]
+
+Verse 34
+
+
+
+Chapter 36
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+ויקרבו ראשי האבות, “the heads of the father’s houses approached, etc.” the reason that this paragraph is appended here is that Moses had recently issued instructions about how the land is to be distributed and according to what criteria, especially the status of the cities of the Levites.
+
+Verse 2
+
+
+
+Verse 3
+
+
+
+Verse 4
+
+
+
+Verse 5
+
+
+
+Verse 6
+
+
+
+Verse 7
+
+
+
+Verse 8
+
+
+
+Verse 9
+
+
+
+Verse 10
+
+
+
+Verse 11
+
+
+
+Verse 12
+
+
+
+Verse 13
+
+אלה המצות, “these are the commandments;” this concludes the list of sacrificial offerings, vows and oaths, purification of loot captured in war, and treatment of vessels that had become ritually contaminated, as well as the paragraphs dealing with murder and unintentional killing and ancestral lands and their distribution. (Compare Ibn Ezra)
+
+Deuteronomy
+
+
+
+Chapter 1
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+אלה הדברים, “these are the words, etc.” wherever a paragraph is introduced with the word: אלה, it is not to be considered as continuation of what preceded it. Up to now we read about commandments involving ritual and social legislation, whereas from here on in we are reading words of admonition and warnings about a dire future for the Jewish people if these warnings should be ignored. There is no point in countering that Numbers 36,13 also begins with the word: אלה, or to point to Leviticus 26,3 27,34, as in those instances the verse itself concludes the subject matter that had been under discussion.
+אל כל ישראל, “to all the Israelites.” This teaches that Moses’ voice was powerful enough to be heard throughout the camp without megaphones.
+בעבר הירדן, the term here refers to the Israelites on the east bank of the Jordan, on the plains of Moav as mentioned in verse 5, not to the area settled by the tribes of Reuven and Gad, previously owned by the Emorites.
+במדבר בערבה, in the desert, the Aravah. In other words, the things Moses was about to speak to the Israelites here, he had already spoken to them about in the various places that will be named forthwith. We find a similar formulation in Deuteronomy 4,46: במדבר in the desert;” this is the desert facing Mount Sinai.
+בערבה, “another place in the same desert known as Aravah. It is referred to again in our portion in chapter 2,8: 'ונעבור....מדרך הערבה מאילת ומעציון גבר וגו; which location precisely was this? The one opposite the reeds, the great desert of Paran which commences at a place known as Eytam. This is why the Torah wrote (Numbers 33,6) ויחנו באיתם אשר בקצה המדבר, “they encamped at Eytam which is at the edge of the desert.” Now we are told that this was also extending to the boundary of the land of Moav. We have proof of this in Deut. 2,8, as well as in Deut. 8,2. The place also appears in Ezekiel 20,35 as מדבר העמים, “desert of nations.” Several nations had a border touching the edge of this desert. This is why sometimes it appears as מדבר שור, or ,מדבר קדמות or מדבר מואב
+בין פארן, between Paran, etc., seeing that the desert was very large, Moses supplies more detail concerning where what had occurred.
+ובין תופל ולבן, “and between Tofel and Lavan;” we are forced to use our logic concerning these names, as we have no documents to even prove that they existed. It is most likely that they were names of sites where the Israelites had encamped, but many may have received their names only as a result of having served as a base for the Israelites during those years. Quite a few of these names did not appear in the list of the Israelites’ journey enumerated chronologically in parshat Massey. The Hermon for example, according to tradition - appear four times, each time with a different name. Compare our author on Numbers 33,19, and 46.
+וחצרות, and Chatzerot; according to Rashi this refers to the rebellion of Korach, which had taken place there. If you were to argue that according to the sequence in which the Torah has documented all these events, the rebellion of Korach must have occurred when the Israelites were encamped in the desert of Paran, shortly after the return of the spies, and you would further argue that according to Targum Onkelos the Israelites were angry at the absence of meat at Chatzerot, whereas the Torah wrote that they journeyed to Chatzerot from Kivrot hataavah, the place where they had received the quails, (Numbers 11,35) you will realise the difficulty in reconciling what appear to be contradictory statements. The desert of Paran is many days’ march long, and to fix a place’s name based on that loose definition is not really helpful at all. [Some of the places named here were quite clearly given names after the occurrence of the event the place was to commemorate. There is no guarantee that the name was given immediately after the event in question.]
+
+Verse 2
+
+אחד עשר יום מחורב, “eleven days’ march from Mount Chorev.” Some of the speeches recalled by Moses here occurred during the journeys of the Israelites after leaving Mount Sinai, during the first eleven days. It took them eleven days to cover the distance from Mount Sinai to Kadesh, the place from which the spies were dispatched. The fact is that no new commandments were revealed to the Jewish people after the return of the spies until the fortieth year, after the last of the men of military age at the Exodus had died, and G-d’s presence returned to be visible.
+אחד עשר יום, “eleven days,” there is a letter ב missing in the word אחד, which according to the rules of grammar should have been spelled באחד, so that the phrase would read: באחד עשר יום, “we find a similar anomaly in Exodus 31,17: כי ששת ימים עשה ה' את השמים, “for during six days G-d made heaven, etc,” there too we would have expected the letter ב at the beginning of the word ששת. Our author cites a few more examples of this, adding that it occurs frequently. (Judges 14,12; Samuel II 20,4)
+אחד עשר יום, Rashi understands this line as a reproof by Moses, who is telling the people that although normally it takes eleven days to cover the distance from Mount Chorev to Kadesh, with the help of G-d they had covered that distance in only three days, seeing that the Torah had reported that they had broken camp on the twentieth day of the month of lyar. When you consider that the people had spent thirty days at Kivrat Hataavah consuming the quails, and seven days waiting for Miriam to recover from the affliction of Tzoraat at Chatzerot, it followed that they covered the distance in three days, as there had been only three way stations and by the 29th of Sivan the spies had been sent out, so that only thirty eight days had elapsed since their departure from Mount Chorev. (Compare author’s commentary on Numbers 9,1.)
+
+Verse 3
+
+ויהי בארבעים שנה, “it was during the fortieth year, etc.” the Torah reveals here that Moses addressed the people on the east bank of the Jordan, recalling what he had told the earlier generation already while they were at Mount Sinai. בעשתי עשר חדש באחד לחדש, “in the eleventh month , on the first day of the month. In other words, he began this speech 36 days prior to his death.
+ככל אשר צוה ה' אותו, “in accordance with all the Lord had commanded him.” The word אותו which is not really needed, was added to emphasise that Hashem had not issued such instructions to any other prophet.
+
+Verse 4
+
+אחרי הכותו את סיחון, “after He had smitten Sichon, etc.;” we have been told in Deut. 2,30 that Sichon was not willing to allow the Israelites to cross his territory on their way to the land of Canaan. Both the campaigns against Sichon and Og took place in the fortieth year of the Israelites’ wanderings. This comes to teach you that Moshe gave all the speeches in Deuteronomy after the war with Sichon.
+
+Verse 5
+
+הואיל משה באר, “Moses undertook to expound this Torah;” he expounded all the commandments in the Torah, including the Ten Commandments that the people had heard from G-d directly. Hashem wished that the new generation which had been born after the revelation at Mount Sinai, should hear the Ten Commandments at least from the mouth of Moses. He was the most reliable human being that this task could be entrusted to.
+
+Verse 6
+
+דבר אלינו בחרב, “which He spoke to us at Chorev.” He commenced with words of encouragement (Compare Aruch hashalem under the entry בדח.
+
+Verse 7
+
+פנו וסאו לכם וגו׳, “turn around and start journeying, etc.” ראה נתתי לפניכם, see, I have given before you’” (verse 8) Moses refers back to Exodus 23,20-32, where G-d had told Moses that He appointed His angel to proceed ahead of the people on their journey to the Holy Land.
+בערבה, “on the plains,” this is the plain that Moses had spoken of earlier in verse 1.
+
+Verse 8
+
+
+
+Verse 9
+
+ואומר אליכם בעת ההיא, “and I had said to you at that time;” this includes everything until verse 18 that Moses had commanded the people. It had been the subject in Exodus 18,18 where Moses’ father in law Yitro had cautioned him against overexerting himself, and Moses’ response by appointing judges to act as his delegates.
+
+Verse 10
+
+
+
+Verse 11
+
+
+
+Verse 12
+
+וריבכם, “and your quarrels;” this refers to internal quarrels between Jew and fellow Jew.
+
+Verse 13
+
+ואשמם, “I will appoint them;” the letter י before the first letter מ, is missing hereRashi comments on this as follows: this י was deliberately removed in order to tell us that when the Israelites commit sins, much of the blame can be laid at the doorstep of the heads of the legal system that have not enforced Torah laws diligently and fairly. (one version of Rashi) Our author’s version did have the letter י in his Torah scroll. Clearly, Rashi’s Torah scroll did not have that letter.
+
+Verse 14
+
+
+
+Verse 15
+
+אנשים חכמים וידעים, “wise and knowledgeable men;” Rashi points out that apparently Moses had not found men possessed of בינה, insight, one of the criteria Yitro had told him to look for in men appointed to judge others. He had only found men that could be called: righteous, wise, and knowledgeable. If you were to ask what happened to the other four qualifications stipulated by Yitro as a precondition for acting as a judge? (Compare Exodus 18,21) The fact that the seven qualifications do not appear consecutively, but only four of them appear in the verse quoted, is a hint that if all these virtues could not be found in one man, then we would have to settle for less. Solomon in Proverbs 31 already pointed out how difficult it is to find even one woman who can be described as אשת חיל, “a woman of valour.”Rabbi B’rechyah in the name of Rabi Chama, son of Rabbi Chanina, is quoted in Deuteronomy Rabbah, 1,10, as having said: judges must possess seven virtues: wisdom, insight, knowledge, plus the four listed in Exodus 18,21. The reason that do not all appear together is to teach that the seven virtues are meant as in the best case scenario. If it is impossible to find people with all these virtues, naturally we have to settle for less, [just as we never had a king that possessed all the virtues listed in Deuteronomy 17,15-20.]
+
+Verse 16
+
+
+
+Verse 17
+
+לא תגורו מפני איש, (Moses is speaking to the judges, or potential judges) “do not display fear of anyone;” [you cannot be commanded not to have fear just as you cannot be commanded to love; but you can be commanded not to display your fear. Ed.] If a judge is afraid that the party whom he will convict will hate him henceforth, he is reminded that ultimately the judgment is G-ds and he had only carried out G-d’s will.
+
+Verse 18
+
+ואצוה אתכם בעת ההיא, I commanded you at that time;” you have not been held up in the desert for 40 years in order to study the Torah, because I could have taught you the Torah in a few hours, but you were held up on account of your sins.
+
+Verse 19
+
+ונסע מחורב, ”we journeyed from Mount Chorev;” Moses referred to what the Torah had written in Numbers10,1.
+כאשר צוה ה' אלוקינו אותנו, “as the Lord our G-d commanded us;” our author has explained this already in verse 7.
+ונבא עד קדש ברנע, “and we came as far as Kadesh Barnea.” This was on the 29th day of Sivan, as I have already explained on verse 2.
+
+Verse 20
+
+ואומר אליכם, באתם עד הר האמרי, “and I said to you: you have arrived at the Mountain of the Emorite;” here Moses refers to what has been written in Numbers 13,17: עלו זה בנגב ועליתם את ההר, “ascend here in the south and climb the mountain!” it also says there in chapter 14,40: וישכימו בבקר ויעלו על ראש ההר, “they arose early in the morning and ascended the top of the mountain.”
+
+Verse 21
+
+
+
+Verse 22
+
+ויחפרו לנו, “and espy on our behalf;” the expression חפר describes someone searching for something, generally below the surface of the earth; the principal meaning is to search for something which has been deliberately hidden. (Ibn Ezra)
+
+Verse 23
+
+שנים עשר אנשים, “twelve men;” on this Rashi comments that there was no representative of the tribe of Levi among these 12 men. The reason was that they would not inherit any ancestral land in Eretz Yisrael, as Rashi already explained on Numbers 13,16.
+
+Verse 24
+
+עד נחל אשכול, “as far as the valley of Eshkol;” Rashi comments that the spies walked in a formation of crisscrossing the land in four directions. This has been explained already in the Talmud tractate Baba Metzia, folio 91.
+
+Verse 25
+
+
+
+Verse 26
+
+
+
+Verse 27
+
+הוציאנו מארץ מצרים, “He took us out of the land of Egypt;” Rashi, basing himself on Sifrey, says that G-d’s taking us out of Egypt was interpreted by the Israelites as an act of hatred; he quotes a parable with a king who owned two fields and had two sons. One field was very productive, as it was well irrigated, whereas the other one was far less so. He gave the productive one to his beloved son, and the inferior one to the son he disapproved of. The people of Israel were aware that Egypt was very well irrigated from the waters of the Nile, never depending on rainfall. On the other hand, Moses himself told them that the earth in the land of Israel depended on rainfall, and that by withholding rainfall this could make it very hard to work. They therefore reasoned that G-d must hate them why else would He expect them to exchange fertile Egypt for hilly Canaan?
+
+Verse 28
+
+
+
+Verse 29
+
+
+
+Verse 30
+
+
+
+Verse 31
+
+
+
+Verse 32
+
+
+
+Verse 33
+
+
+
+Verse 34
+
+
+
+Verse 35
+
+
+
+Verse 36
+
+
+
+מלא אחרי ה, “who has fully followed G-d’s instructions.” Moses refers to the instructions he had issued in the name of G-d. [G-d did not address Calev directly, ever. Ed.]
+
+Verse 37
+
+.'גם בי התאנף ה, “the Lord was angry at me also.” He took the position of leader from me and gave it to Joshua; all of this happened only on your account when you caused me to lose my temper and therefore not carry out G-d’s instructions to me to the letter. I was punished for hitting the rock instead of speaking to it.
+
+Verse 38
+
+
+
+Verse 39
+
+
+
+Verse 40
+
+ואתם פנו לכם וסעו וגו, as for you, (as opposed to the ten spies who died on the spot), “turn around and begin journeying in a reverse direction.” (Moses was quoting Numbers 14,25).
+
+Verse 41
+
+ותענו ותאמרו וגו, you answered and said to me: “we have sinned;” we have explained verses 41-49 already in Numbers 14,41-43.
+
+Verse 42
+
+
+
+Verse 43
+
+
+
+Verse 44
+
+כאשר תעשינה הדבורים, “as bees do;” Rashi comments just as a bee sting results in that bee dying immediately after it has stung a human being, in other words, the effort expended in stinging weakens the bee so that it dies from exhaustion, so the Emorites who defeat you, though being successful, will not live to enjoy their victory, but die soon after. Nonetheless they did inflict a defeat on your soldiers so that these fled as they struck you and injured you; but, they did not succeed in killing a single one of you.
+ויכתו אתכם, as far as Chormah. An alternate interpretation; when a single bee leaves its formation, all the other bees immediately follow suit. Example: וירד העמלקי והכנעני, (verse 45) As soon as Amalekite descended all the Canaanites followed suit.
+ויכתו אתכם, they struck you, and they injured you, but they did not kill a single one of you. G-d did not allow this to happen in order that His great Name would not be belittled. You will note that the Torah did not list numbers of Israelites killed as it had elsewhere in other wars.
+
+Verse 45
+
+ותשובו ותבכו, “you returned (repented) and wept.” Moses here referred to Numbers 14,39: ויתאבלו, “they mourned;” as soon as they mourned for what they thought would be their fate in accordance with the majority report of the spies, G-d issued instructions concerning their immediate future. You commenced reversing your journeys in the direction of the sea of reeds.
+
+Verse 46
+
+ותשבו בקדש ימים רבים, “you remained in Kadesh for many years.” Here we are told by Moses that they stayed at Kadesh Barnea for a long time, something that had not been spelled out in Numbers chapter 14.
+
+Chapter 2
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+ונפן ונסע המדברה דרך ים סוף כאשר דבר, “we turned around and journeyed into the desert in the direction of the sea of reeds, as G-d had said.” ימים רבים They journeyed in the desert for 19 years from Ritma to the Zin Desert (another name for Kadesh), as reported in Parshat Chukat (see Numbers 20.1).
+
+Verse 2
+
+ויאמר ה' אלי, ‘the Lord said to me;” this was only in the fortieth year when we came to Kadesh.
+
+Verse 3
+
+ההר הזה, “this mountain.” This is Mount Seir.
+פנו לכם צפונה, “turn northward!” this commandment was not meant to be carried out immediately. It went into effect only after the detour around the territory of Edom and Moav had been completed. The people appear to have misunderstood this part of the instructions. This may be why in verse 4, Moses spelled this out in greater detail. If there had had not been some misunderstanding it is not clear why they asked the King of Edom for permission to cross his territory.
+
+Verse 4
+
+ואת העם צו לאמר, “and command the people as follows:” Moses explains the warning here which he had failed to explain in Parshat Chukat. On the other hand, he does not repeat the details of the request in Numbers 20,1421.
+
+Verse 5
+
+
+
+Verse 6
+
+
+
+Verse 7
+
+
+
+Verse 8
+
+ונעבור מאת אחינו, “we passed by our brethren, etc.” they did so by turning northward as they had been commanded in verse 3. Their point of departure was Ovot. This is why there is a most unusual end of paragraph mark (letter ס plus two blank spaces in our chumashim, in the middle of a sentence.)
+
+Verse 9
+
+ויאמר ה' אלי: אל תצא את מואב, “the Lord said to me: do not harass Moav!” He addressed me in the singular mode, but meant for this commandment to include the whole nation. The reason for this command was because Moses was going to be buried in the territory of Moav. G-d issued instructions not to harass in one way or another, three nations, Seir, Edom, and Moav. Their territories were not to be violated. (B’chor shor) We know that the territory of Seir was not to be violated as this nation was also known by the name of Chivi, as mentioned in Genesis 36,2: אהליבמה בת ענה בת צבעון החוי. One could argue that this Chivi was one of the seven nations that G-d had promised to the Israelites. In order to forestall such claim, the Torah added in our chapter in verse 12: that the Chorim used to dwell in that region originally, but they had been supplanted by the descendants of Esau who had wiped out that population just as the Israelites wiped out the Canaanite nations when they received the Holy Land fromG-d. We are to realise that basically that land belonged to the Chorim. They were not part of the seven Canaanite tribes. The reason they were called חוי, as explained in the Talmud tractate Shabbat folio 85, is that the original inhabitants the Chori, were able through their sense of smell to determine which kind of soil was most suitable to plant what kind of crop on. The Chivi, on the other hand, were able to taste the soil and determine what to grow on that particular soil. Moav, their land had originally been called the land of the Refaim, (Verse 11) and it is possible that it had been given to Avraham as stated in Genesis 15,20, so that the Israelites had a certain right to claim it as their ancestral land. The Moabites used to call the previous inhabitants of that land: Eymim. Apparently, that was their original name, and they were not identical with the Refaim given to Avraham, so that the Israelites had absolutely no prior claim to that land. Ammon. The land occupied by the Ammonites were also part of the Refaim, (verse 20) In order that no one should be able to claim it as belonging to or designated for Israel, Moses tells us what the names of the original inhabitants used to be, such as Zamzumim. They are not to be confused with the Refaim given to Avraham. A different approach: The Israelites were specifically warned not to enter into any hostilities with these three nations, although they had been included in G-d’s promise to Avraham’s descendants in chapter 15 in the Book of Genesis. The peoples referred to as: Keyni, K’nizi, and Kadmoni, are simply different names for the people more commonly known as: Ammon, Moav and Edom. By using the expression: ונשמרתם מאד, “be extremely careful no to, etc.,” Moses impresses the seriousness of the sin to contravene this warning. The Israelites did not need to be warned concerning any other nations in that region, as they had never for a moment entertained any hostile designs against them, their lands not having been promised to Avraham. Rashi comments that the promise to Avraham of the lands of the last three nations mentioned in the covenant between the pieces in Genesis chapter 15, was not meant to be fulfilled until the coming of the Messiah.
+נתתי את ער ירושה, “for I have given it to the descendants of Lot as an ancestral land.”
+
+Verse 10
+
+
+
+Verse 11
+
+רפאים יחשבו אף הם כענקים, “the Refaim were also considered as part of a race of giants.” They were considered as such not because of their height, but because of their physical strength. That they were not truly giants is clear from the fact that the Moabites called them Eymim. This was the name by which most people called them.
+
+Verse 12
+
+כאשר עשה ישראל, “just as the Israelites did to the land which became their ancestral heritage.” Moses is speaking of the land settled by the tribes of Reuven, Gad., and half the tribe of Menashe.
+
+Verse 13
+
+
+
+Verse 14
+
+והימים אשר הלכנו מקדש ברנע, “and the number of years it took us to walk from Kadesh Barnea to the Wadi Zered were 38 years.” Not all of these years were spent walking, of course, but the total period including the encampments was 38 years, until the last of the men of military ages at the time of the Exodus had died. The reason why the river Zered is named here is that it was the first of several rivers the Israelites crossed on their march north.
+
+Verse 15
+
+
+
+Verse 16
+
+ויהי כאשר תמו, “it was when they completed;” the reason why they did not cross into the land of Canaan at once was out of respect for Moses for whom it had been decreed that he could not enter the Holy Land, and it would have been painful for him to see his people crossing while he had to remain behind.
+כל אנשי המלחמה, “all the fighting men;” this refers to the ones who had begun to fight against Moses’ wish after the debacle of the spies. (Numbers 14,44)
+
+Verse 17
+
+וידבר ה' אלי, “the Lord spoke to me;” Rashi comments here that since the debacle with the spies G-d had not been reported as speaking to Moses, in the mode of dibbur, which signifies fondness for the person addressed. This line proves that the Jewish people were in disgrace during the entire thirty eight years since then, and if G-d had communicated such a communication is described as amirah as opposed to dibbur. The former is a reference to a very brief and succinct communication. During all these years,G-d communicated with Moses not on the “face to face basis,” while he was awake, but by nocturnal images.
+
+Verse 18
+
+
+
+Verse 19
+
+וקרבת מול בני עמון, “when you come near to being opposite the Bney Ammon;” actually they did not get to the boundary of the Bney Ammon, as their lands were to the east of both the kingdoms of Sichon and Og, king of Bashan.
+
+Verse 20
+
+ארץ רפאים תחשב אף היא, “that land was also considered as land of the Refaim.” It was considered “as if,” but in fact was not. They were really Zamzumim, because they were always implicated in a war or in the planning of a war.
+
+Verse 21
+
+
+
+Verse 22
+
+
+
+Verse 23
+
+
+
+Verse 24
+
+
+
+Verse 25
+
+היום הזה אחל תת פחדך, “this day I will begin to give the dread of you, etc;” prior to this, when the seven Canaanite nations noted that the Israelites, instead of invading the land of the Edomites or Moabites detoured around their countries, they reasoned that if the Israelites were afraid to face these nations individually, they would be even more afraid to face a combination of Canaanite nations. When they observed that the Israelites had vanquished both Sichon and Og in short order, they had to revise their attitude and began to tremble at the thought of facing them. This is what G-d meant when he told Moses that as of that day the Canaanites dreaded the military might of the Israelites.
+
+Verse 26
+
+ממדבר קדמות, “from the desert of Kedemot.” The name of that desert is related to the well known expression קדמה מזרחה, “forward in an easterly direction.” In other words, the desert took its name from the fact that it was situated in the east, as opposed to the south, where most of the deserts in the region were located. Compare Judges 11,22: ויירשו את כל גבול האמורי מארנון עד היבוק ומן המדבר עד הירדן, “and they appropriated (as an inheritance) all the territory of the Ammonites from the Arnon river to the Yabbok river and from the wilderness to the Jordan.”
+דברי שלום, “with words of peace;” seeing that most of the territory possessed by Sichon had been conquered from the Moabites and the Ammonites, and not from the Canaanites, they were sincere in their offer of traversing these lands in apeaceful manner. Offering peace to the seven Canaanite nations is forbidden as we know from Deut. 20,16.
+
+Verse 27
+
+
+
+Verse 28
+
+
+
+Verse 29
+
+כאשר עשו לי בני עשו, “as the descendants of Esau did for me.” This was not a reference to traversing their territory, but a reference to their letting the Israelites buy their water and food from them. The Torah had never spelled this out before, but it is logical to assume that they had done so, seeing that the Torah had specifically permitted them to do so. (Deut. 2,6) Our verse merely explains what was meant in verse 6., כאשר עשו לי בני עשו היושבים בשעיר והמואבים היושבים בער“as the descendants of Esau who live in Seir have done for me, as well as the Moabites who dwell in Or.” It sounds clear that both the Moabites mentioned here as well as the Edomites mentioned here had volunteered to supply the Israelites with these victuals. This is in stark contrast to what the Torah had described in Deut. 23,4 as the reason why proselytes from the Moabites and the Ammonites must not be accepted. It says there that these two tribes had not come forward with offers of bread and water for a nation that had just come out of Egypt, and had hired Bileam to curse the Israelites. How do we reconcile these two verses? Moreover, the Talmud in tractate Yevamot, folio 77, even tells that several hundreds of years later, some of the Israelites wanted to declare King David as not fit to be their king, but as not being Jewish, since his maternal ancestor Ruth had been a Moabite, and her conversion therefore was null and void. In light of all this, some commentators feel forced to conclude that the verses from Deut. 2,6 until and including verse 29, are only Moses’ formulation of the words the delegation were to say to the rulers of that land, but are not to be understood as testimony by the Torah, and that some Moabites and some Edomites had come forward with such offers. What follows are words by Moses recalling what had happened in how making war on Sichon and Og had not been aggression by the Israelites, but self defense, as the other side had started the hostilities. Instead of understanding the Torah as telling us that the Moabites of Or and the Ammonites had been generous, Moses includes them all in a negative light. None of these kings had allowed the Israelites to cross their lands. The ones that got away with it were the ones whom G-d had commanded the Israelites not to harass as they were not Canaanites, on the contrary, were related to the Israelites through Avraham‘s family.
+
+Verse 30
+
+
+
+Verse 31
+
+
+
+Verse 32
+
+
+
+Verse 33
+
+
+
+Verse 34
+
+
+
+Verse 35
+
+
+
+Verse 36
+
+
+
+Verse 37
+
+רק אל ארץ בני עמון לא קרבת, “only to the land of the Bney Ammon did you not come close;” according to Ibn Ezra Moses speaks only of land that was in possession of that nation at the time he spoke. This excluded the land captured from Sichon, which at one time did belong to the Bney Ammon, but which would not be returned to them by the Israelites who had taken it away from Sichon.
+
+Chapter 3
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+ונפן ונעל, “we turned around and ascended; from the south to the north.”
+דרך הבשן, “on the way to Bashan,” which is situated between the river Jordan and the land of the Bney Ammon. Anyone travelling from the south to the north in that region is automatically ascending.
+
+Verse 2
+
+
+
+Verse 3
+
+
+
+Verse 4
+
+
+
+Verse 5
+
+
+
+Verse 6
+
+
+
+Verse 7
+
+
+
+Verse 8
+
+
+
+Verse 9
+
+
+
+Verse 10
+
+
+
+Verse 11
+
+הנה ערשו ערש ברזל, “behold, his bedstead was a bedstead made of iron.” This need not be understood literally; it means that the materials used in constructing the city walls were as sturdy as if they had been made out of strong metal. (B’chor shor) The word ערש occurs in Amos 3,12 as meaning: the leg of a bed.
+תשע אמות ארכה “it was nine cubits long.” (about 5,4 meters.) This is the average height of the walls of walled cities in those days, while depth of the wall was four cubits (about 2.4 meters).
+באמת איש, measurements applied to fully mature men.
+
+Verse 12
+
+ואת הארץ הזאת ירשנו, “and this land we have inherited;” this phrase is abbreviated; the line should have begun with the words: ‘”and this land which we have inherited at that time ...as well as its towns, I have given to the tribe of Reuven.” All of this has been explained in Numbers 32,33.
+
+Verse 13
+
+
+
+Verse 14
+
+
+
+Verse 15
+
+
+
+Verse 16
+
+
+
+Verse 17
+
+
+
+Verse 18
+
+ואצו אתכם, “I commanded you;” Moses addresses the tribes of Reuven and Gad. The reason he used the pronoun אתכם, “you,” instead of as we might have expected אותם, “them,” is because these two tribes remained part of the Jewish nation made up of twelve tribes owning ancestral land. (Ibn Ezra)
+
+Verse 19
+
+
+
+Verse 20
+
+
+
+Verse 21
+
+ואת יהושע צותי, “and I have commanded Joshua;” this is what has been written in Numbers 27,23: ויסמוך ידיו עליו ויצוהו, “he (Moses) placed his hands firmly upon him, and he commanded him.”
+
+Verse 22
+
+
+
+Verse 23
+
+ואתחנן, “I pleaded;” the root חנן when used in the reflexive conjugation occurs in this sense also in Genesis 42,21 when Joseph is described as pleading with his brothers. According to Rashi, who considers the root of the word to be חנם, the final letter ן at the end, should really have been a final ם.
+
+Verse 24
+
+ה' אלוקים, the first name of G-d here is a reference to the attribute aleph dalet, not to the tetragram, (an attribute that can be used normally only by the High priest in the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement). The second attribute used by Moses here is the tetragram. (Nachmanides)
+אתה החלות להראות, “You have begun to show;” Moses refers to the conquest of the lands of Sichon and Og by the army of the Israelites, a feat which would have been unthinkable without G-d’s active intervention. Since he had been permitted to witness this, he pleaded to also be permitted to witness the conquest of the lands occupied by the other five Canaanite tribes.
+כמעשיך, “as Your (other) works;” all of which demonstrate Your superior wisdom.
+וכגבורתך, ”and Your superior abilities.”
+
+Verse 25
+
+אעברה נא ואראה את הארץ הטובה, “please let me cross and see first hand the good land;” the question asked by most commentators is if Moses really only wanted to cross the Jordan for the mundane purpose of enjoying the fruit that grew in the Holy Land. It appears unbelievable to them that this could be the correct interpretation of this verse. They therefore conclude that the meaning of Moses’ plea was that he wished to be able to fulfill the many commandments of the Torah that can be fulfilled only while the person doing so is on the soil of the Holy Land.
+והלבנון, “and the Lebanon.” The word: הלבנון here is a simile for the permanent Temple. (Ibn Ezra) Seeing that Solomon used the cedar wood of that region to line the inner walls of the Temple that he built, this interpretation is not as far fetched as it might appear to some.
+
+Verse 26
+
+ויתעבר ה' בי למענכם, “but the Lord was angry at me for your sakes;” G-d had said to Moses: “if you cross the Jordan into the Holy Land, people will say that the decree against the generation which had come out of Egypt to die in the desert was because they had forfeited their claim on an afterlife. If I now allow you to enter the Holy Land in response to your prayer, they will say that Moses was not concerned with anyone but himself. Therefore you will be buried where they are buried, and both you and they will rise at the time of the resurrection and live in the Holy Land.” This is the meaning of: ויתא ראשי עם in Deuteronomy 33,21: “they (the tribe of Gad) positioned himself at the head of the fighting men of the people”, i.e. as the pioneers. Moses, by agreeing to be buried in the fields of Moab displayed his total identification with the fate of his people.
+רב לך, “it is enough for you;” the fact that you merited to experience the conquest of the lands of Sichon and Og.“As far as your request to cross the Jordan is concerned, do not continue to belabour this subject with Me. As far as your request to see the land with your own eyes, is concerned, I am willing to grant that wish of yours.”
+
+Verse 27
+
+עלה על ראש הפסגה, “ascend to the top of the summit;” if you were to ask who it is that will cross the Jordan with these people, command Joshua to do so. [The reader must appreciate that when Moses tells the people here that he had pleaded with G-d, his plea had been made immediately after he had been told that he would not be allowed to cross the Jordan, after he had struck the rock. (verse 28) 'עלה ראש הפסגה וגו, this is what G-d had told Moses already in the portion of Pinchas, Numbers 27,12 when He had said to him: עלה אל הר העברים, “ascend to the top of Mount Avarim.”
+
+Verse 28
+
+
+
+Verse 29
+
+ונשב בגיא, “we settled down in the valley.” Moses refers to Numbers 25,1, 'וישב ישראל בשיטים ויחל העם לזנות וגו, Israel settled down at Shittim, and the people began to indulge in harlotry, etc.” At that time, 24000 of them fell victim to a plague as a result of their misconduct. As a result of this we are still stuck here.
+
+Chapter 4
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+ועתה ישראל וגו, “and now, Israel, etc;” according to the beginning of the Sifri at the beginning of this paragraph, the words: ועתה ישראל, “and now, Israel, etc.;” are Moses’ introduction to relating laws in the Torah, after he had reminded the people why it had taken so long since the Exodus until now and the reason why they were still on the east bank of the river Jordan. He had reviewed how in spite of all the disappointments that their conduct had caused G-d, He had not stopped displaying His fondness for them in a tangible manner each day. He, Moses, would have long ago been able to enter the Holy Land had it not been for the delays caused by them, and his having exhausted the lifespan accorded to him during those years. [His having struck the rock by mistake would have been a scenario that could never have occurred but for their having been condemned to be in the desert for so many years. Ed.] It certainly was time for them now to listen to all the laws that it would be their duty to observe once they crossed the river Jordan
+למען תחיו, in order that you will continue to live;” the people who had worshipped the Peor had all been killed for having failed to keep such a basic commandment.
+ובאתם אתם וירשתם, “therefore it is up to you to inherit” by keeping G-d’s commandments. Do not think or even say, since Moses had been told by G-d that the lsraelites standing in front of Him in Numbers 26,53, who had been told that the land would be distributed to them, this was the kind of promise that could not be revoked even if they would prove unworthy.
+
+Verse 2
+
+לא תוסיפו על הדברת ״, “do not add to the word, etc.” Moses reminds the people that when they had been told in Deut. 1,21 עלה רש “ascend and take ancestral possession,” they had added a condition of their own by requesting to dispatch spies. If they had not done so, they would have settled in the Holy Land 40 years earlier and would not have had to watch a whole generation die in the desert. Their fathers had become corpses in the desert.
+ולא תגרעו ממנו, “nor must you diminish any of G-d’s words as spelled out in the Torah. After the debacle with the spies, when some of you had decided to after all fulfill G-d’s command of ascending to conquer, I had warned you that you would do so at your peril and that you would fail and suffer casualties (compare Numbers 14,42.) You decided to ignore my warning and as a result you paid dearly for that omission. (Compare Numbers 14,45) From now on I warn you to accept My commandments as given without emendations of any kind. A different interpretation of the verse commencing with: “do not add, etc.” The verse is a response to the heretics who deny the validity of the Talmud, by quoting this verse and by pointing out that the sages of the Talmud had ignored it, adding laws of their own by the hundreds. The answer of the sages is that the warning not to add or subtract from the laws of the Torah appears only twice, each time in connection with idolatry, i.e. not to violate the belief and service of the One and only Creator. Immediately following this warning, the Torah illustrates its meaning by reminding the people of what happened to those who had worshipped Peor in addition, (verse 3) Also in Deut. 13,1, the Torah illustrates what is meant by this law by reminding people not to sacrifice any of their children to the cult of the moloch. (Deut. 12,31) When it comes to any of the other commandments, however, the sages are not only entitled but encouraged to surround the Biblical laws with “fences,” in order to protect us not to violate the Biblical laws.
+
+Verse 3
+
+עיניכם הרואות, “Your eyes which have seen, etc.;” in verse 1 of this chapter Moses had told us to observe the laws of the Torah to ensure that the people whom he addressed would indeed inherit the Holy Land. It was also a warning not to once more miss that opportunity as it had been missed a few months earlier by 24000 of them who had worshipped the Peor. This had happened to them although up until that moment their conduct had entitled them to inherit their shares of that land. The previous generation had all died because of the sin related to the spies, and immediately after that G-d had told me that the time had come to make up for this now, and even now some of the people had wasted that opportunity by worshipping Peor, The time had therefore come to repeat the warning not to deviate by one iota in the laws concerning idolatry.
+
+Verse 4
+
+
+
+Verse 5
+
+
+
+Verse 6
+
+
+
+Verse 7
+
+בכל קראינו אליו, “whenever we call upon Him.” Whenever we make an effort to call upon His assistance; (compare: Deut.4,29): ובקשתם משם את ה' אלוקיך ומצאת כי תדרשנו בכל לבבך ובכל נפשך, “but from there (exile) you will seek the Lord your G-d; you will find Him if you seek Him out with all your heart and all your soul.
+
+Verse 8
+
+
+
+Verse 9
+
+אשר ראו עיניך, which your eyes have seen.” Compare Exodus 20,18: “and all the people saw the thunder.”
+
+Verse 10
+
+
+
+Verse 11
+
+ותעמדון תחת ההר, “you were standing at the bottom of the Mountain.” Compare Exodus 19,17: ויתיצבו בתחתית ההר “they stood (at attention) at he base of the Mountain.”
+וההר בוער באש עד לב השמים חשך ענן וערפל, “and the Mountain was ablaze with fire to the very heart of the heavens, darkness, cloud, and thick darkness.” If you were to say that the beginning of this verse appears to contradict its end seeing that if something burns and is aflame, there is obviously no darkness there? The miracle at the time was that darkness and light coexisted. Moses continues by explaining what took place: The Lord spoke to you out of the fire; what you heard, were the sounds of His voice. However, you had no vision of something by means of a picture, an illustration. The reason that you could not see the vision, the picture, was that it was enveloped by different degrees of darkness. This had to be so, as no human being is allowed a visual image of the essence of the Lord.
+עד לב השמים, a figure of speech, as the heaven does not have a heart; it is a simile for the center of heaven, its innermost part. (Ibn Ezra)
+
+Verse 12
+
+
+
+Verse 13
+
+ויגד לכם את בריתו, “He declared unto you His covenant.” All the other commandments were revealed to you through me. He instructed me to do so at that time. (Compare verse 14)
+
+Verse 14
+
+
+
+Verse 15
+
+כל תמונה, “any visual image.” Compare Exodus 20,10: לא תעשה כל מלאכה, which cannot mean: “you must not do every work,” but must mean: “you shall not perform any kind of work, such as, etc.” The author refers the reader to additional examples of this formulation in Exodus 22,21, as well as in our verse, תמונת כל סמל, as well as verses 17 and 18 in our chapter. In all of these examples the word כל does not mean “all,” but “any.”
+
+Verse 16
+
+פן תשחיתון, “lest you will become corrupt;” this refers to the previous verse in which the people had been reminded that even during the revelation at Mount Sinai they had never had a visual image of their G-d. How much less are they allowed to fashion imaginary images of Him, and become thoroughly corrupted in their belief in the One and only but invisible G-d, their Creator.
+
+Verse 17
+
+אשר תעוף בשמים, ”which flies in the heavens.” There are many places in the Bible where the sky is simply referred to as שמים, “heaven.” The author refers the reader to his commentary on Genesis 1,20, where he dealt with this topic.
+
+Verse 18
+
+
+
+Verse 19
+
+לכל העמים, “unto all the peoples;” the luminaries shine for all of mankind, regardless of their religious orientation. They shine equally for the dumb and the intelligent, the righteous or the evil doers. Anyone who worships such phenomena which do not distinguish between different categories of creatures, must surely consider himself as having been greatly humiliated by such “gods.”A different interpretation about the words: לכל.....אשר חלק העמים, “which He has assigned to all the nations.” According to this approach, the phenomena in the sky are indeed intended to exert a degree of awe for all the other nations, barring the Jewish people. You, the Jewish people whom G-d has chosen as His inheritance on earth, it behooves not to bow down to any power but to Him. They need not be in awe of any other phenomena in nature.
+
+Verse 20
+
+ויוצא אתכם מכור הברזל, “He has taken you out of the iron crucible;” Rabbi Akiva says that by this G-d (Moses) refers to the gentiles who burn their first born sons as sacrifices to their “so called” deities. (Yakut Shimoni on this verse, quoting Pirkey de Rabbi Eliezer).
+
+Verse 21
+
+התאנף בי על דבריכם, “He (the Lord) was angry at me on your account; in spite of this I am warning you: “be on your guard!”(verse 23)
+
+Verse 22
+
+כי אנכי מת בארץ הזאת, “for I am going to die in this land;” this is why I must warn you now not to forget my teachings, as once you have crossed the Jordan I will no longer be with you. If I would have been able to cross with you, I would have been in a position to actively prevent you from forgetting the Torah.
+אינני עובר את הירדן, “I am not going to cross the river Jordan.” You will therefore realise that what I am telling you is not for my benefit, but for yours. [I will no longer have to fulfill the Torah’s commandments.]
+
+Verse 23
+
+אשר צוך ה' אלוקיך, “which the Lord your G-d has commanded you.” These words refer to the beginning of the verse, i.e. for you not to forget the covenant with the Lord. An alternate interpretation: the words quoted mean: “as I have commanded you.”.
+
+Verse 24
+
+אש אוכלה הוא, “He, (the Lord) is a devouring fire.” He is comparable to a devouring fire.
+
+Verse 25
+
+כי תוליד בנים ובני בנים, “When you shall beget children, and children’s children;” Moses implies that when he warned the people not to forget the Lord’s covenant, he did not refer to the generation he was addressing. He was not worried that they would forget. What he was concerned about was future generations, who had not been eye witnesses to what the Lord had done for the Jewish people.
+ונושנתם בארץ, “and you have become old established in the land;” you will therefore take it for granted and not worry about ever losing that land.
+
+Verse 26
+
+את השמים ואת הארץ, “both heaven and earth;” Moses refers to all the stars in heaven, as well as to the permanent and unalterable phenomena that are part of the earth. [The rock of Gibraltar, the Himalayan Mountains, etc. Ed.] (Compare Ibn Ezra)
+
+Verse 27
+
+
+
+Verse 28
+
+ועבדתם שם וגו, “and there you will worship, etc.” We find a similar construction in Chronicles II 15,3: וימים רבים לישראל ללא אלוהי אמת, וללא כהן מורה, וללא מורה וללא תורה.”^^!has gone many years without the true G-d, without a priest to give them instruction, and without teaching and without the Torah.”
+
+Verse 29
+
+
+
+Verse 30
+
+
+
+Verse 31
+
+
+
+Verse 32
+
+כי שאל נא, “for ask now of the days past;” make enquiries of earlier generations if any nation ever experienced what you have been granted to experience;” seeing that we have been granted more privileges than any generation of mankind experienced, our G-d is especially mindful that we do not prove ungrateful.
+
+Verse 33
+
+
+
+Verse 34
+
+?או הנסה, “or did He ever test or examine?” This is all part of the questions you must ask yourselves
+לקחת לו גוי מקרב גוי, “to take for Himself a nation from the midst of another nation, etc.;” after all, you were Egyptians just like all the other Egyptians. We have proof of this from Ezekiel 20,7: ואומר אליהם איש גלולי עיניו השליכו, “I also said to them: cast away everyone of you all the detestable things that you are drawn to.”
+ובמלחמה, “and by war;” for the Lord fought on their behalf against Egypt. (Exodus 14,25)
+ובמוראים, “all very visibly.” [The author, basing himself on the Targum traces the word to ראה, “to see.” Ed.]
+
+Verse 35
+
+
+
+Verse 36
+
+
+
+Verse 37
+
+ויבחר בזרעו אחריו, “and chose their seed after them;” this is a hint to Yaakov; if the Torah had written: בזרעם אחריהם, it could have been interpreted as eight nations. (the six sons of Keturah, Esau and Ishmael) all of whom had emerged from Avraham and Yitzchok) in addition to the Jewish people.
+ויוציאך בפניו, and Who brought you out from its presence (the Egyptians’) as was spelled out presently, in Exodus 12,41: “יצאו כל צבאות ה' לעיני מצרים, “all the hosts of the Lord went out from the land of Egypt.” This is not the only time in the Bible that Egypt is referred to in the singular mode, i.e. בפניו instead of בפניהם. One example that comes to mind, is Exodus 14,10: והנה מצרים נוסע אחריהם, and behold: Egypt is marching after them, instead of “are marching after them.”
+
+Verse 38
+
+כיום הזה, as on this day; the day on which the Israelites had conquered the lands of Sichon and Og.
+
+Verse 39
+
+
+
+Verse 40
+
+
+
+Verse 41
+
+אז יבדיל משה, “then Moses separated;” after having defeated Sichon and Og; the commandment to establish cities of refuge had been given already in Numbers 35,14. Here the Torah only mentions that it now had been carried out as the requisite land had been conquered. Moses mentions it only as one of many positive measures he had undertaken on the people’s behalf. Although he could have described this in the first person, i.e. “I set apart these cities,” it was not in his nature to do so, just as he did not do so in Leviticus 1,2, when he described “if anyone of you is willing to offer an offering to the Lord,” he actually had himself in mind. The same is true of Exodus 16,32, and numerous other occasions in the Torah.
+
+Verse 42
+
+
+
+Verse 43
+
+ואת ראמות בגלעד, “and Ramot in Gilad;” from here we could infer that the tribe of Menashe did not own any land in that region. On the other hand, the Torah wrote in Numbers 32,40 that Moses gave the Gilad to Machir, son of Menashe. How are we to account for this discrepancy? We must assume that the tribes that settled on the east bank of the Jordan all shared some territory formerly known as Gilad. The same appears the case when the Torah wrote in Deut.3,12: וחצי הר הגלעד ועריו נתתי לראובני ולגדי, ויתר הגלעד נתתי לחצי שבט המנשה, “and I gave half of the mountain of Gilad and its towns to Reuven and Gad; and the remainder of the Gilad I gave to half the tribe of Menashe.”
+
+Verse 44
+
+
+
+Verse 45
+
+אלה העדות והחוקים, “These are the testimonial laws and the statutes;” wherever a paragraph is introduced with the word אלה, this constitutes a break with what had preceded it. (Sh’mot Rabbah 1,2) What the Torah says it that the laws given to the people after the Exodus from Egypt have now been concluded. Laws that follow were not revealed to the people until the fortieth year. The details of laws pertaining to cities of refuge were not revealed until now. [Exodus 21 13, in which mention is made of a place where an inadvertent killer can flee to, apparently did not provide details. Ed.]
+העדות, the word means the same as התראות, “encounter,” it is used in this sense in Exodus 19,21: רד העד בעם, “descend and warn the people by meeting them.” [Normally the word עדות means “testimony,” eye witness report, i.e. the witness had been present at the occurrence about which he testifies. Ed.]
+
+Verse 46
+
+
+
+Verse 47
+
+
+
+Verse 48
+
+
+
+Verse 49
+
+
+
+Chapter 5
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+אל כל ישראל, “to all of Israel;” they were to all have part in the reading of the ten Commandments by Moses by witnessing it. Everyone who had been born after the revelation at Mount Sinai was to be present.
+
+Verse 2
+
+
+
+Verse 3
+
+לא את אבותינו (לבדם) כרת את הברית כי אתנו אנחנו, “not only with our fathers (alone) did the Lord establish the covenant;” we find a similar formulation in Genesis 32,29 לבדם) לא יקרא שמך יעקב כי אם ישראל עמו), “your name will no longer be Yaakov, but the name Yisrael will henceforth be added to it.”We find a similar interpretation in the Midrash Tehillim on Psalms 8,3: מפי עוללים ויונקים יסדת עוז, “from the mouths of infants and sucklings You have founded strength.” This is interpreted to mean that even unborn children have received the Torah and are guarantors for this to their parents that they will observe the Torah in due course. The Midrash describes the unborn fetuses as having been given visions of G-d and having heard the Ten Commandments, and responded after each that they considered it as binding for them.
+כי אתנו אנחנו, “but with us here” (He concluded the covenant). Even though there are quite a few amongst us here to day who have not stood at Mount Sinai, not having been born yet, the covenant applies to them and is binding on them. [The answer to the question of how an unborn person can be held accountable for violating a covenant he had not been a party to when it was concluded, is that in Jewish law one may accept obligations on behalf of people who are not present and aware of it, provided that these obligations are for the benefit of the party on whose behalf these obligations have been accepted. Becoming part of G-d’s people is perceived of being such a benefit. Ed.] The proof that this is so is that G-d has told us that He is meting out penalties for up to the fourth generation after the sinner committed his sin, whereas He allows even the descendent 1000 generations down the line to participate in the reward given to his forbear for good deeds performed. (Exodus 20,6)
+
+Verse 4
+
+פנים בפנים דבר ה' עמכם, “The Lord spoke with you face to face;” Moses refers to the first two commandments that G-d addressed directly to all the people, before they asked Moses to become their gobetween as they found G-d’s voice too overpowering and were afraid of dying. (Compare verse 22)
+
+Verse 5
+
+אנכי עומד בין ה' ובינכם, “I stood between the Lord and between you;” I did so in order to convey the other eight commandments to you.
+ולא עליתם בהר לאמר, and you did not ascend the Mountain;” you did not have to ascend the Mountain during the revelation of the Ten Commandments, nor as I did for 40 days thereafter in order to receive the whole Torah. (Ibn Ezra)
+
+Verse 6
+
+
+
+Verse 7
+
+
+
+Verse 8
+
+
+
+Verse 9
+
+
+
+Verse 10
+
+ולשומרי מצותו, “and to those who observe His commandments. The word מצותו is read as if it had been spelled מצותיו, “His commandments” (pl.)
+
+Verse 11
+
+
+
+Verse 12
+
+שמור את יום השבת, “to observe the Sabbath day.” In the first version of the Ten Commandments the Torah wrote: זכור את יום השבת, “to remember the Sabbath day.” This was in order to remind the people of the Sabbath each week as they were not to go out looking for manna. Now, in the fortieth year, when the people had been familiar with the manna since the day they were born, it was more appropriate for Moses to underline the importance of the observance of the commandments related to Sabbath observance. Another interpretation for the difference in the terminology used on these two occasions for the law to keep the Sabbath day. The expression שמר also means “to remember.” It was used first by Yaakov when Joseph related the dream to him in which sun, moon and eleven stars bowed down to him (Genesis 37,11) The word שמר refers to long term remembering. Yaakov/Joseph had to wait for 22 years until they understood the meaning of that dream. זכור, on the other hand, refers to remembering for a short period of time. This is like the person who waits all day long for the arrival of the Shabbat so that he can properly sanctify it, like Rabbi Yannai who would wrap himself in his tallit and stand at the eve of Shabbat at twilight, saying: Come, my bride; come, my bride. It is also possible that the expression זכור is addressed to people embarking on protracted voyages on the sea, where they may lose track of time, whereas the expression שמור is addressed to people living on dry land.
+כאשר צוך, “as He has commanded you.” Rashi comments that this commandment was first issued at Marah (Exodus 15,25.) When the first version of the Ten Commandments was read to the people, they were to remember that already at Marah they had received instructions about parts of the Sabbath legislation. In our paragraph, the people had to be reminded that actually the Sabbath legislation had preceded the revelation on Mount Sinai, and that the bulk of that legislation had been taught to the people already at Marah. We can find proof of this in the Haggadah shel Pessach, where the author, recounting 15 stages of gifts we had received from G-d, states specifically that if G-d had given us only the Sabbath, and never added the revelation at Mount Sinai, this too would have been ample reason to thank Him. According to the plain meaning of the words כאשר צוך is that G-d when He commanded us to observe the Sabbath by reminding us that we should emulate Him and rest on that day just as He had rested on that day. (Exodus 20 11) Still another interpretation: seeing that this expression also occurs in the fifth commandment, which follows immediately, and these two commandments comprise both negative and positive aspects, they are especially to be remembered for that feature. [This is according to the view that both the word זכור and the word שמור, mean: “to remember.” Ed.]
+
+Verse 13
+
+
+
+Verse 14
+
+
+
+Verse 15
+
+וזכרת כי עבד היית, “you shall remember that you used to be a slave;” the reason why this has been written here, i.e. that your male and female servants also have to rest on the Sabbath, is that we ourselves were slaves and did not enjoy the luxury of resting on the Sabbath. We must not treat our slaves as we have been treated. In the first version of the Ten Commandments that were given on a joyous occasion, the Torah did not want to dampen our sense of joy by reminding us of our low status in Egypt. It therefore omitted mentioning that we used to be slaves. [Besides, 49 days after having escaped from Egypt, who would need a reminder of that? Ed.] It was sufficient to emphasise that it was G-d Who had taken us out of Egypt, and that we had not staged a revolt to bring this about. (Exodus 20,2) An alternate interpretation: if G-d redeemed us from slavery and intolerable conditions and gave us the Sabbath as a reminder, our own slaves are certainly to be granted no less by us.
+כי עבד היית בארץ מצרים, “for you were a slave in the land of Egypt.” In this version of the Ten Commandments, G-d does not emphasise His being the Creator of the universe in six days, (Exodus 20,11) and this is why we mention this when we recite the blessing over wine when making kiddush, i.e. sanctifying the Sabbath. On other special occasions that do not symbolise the creation of the universe, we content ourselves with reminding ourselves of the making of the Jewish nation, i. e. זכר ליציאת מצרים, “a reminder of the Exodus from Egypt.”
+על כן, “therefore,” G-d wishes us to remember that our status in Egypt was a deplorable one, we were lowly slaves.
+
+Verse 16
+
+ולמען ייטב לך, “and in order that it will go well with you;” in the first version of the commandment to honour our parents, this promise of a reward was absent. In other words, G-d promises an additional reward for honouring our parents. A careful reading of the first version of the Ten Commandments will reveal that the letter ט is the only letter of the Hebrew alphabet that did not appear in it. The second version therefore includes it, as that letter symbolises טוב goodness. Moses caught on to this and took it upon himself to make up for this deficiency by adding a line that included this letter.
+
+Verse 17
+
+עד שוא, “a vain witness.” If someone testifies against someone whom he had seen perform a crime deliberately, but his testimony is not supported by a second witness or there are two witnesses but the person was not warned about the consequences of his crime before performing it, he is not to come forward to bring a charge he knows that a conviction could not be obtained under these circumstances.
+
+Verse 18
+
+ולא תתאוה, “and you shall not covet.” The expression “to covet” is used only when it describes the desire of one’s heart, not when one plans to act upon that desire. (Ibn Ezra) As soon as someone becomes aware, that his neighbour, due to various kinds of pressure is known to consider selling it and instead of financially supporting his neighbour exploits his reduced circumstances, and decides in his mind to buy it from him, he has violated this commandment. When he expressed his intention by mouth, he has violated the commandment of לא תחמד, as written at the beginning of verse 18. All the last five commandments are introduced with the connective letter ו except for the first one in that string, the warning not to commit murder, i.e. לא תרצח. In all the Ten Commandments, commencing with the word: אנכי, until the words: ולשומרי מצותו at the end of verse 10, there is no difference between the wording of the first set of the Ten Commandments and the wording of the second set, as G-d repeated the wording, and therefore their meaning is identical in both instances. Moses had not intended to introduce any changes either. However, in the second version in our chapter, the changes that Moses did introduce did not change the meaning of the commandment. There is a general rule concerning when something in the Torah has been repeated, you will always find a minor change in the wording or spelling. The change you see was part of the original Torah scroll and has not been introduced subsequently. The Ten Commandments on the first set of the Tablets, which Moses had smashed and the Commandments on the second Tablets quoted in the Book of Deuteronomy are identical with the exception of that addition for the reason given for the commandment to honour one’s parents. What we see written down in the Book of Deuteronomy is the version of the second set of Tablets Moses received from G-d. Basically, the text in the Torah scroll Moses handed down to us is the one that represents Moses’ words. Here Moses arranged the order of the examples quoted in the tenth commandment, according to how people develop desires as they grow older. First they desire a better house, one that that they could not afford previously. Next, they desire a woman who they feel has more to offer them than the one they had married when relatively young and inexperienced. Next they also desire such assets as make life more comfortable, even if they have to acquire them by making someone who owns them part with theirs.
+
+Verse 19
+
+קול גדול ולא יסף, “with a strong voice that did not weaken;” according to our sages this voice continued to be heard during the entire forty days that Moses spent on Mount Sinai, immediately after the revelation. Another interpretation of that line: the words ולא יסף mean that the Israelites did not hear anything but the Ten Commandments, so as no to distract them. This would be in line with Jeremiah 45,3: כי יסף מכאוב על מכאובי,”for He had added to my grief.”
+
+Verse 20
+
+
+
+Verse 21
+
+
+
+Verse 22
+
+
+
+Verse 23
+
+
+
+Verse 24
+
+ואת תדבר אלינו, “and you shall speak to us;” Moses’ voice, a voice familiar to them and not so overpowering, would be easier to bear, so that they could understand it better.
+
+Verse 25
+
+
+
+Verse 26
+
+מי יתן והיה לבבם , “Oh that they had such a heart, etc.;” even though it was within G-d’s power to grant the people such a heart, He preferred to use a syntax familiar to them.
+
+Verse 27
+
+
+
+Verse 28
+
+ואתה פה עמוד עמדי, “but as for you, stay here with Me!” G-d invites Moses to again spend time with Him by ascending the Mountain.
+ועשו בארץ, “in order that they will perform them in the land, etc.” Moses refers to what he had said in Deut. 4,14:, that the Lord had commanded him to teach the people His commandments.
+
+Verse 29
+
+
+
+Verse 30
+
+
+
+Chapter 6
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+
+
+Verse 2
+
+אשר אנכי מצוך, “which I am commanding you.” The letter ך at the end of the word מצוך, is “weak,” (does not have a dot in it).
+
+Verse 3
+
+ארץ זבת חלב ודבש, “a land flowing with milk and honey.” This is an abbreviated sentence, and should read: כאשר דבר ה' אלוקי אבותיך לתת לך ארץ זבת חלב ודבש, “as the Lord the G-d of your father said to give you a land flowing with milk and honey.”An alternate interpretation: there is only a letter ב missing at the beginning of the word ארץ. We have other such examples such as in Kings II 12,11: 'הנמצא בית ה where we would have expected 'הנמצא ב בית ה, “which is in the Temple.” The author claims that there are numerous more such examples that he could quote. The sentence would conclude by saying that “as the Israelites would greatly multiply in the land is flowing with milk and honey.”
+
+Verse 4
+
+שמע ישראל, “Hear O Israel!” we have an aggadic text according to which the letter ע in the word שמע is supposed to be “hanging”, i.e. not written directly on the line with the other letters in that word. The reason for this is supposed to be that G-d created the universe by using this letter. What is meant by this? Israel is one amongst 70 nations, the number of nations are one seventieth of the number of beasts that populate the earth. The number of fourlegged red blooded beasts on earth are one seventieth of the number of species of birds. The species of birds amount to one seventieth of the species of fish, which in turn are one seventieth of the number of different malignant forces, evil spirits, which in turn are one seventieth of the number of angels in heaven. The Lord G-d, presides over all of these creatures as the sole ruler. This is what the liturgist referred to when in his poem entitled ראשית. (No source provided)
+שמע ישראל וגו, you are to listen in order to understand that G-d in respect to the aggadah quoted He is One, and no one preceded Him. He will remain thus, as He is eternal, the same G-d that existed even prior to the dawn of the universe. In all respects He is אחד, one, i.e. unique, not part of a twosome or threesome. No such self sufficient Being exists in His universe. Neither is there ever going to be a Being comparable to Him. A different interpretation of this verse: all the nations have claimed this Being as their household god. Now that theJewish people have claimed Him as theirs, it has become known throughout the world that He is our G-d, seeing that He communicates with us directly. If the Torah instead of writing as it did, had only written: ה' אלוקינו אחד, “the Lord our G-d is unique,” this uniqueness would have been perceived as restricted to His nation Israel, just like they each worship their own national deity. They would have said so even more if the Torah had only written: שמע ישראל אלוקינו אחד, “hear Israel our G-d is One.”
+
+Verse 5
+
+בכל לבבך, “with all your heart;” according to Rashi, the reason that the word is written with two successive letters ב is that G-d wishes to be loved even by our “evil urge,” not only by our urge to do good. After all, we each only have one heart so it should have been spelled .לבך
+ובכל מאדך. The word מאד always describes an intensity, extremity. Moses asks us to love G-d with the utmost intensity we are capable of.
+
+Verse 6
+
+והיו הדברים האלה, “and these words.....shall remain”seeing that Moses had said previously that we should love G-d, and he had not added any adjective describing the kind of love he had in mind, he adds additional dimensions, primarily the fact that this should be a steadfast, constant feeling of love for Him. If it is, we will doubtless get to know Him better. (Sifri)
+
+Verse 7
+
+
+
+Verse 8
+
+וקשרתם לאות על ידך, “you are to bind them (these words) on your hand;” in a single wrapping and a single knot. On the other hand, the phylacteries to be worn on your head, will have the shape of טוטפות, “frontlets worn between your eyes on your forehead,” i.e. four separate sections, as explained by Rashi.
+על ידך, “on your hand;” all over your hand and arm. Your left hand is referred to as יד, when no adjective is added.
+
+Verse 9
+
+וכתבתם על מזוזות ביתך ובשעריך, “you shall inscribe them on the doorposts of your house and of your gates.” This is so that you will remember the fact that the Lord your G-d is One and unique, both when you enter your house and when you leave it. Rabbi Yitzchok, in commenting on the words: “you shall affix it (some of the blood of the Passover lamb) to the two upright posts and the lintel of your house,” (Exodus 12,7) comments that from here we learn that every time the Torah uses the term מזוזות, it refers to either one of the side posts, except when the word is spelled with a second letter ו. (Talmud tractate Menachot folio 34) He views the two sideposts of the door as a simile for a human being’s two shoulders. The mezuzzah, i.e. the parchment scroll containing the text of the commandment, is to be affixed at the lower end of the upper third of that post, at shoulder height of a person of average height. It is affixed at an angle the upper part of it pointing toward the outside of the house.
+על מזוזות ביתך. The word ביתך, can also be a reminder of ביאתך, “where you enter.” It will be on the right side of the person entering the house, so that it matches the right foot with which one enters one’s house first. (Compare folio 34, of the tractate Menachot quoted before.
+ובשעריך, “and upon your gates.” This word is used as an alternate expression for “your house.” Just as your house is a status symbol, so the entrance to any part of your residence that is a status symbol requires to have a mezzuzah. This excludes the toilets, the bathroom, and other places which instead of being status symbols, are reminders of what we have in common with the lower forms of life, the animals. [When Moses was commanded to meet Pharaoh at the edge of the Nile, where he would excrete, unseen, as he made believe that being a deity he never had to excrete, G-d wanted to remind him that He was aware of this sham. (Exodus 7,15. Ed.]
+
+Verse 10
+
+
+
+Verse 11
+
+
+
+Verse 12
+
+מבית עבדים, “out of the house of bondage.” Rashi comments on this unusual phrase [surely the Israelites had not only been liberated from a house, Ed.] that the word “house” here is to be understood as “any place containing Israelites as slaves.” If you were to point out that in Exodus 20,2 where the expression מבית עבדים occurs again, Rashi comments that while in Egypt the Jews were slaves of Pharaoh, not of every Egyptian householder. Or perhaps they were the slaves of ordinary Egyptians who were themselves slaves of Pharaoh. And then again, in Deuteronomy 7.8 we read, “He redeemed you out of the house of bondage, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.” This means that even though they were slaves of Pharaoh He redeemed them.
+
+Verse 13
+
+ובשמו תשבע, “and (only) in His name may you pronounce any oaths.” Make sure that when you do swear, that everyone who hears you knows that you are using only His name. When others make you take an oath, do not violate that oath, as you have sworn in His name.
+
+Verse 14
+
+
+
+Verse 15
+
+
+
+Verse 16
+
+כאשר נסיתם במסה, “as you have tried Him at Massah,” The letter ב in the word במסה, has the vowel patach under it, as Massah is the name of a place. At that place, the Israelites had questioned whether the Lord is in their midst or not (Exodus 17,7).
+
+Verse 17
+
+ועדותיו, “and His testimonies.” This is a reference not to violate negative commandments.
+
+Verse 18
+
+
+
+Verse 19
+
+
+
+Verse 20
+
+
+אשר צוה ה׳ אלוקינו אתכם, “which the Lord our G-d commanded you.” When the Torah spoke of the questions raised by the intelligent son (according to the author of the Haggadah shel Pessach who identifies him by quoting our verse), he does so seeing that this son has understood that not all the 613 commandments belong to the same category, but he has subdivided them into the three categories: ,עדות חוקים, משפטים. When it appears at first glance as if he excludes himself, because he described the laws as being addressed to אתכם “to you,” as if he were to exclude himself, he hastens to say אלוקינו “our G-d,” to prevent anyone thinking that he excludes himself. Since he is a member of the second generation and had not personally heard the Ten Commandments at Mount Sinai, he in fact is to be commended for including himself, as he could have argued that he had not said נעשה ונשמע, “we will perform the laws as soon as we know what they are.” (Exodus 24.7) This is in stark contrast to the “wicked son” in Exodus 12,26, who characterizes the laws as applying only “to you,” thereby excluding himself.
+
+Verse 21
+
+
+
+Verse 22
+
+לעינינו, “before our eyes.” We are witnesses of this.
+
+Verse 23
+
+
+
+Verse 24
+
+לטוב לנו כל הימים לחיותנו כיום הזה, “for our good, always, and to keep us alive as of this day.” In other words, Moses gives the Torah’s answer that we will be the ones inheriting כל הימים, “all the days,” i.e. also in the world of the future. This verse is the answer to the ridiculous philosophy of the heretics who are asking the Israelites (sarcastically) “why did Moses never spell out that there is such a thing as an afterlife, something we call: עולם הבא?” The answer to their question has been spelled out in our verse. The fact that in many other instances Moses did not spell out that this afterlife is the reward for living a life of Torah observance, and he is more concerned with their observing the commandments while they are alive on this earth, is because Moses addresses every Jew, whether a grandfather or at the beginning of his adolescence. In other words, what he speaks about must be relevant to the nation as a whole. In this way he hopes to increase the awe in which each individual Jew relates to our G-d. For the same reason you have not heard him writing or speaking about gehinom, the domain reserved for the perpetual sinners, in which they are burned to a crisp, according to many other religions, and which will inspire them with dread of their god, not admiration and love, he warned them only about punishment in this life. (Compare the portions bechukotai, and ki tavo and a number of other places.)
+
+Verse 25
+
+וצדקה תהיה לנו, “and it will be a righteousness for us, etc;” this verse has also not been spelled out completely; it should have read: 'וצדקה תהיה לנו לפני ה' אלוקינו כי נשמור וגו “and it will be a righteousness before the Lord our G-d, when we observe, etc.” in other words, Moses holds out the promises of a great reward for keeping the Torah. An alternate interpretation: this sentence is an appendage to the one that commenced with the question of the intelligent son in verse 20. Moses assures this son that there will be a great reward in store for him if he observes the various categories of commandments in the Torah about which he had enquired. This reward is the encouragement to diligently study and observe the Torah.
+
+Chapter 7
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+
+
+Verse 2
+
+
+
+Verse 3
+
+לא תתחתן בם, “do not intermarry with them.” The nations referred to are the ones mentioned in Kings I 11,1.
+
+Verse 4
+
+כי יסיר, “for he will turn away;” this is the son of a Canaanite marrying a Jewish girl, mentioned in verse three. The father of such a child will bring him up as a heathen, although legally, he is a Jew, his mother being Jewish. In the case of the child being a daughter, this will be even more so, as living as a heathen is so much easier for the children who do not have to observe all the commandments of the Jewish religion. (B’chor shor)
+
+Verse 5
+
+
+
+Verse 6
+
+
+
+Verse 7
+
+לא מרובכם מכל העמים, “not because you were more numerous than all the other nations;” the “other” nations referred to here are the seven Canaanite tribes that will be replaced by the Israelites shortly.
+כי אתם המעט מכולם, “rather because you are the least numerous;” but it is because He loves you.
+
+Verse 8
+
+
+
+Verse 9
+
+וידעת כי ה' אלוקין־, “for you know that He is the Lord your G-d;” this is a continuation of the two previous verses. The reason why you are so certain that Hashem is the Lord your G-d is because you are aware of what He has done for your ancestors commencing with Avraham. He has faithfully kept all the promises He has given them. (B’chor shor)
+לאלף דור, “for up to a thousand generations.” Why did these words have to be added? Having told you that G-d loves you, you might think that you do not have to bother to keep all the commandments of His Torah, seeing that G-d is obligated to keep His oath to our forefathers, regardless. G-d is willing to wait with keeping His promises for as long as a thousand generations, if in the interval no generation had proved worthy of what He had promised to the forefathers.
+שומר הברית, “He keeps His covenant;” the word שומר here means: “waiting in anticipation,” as it did in Genesis 37,11 where Yaakov was described as awaiting fulfillment of Joseph’s dream with the words: ואביו שמר את הדבר, “and his father remained in expectation of what would happen.”
+
+Verse 10
+
+ומשלם לשונאיו אל פניו, “and He repays them that hate Him to his face.” He punishes such people for their sins during their lifetime.
+אל פניו ישלם לו, “He pays him in his lifetime,” instead of waiting to punish his children if they continue in their father’s way. If they do not do so, (continue to sin) they will not be burdened with the sins of their fathers. This is spelled out clearly in Ezekiel 18,17: והוא לא ימות בעדן אביו, “but he will not die on account of the sin of his father.”
+
+Verse 11
+
+ושמרתם את המצוה, “You shall therefore keep the commandment;” your observing His commandments will be appropriate as a repayment for G-d keeping His promises to the forefathers.”
+
+Verse 12
+
+והיה עקב משמעון, “it shall come to pass as a result of your hearkening, etc;” Moses tells the people that on account of their observing the laws of the Torah the blessings following will be bestowed upon them collectively. On the other hand, if you do not observe His commandments He will not fulfill the terms of His covenant until the following generation.
+
+Verse 13
+
+
+
+Verse 14
+
+
+
+Verse 15
+
+
+
+Verse 16
+
+
+
+Verse 17
+
+
+
+Verse 18
+
+
+
+Verse 19
+
+
+
+Verse 20
+
+הצרעה, “the hornet;” according to some interpretations this is a type of disease similar to tzoraat, afflicting the body. (Ibn Ezra)
+
+Verse 21
+
+
+
+Verse 22
+
+
+לא תוכל כלותם מהר, “you will not be able to destroy them quickly;” the word תוכל is not to be understood as an inability on your part. It will not be in your interest to do so, as you would create a vacuum of not enough people in the land, that would encourage invasion by free roaming beasts.
+
+Verse 23
+
+
+
+Verse 24
+
+
+
+Verse 25
+
+תשרפון באש, “you are to burn them by fire.” When the Israelites, after seeing the golden calf, addressed it with the words: “these are your deities (pl) Israel!” all types of idolatries were included in that declaration, and there is a rule that the only way an idolatry practiced by a Jew can be nullified is by destroying the idol by burning it. (Compare Talmud tractate Menachot folio 53) The only other way is to reduce it to dust and throw the dust to the winds.
+פן מוקש בו, “lest you be ensnared by it.” Sometimes one hesitates to destroy such images completely as one does not wish to destroy the value of the gold or silver that was part of it. Moses warns that by harbouring any part of it you are inviting disaster to befall your home and family.
+
+Verse 26
+
+שקץ תשקצנו, “you are to treat it as if it were an abomination (regardless of its market value). The reference is to residual gold and silver of such deities even after they have been dismantled.
+
+Chapter 8
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+כל המצוה, ”Every commandment,” Moses refers especially to the commandment not to covet the gold of the idolatries mentioned in verse 25 of the previous chapter.
+
+Verse 2
+
+וזכרת את כל הדרך, “you will remember the whole trek;” if your heart urges you to covet the gold and silver which are part of the idols of these nations, I remind you of the last 40 years in the desert when you had no need for, nor even use for gold and silver;
+
+למען ענותך, “in order to test you to see if you would revolt.
+התשמור מצותיו אם לא “if you would observe His commandments or not.” Actually the term נסיין in the sense of a “test,” that could be passed or failed, does not exist in G-d’s vocabulary, seeing that He knows the result of the “test” in advance, being omniscient. G-d employs such “tests” in order to demonstrate to the attribute of justice as well as to the attribute of mercy the true nature of the Jewish people, as I have explained in my commentary on Exodus 16,4.
+
+Verse 3
+
+ויענך “He afflicted you,” on the way, as in Psalms 102,24: ענה בדרך כחי, “He drained my strength while I was on the way.”
+וירעבך, “He starved you;” by not giving you more manna than enough for one day at a time. We have a principle that it is not possible to compare the state of mind of people who have a supply of food in their travel bag with those who, even though not hungry, do not have such a supply to fall back on.(Talmud, tractate Yuma folio 74) An alternate interpretation of the last phrase: וירעיבך, if G-d would have provided you with manna while you still had supplies of regular food which you took out of Egypt with you, you would not even have bothered to taste it in order to see if you liked it. This is why He waited until you were hungry, after having exhausted your supplies. You then had no option but to eat what G-d had provided for you. Seeing that this was something totally unknown to you or to your forefathers, G-d had to “starve” you in order to have you accept His food. [We know how often the people treated the manna as something lacking substance, and they even dubbed it as לחם הקלקל,” (Numbers 21,5). Ed,]
+
+Verse 4
+
+שמלתך לא בלתה, “your garments did not wear out;” this is relevant to chapter 7 verse 25, where matters you should not covet have been discussed. Although you have travelled a long distance in the desert, for almost forty years, G-d has made certain that your clothing did not need replacing. When you observe G-d’s commandments, you will not need all the things that ordinary people require in order to live on this earth comfortably. If He was able to look after you in an uninhabitable desert, how much more so can He look after you in habitable areas of the earth.
+
+Verse 5
+
+ה' אלוקיך מיסרך, “the Lord your G-d chastens you. By not providing you with a food supply sufficient for a week or even longer, so that you will be afraid to rebel against Him for fear He might withhold your food, He has succeeded in making you a chastened nation.” Only the feeling that one can exist independently of G-d results in one’s rebelling against the Torah laws. He has taught you to be dependent on His largesse daily.
+
+Verse 6
+
+
+
+Verse 7
+
+כי ה׳ אלוקיך מביאך, “for the Lord your G-d is about to bring you to a good land;” seeing it provides your needs in abundance, there is a danger that you might forget Him and imagine that you can manage on your own.
+יוצאים בבקעה ובהר, “springing forth both in the valleys and in the mountainous regions.” This makes it unnecessary for the people dwelling in the mountainous regions to have to descend to the valleys in order to secure their needs, i.e. their water supply.
+
+Verse 8
+
+
+
+Verse 9
+
+לא תחסר כל בה, “you shall not lack for anything in it.” Whatever grows in that land will grow in abundance.
+
+Verse 10
+
+ואכלת ושבעת וגו׳, “you will eat and be satisfied;” this verse is the one from which the sages derived the first three blessings in the prayer known as ברכת המזון, saying grace after meals. The three pertinent words are: ואכלת ושבעת וברכת “when you have eaten and been satisfied you are to say grace.” The first blessing concludes with the words: הזן את הכל. “He Who gives food to all.” The word את in the line: את ה׳ אלוקיך; this is a reference to the owner of the house in which you have consumed this food, i.e. your host.
+על הארץ, “for the land; this is a reference to the paragraph in our grace which commences with the words: נודה לך, “let us give thanks to You.”
+הטובה אשר נתן לך, “the good one that He gave to you.” This is a reference to the third paragraph in which we ask G-d to rebuild Jerusalem, compare Talmud tractate Sotah folio 5. After a person has sated himself, and is revolted by seeing more food, he is obligated to pronounce these benedictions. If this is so, it follows automatically, without having to be spelled out, that when he is hungry and sits down to a meal that he will bless the Lord Who has provided it directly or indirectly. He does so by reciting the blessing concluding with the words: המוציא לחם מן הארץ, “Who has caused the earth to produce “bread,” i.e. food.
+ואכלת ושבעת וברכת, “these words are also a hint that when three people share a meal, they add an additional blessing to Hashem, זימון.
+
+Verse 11
+
+
+
+Verse 12
+
+
+
+Verse 13
+
+
+
+Verse 14
+
+ורם לבבך ושכחת, “and your heart feels superior, as a result of which you will forget” (the Lord and His largesse). Moses had warned against such a phenomenon already in verse 11. The phenomenon of becoming haughty is tragically all too common.
+
+Verse 15
+
+
+
+Verse 16
+
+
+
+Verse 17
+
+
+
+Verse 18
+
+
+
+Verse 19
+
+
+
+Verse 20
+
+
+
+Chapter 9
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+אתה עובר היום, “you are crossing this day;” this is not to be understood literally, but means: “in the immediate future.”An alternate interpretation of these words: “you are being considered as if crossing the Jordan already on this day.”
+
+Verse 2
+
+
+
+Verse 3
+
+
+
+Verse 4
+
+
+
+Verse 5
+
+
+
+Verse 6
+
+
+
+Verse 7
+
+אשר הקצפת במדבר, “how you made the Lord your G-d angry in the desert;” this occurred already immediately after the people had broken camp after over 11 months at Mount Sinai. (Ibn Ezra)
+
+Verse 8
+
+
+
+Verse 9
+
+בעלותי ההרה, “while I ascended the Mountain.” This occurred on the first day of the week, the seventh day of the month of Sivan. [That is, Moses ascended Mount Sinai on the day following the Revelation which was on the Sabbath, the sixth of Sivan. Ed.]
+ואשב בהר ארבעים וארבעים לילה, “I remained on the mountain for forty days and forty nights. This was from the day after the Sabbath of the revelation until dawn of the Friday on the 17th day of Sivan.
+
+Verse 10
+
+
+
+Verse 11
+
+ויהי מקץ ארבעים יום וארבעים לילה, “it was at the end of forty days and forty nights;” these forty nights had expired at dawn on the Friday of the seventeenth day in Sivan.
+
+Verse 12
+
+
+
+Verse 13
+
+
+
+Verse 14
+
+
+
+Verse 15
+
+ואפן וארד מן ההר, I turned around and descended from the Mountain,” on the same day, the seventeenth day in Tammuz.
+
+Verse 16
+
+
+
+Verse 17
+
+ואשברם לעיניכם, “I smashed them in front of your eyes.” I did this in order not to make you guilty of transgressing the law written thereon. It was written on them that you are not to have other deities, and you had made a golden calf for yourselves.!”.
+
+Verse 18
+
+ואתנפל לפני ה' כראשונה ארבעים יום וארבעים לילה. I prostrated myself before the Lord, as previously, for forty days and forty nights. This verse does not refer to Rashi’s commentary here that G-d responded to Moses with the words: סלחתי כדברך, “I have forgiven, in accordance with your words.” This phrase occurs in Scriptures only once, after the Sin of the Spies and the subsequent rebellion of the people. But the verse here alludes to Moses’ second period of isolation to obtain forgiveness after the sin of the golden calf.(Exodus 32,30.) That quote is Rashi’s own words, for on the seventeenth of Tammus during the first year of the Exodus Moses returned up to the Mountain in order to obtain forgiveness for the sin of the golden calf. The spies had not been dispatched until the twenty ninth day of Sivan in the second year of their wanderings.
+כראשונה, “as originally;” this word does not refer to the word: “I prostrated myself;” it could not have done, as he had not previously asked G-d to forgive the sin of the golden calf. It simply refers to a period of forty days and forty nights. Moses makes the point that he had had to stay on the Mountain without food or drink twice on two separate occasions. This had occurred the first time when he had ascended the Mountain of the seventh day of Sivan in order to obtain the first set of commandments. The second 40-day period to secure the forgiveness for the sin of the golden calf commenced on the eighteenth day of Tammus, and he returned at the beginning of the twenty ninth day of the month of Av. During those 40 days he did not ascend the mountain but prayed in his own tent, the one he had erected outside the camp, [as G-d had made Himself inaccessible to prayer inside the confines of the camp, as I have explained in my commentary on Exodus 32,11].
+
+Verse 19
+
+גם בפעם ההיא, “also on that occasion.” He had already prayed for them at the sea of reeds, (Exodus 14,15) at Marah (15,25) and at Massah.(Exodus 17,4)
+
+Verse 20
+
+
+
+Verse 21
+
+ואת חטאתכם, “and your sin;” the golden calf (IbnEzra)
+דק לעפר, fine as dust; the letter ל in this word has a semivowel, sh’va na.
+
+Verse 22
+
+ובתבערה and at Taveyrah; this is a reference to Taveyrah, also known as kivrat hataavah, the burial ground of the greedy ones, where thousands had died for eating too much meat for too long. (Numbers 11,3.) Seeing that this place had two names, Moses mentions both of them.
+
+Verse 23
+
+
+
+Verse 24
+
+
+
+Verse 25
+
+ואתנפל לפני ה, “I threw myself down before the Lord;” according to Rashi, these are the same forty days of which Moses had spoken already in verse 18. His proof is that he himself wrote: “the forty days and nights,” i.e. the ones referred to already.
+
+Verse 26
+
+ואמר ה, Moses uses G-d’s attribute spelled with the letters aleph dalet.
+
+Verse 27
+
+אל קשי העם הזה, ”to the stubbornness of this people.” The letter ק in the word קשי, has the semi vowel sh’va na.
+
+Verse 28
+
+ומשנאתו אותם, “or because of His hatred for them;” the letter ו at the beginning of the word ומשנאתו is to be understood as if the Torah had written: או, “or.” We have numerous occasions where the letter ו means “or,” for instance in Exodus 12,5: מן הכבשים, “or from amongst the sheep;” or in Exodus 21,17: ומכה אביו ואמו, “or if someone strikes his father or his mother,” to mention just a few.
+
+Verse 29
+
+
+
+Chapter 10
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+בעת ההיא, “at that time;” on the night of the twenty ninth of Av;” this is a reference to Exodus 34,1, when G-d said to Moses to that he was to carve out stones for the second set of Tablets.
+ארון עץ, “an ark made of wood.” There is disagreement among the sages in the Jerusalem Talmud, tractate shekalim, chapter six halachah 1, if this refers to a single ark or to two. The latter opinion holds that one of these arks was to contain the Torah scroll, and the other was to contain the second set of Tablets.
+
+Verse 2
+
+ושמתם בארון, “you shall put them inside the ark.” You shall not carry them in your hands so that you will not have an opportunity to smash them in a fit of anger, as you did with the last ones. (B’chor shor)
+
+Verse 3
+
+ואעל ההרה, “I ascended the Mountain.” This was at dawn on Thursday the twenty ninth day of Av. This ascent has been referred to in Exodus 34,4, where the Torah reported Moses ascending early in the morning.
+
+Verse 4
+
+ויתנם ה׳ אלי, “the Lord handed them to me.” This was on the Tuesday, the tenth day of the month of Tishrey.
+
+Verse 5
+
+ואפן וארד מן ההר, “I turned around and descended from the Mountain;” on the same day, on Tuesday, the tenth day of Tishrey. This is what is written in Exodus 34,29: ויהי ברדת משה מן ההר, “it happened while Moses was on his descent from the Mountain, etc.;” even though Moses had delayed briefly on the Mountain, he descended on that day and brought the second set of Tablets with him. This day is not included in the third 40 days that Moses had spent on the Mountain. Those forty days had already been completed at dawn of the day that Moses descended. Moses’ absences from the people, and his fasting, therefore commenced on Monday, the first day of Sivan, prior to the revelation on the sixth day of the month, as he had to completely discharge any remnants of food and drink consumed before he ascended the Mountain where he had to be comparable to angels who do not eat or drink. He therefore could remain in a constant state of ritual purity. He completed his fasting on Monday the ninth day of Tishrey. This is why it became a custom among some of our people to observe Mondays and Thursdays commencing with the first day of Sivan and concluding on the tenth day of Tishrey.
+
+Verse 6
+
+ובני ישראל נסעו מבארות בני יעקן, “after Aaron had died at the beginning of the fortieth year the Children of Israel and journeyed from Bney Yaakon, etc;” you should not assume that Aaron died at the beginning of the fortieth year and that Moses prayer therefore did not help him at all. The fact is that he died nearer the end of that year at Hor hahar, at the time when the Israelites had come from Bney Yaakon, to which they had come from Mosserah, as we find in Numbers 33,30. From there the people proceeded to Hor Hahar. This is where Aaron died, and not at the time in the first year when the people had worshipped the golden calf. [The assumption that he died then is contradicted by the Torah so many times, that it is not even worth denying. Ed.]
+
+Verse 7
+
+
+
+Verse 8
+
+בעת ההיא הבדיל ה' את שבט הלוי, “at that time the Lord set the tribe of Levi apart;” this decree was issued while the people were still encamped around Mount Sinai. Moses acted upon that decree only after the Tabernacle had been erected, and it had assumed practical meaning. This would have been a number of months after he had received these instructions.
+
+Verse 9
+
+
+
+Verse 10
+
+גם בפעם ההוא, “also on that occasion.” He did so with a friendly mien. He did so in order that the Holy name should not become desecrated, as I had said in my prayer. (Deut. 9.28) However, once you will have defeated the thirty one Canaanite kings and you have taken over their land, if you would commence to sin again, even prayers would not help, as in the meantime G-d had demonstrated that He had kept His part of the bargain, i.e. that He had not been too weak to overcome those nations. The people then would ask why disaster had overtaken the Jews (Compare Deut. 29,23) and they would conclude that it had been their fault, not that of their G-d.
+כימים הראשונים, “as on the first occasion;” forty days and nights on each occasion, from dawn on the twenty ninth of Av until dawn on the tenth of Tishrey.
+
+Verse 11
+
+קום, לך למסע, “arise go to make the people go;” this is a reminder of Exodus 32,34: נחה את העם, “lead the nation!”
+
+Verse 12
+
+
+
+Verse 13
+
+
+
+Verse 14
+
+
+
+Verse 15
+
+ויבחר בזרעם אחריהם, בכם, He chose their seeds after them, i.e. “whom did He choose” “you;” this is the meaning of the verse, as Rashi explains, based on the prefix ב in the word בכם. You, i.e. your generation, are the generation of the patriarchs’ seed that He has chosen. Rashi focuses on the words: כיום הזה, “as of now,” at the end of our verse.
+
+Verse 16
+
+
+
+Verse 17
+
+
+
+Verse 18
+
+
+
+Verse 19
+
+
+
+Verse 20
+
+את ה' אלוקיך תירא, “You shall fear the Lord your G-d;” This is a warning not to transgress negative commandments.
+אותו תעבוד, “Him you shall serve!” This refers to observance of the positive commandments.
+ובו תדבק, “and to Him you shall cleave!” With your heart;Another interpretation of this phrase: seeing that Moses had earlier told the people about some of G-d’s ways of doing things, he adds now that we should emulate what we have learned about how G-d does things. In the portion of Vaetchanan he had not said anything about specific ways in which G-d operates, (Deut. 6,13) this is why he elaborates here.
+ובשמו תשבע, “and by His name you shall swear.” This refers to your mouth, as opposed to your heart. If you were to ask that the third commandment of the Ten Commandments had indicated that oaths should be used very sparingly, that is quite true; however, if the need to swear an oath arises you must make sure to swear only by His name. Such situations are primarily when you are tempted to commit a transgression, and you use your oath to stop yourself from giving in to that temptation. (Compare Ruth 3,13 where Boaz did so according to the Talmud in tractate T’murah folio 3)
+
+Verse 21
+
+הוא תהלתך, “He is your glory;” you are to boast about having Him as your G-d, as will be explained forthwith.
+
+Verse 22
+
+
+
+Chapter 11
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+
+
+Verse 2
+
+ואשר לא ראו את מוסר, “and who have not witnessed Your chastisement;” Moses will furnish the details immediately.
+
+Verse 3
+
+
+
+Verse 4
+
+ואשר עשה לחיל מצרים, “and what He did to the army of Egypt;” [Moses adds in verse 6, that G-d had killed Datan and Aviram. These two actions do not appear to be related to one another, neither in the manner in which either party met its death, nor in the quantity of people involved in each action.] Why did Moses treat them in such a manner? He wished to demonstrate how both the earth and the ocean collaborated with G-d. The Egyptians did not drown in the regular manner but the waves piled up upon them forcing them below. [In the case of Datan and Aviram, though they stood far away from Korach, they were also swallowed by the earth which strained to carry out what it perceived to be G-d’s will.] Onkelos pays tribute to the astuteness with which nature cooperated with G-d, i.e. חכימא מיא, “the waters acted with wisdom.”
+
+Verse 5
+
+ואשר עשה לכם במדבר, “and what He did for you in the desert;” this is a reference to the manna. (Ibn Ezra)
+
+Verse 6
+
+ואת בתיהם, “and their houses.” Wives, children, and their young infants went to their deaths.
+
+Verse 7
+
+
+
+Verse 8
+
+למען תחזקו, “in order that you will remain strong;” Moses does not mean that the commandments should be performed in order to strengthen the Israelites’ bodies; it is never recommended that we serve the Lord for the sake of reward on this earth. (Avot, 1,3) What he meant was that performance of the commandments as a whole punctiliously, would ensure that their stay on the ancestral land they were about to be given would endure for many years. (verse 9)
+
+Verse 9
+
+
+
+Verse 10
+
+כי הארץ אשר אתה בא שמה וגו :”for the land that you are about to come to, etc.; ”the nature of that land requires that you observe G-d’s commandments.
+This land is not like Egypt where all the farmer had to do was to plant the seed and nature would take over automatically, as the Nile would irrigate the seedlings and the crops would grow. Therefore: והיה אם תשמעו. “It will be as a result of your hearkening, etc, I will direct My rain to the land that needs it. (vv. 11:13-14)
+והיה אם לא כארץ מצרים היא, “it is not like the land of Egypt;” Rashi explains as follows: Cham, Noach’s youngest son had built Tzoan in Egypt and Chevron in Canaan. When Rashi commented on Genesis 12,6, that the Canaanite was still living in that land, it means that the Canaanites at that time were in the process of capturing that land from Shem, Cham’s older brother. They did so by proceeding from the north of the land, which had been part of Shem’s ancestral land and that of his descendants. The lower, i.e. more southerly part of what is now the land of Israel had belonged to Cham. Chevron belonged to that part of the land of Canaan. This too has been explained by Rashi.
+
+Verse 11
+
+ארץ הרים ובקעות, “a land of hills and valleys.” No one was able to irrigate his fields by drawing on the waters from the rivers. Seeing that you will depend on rainfall at the appropriate season, you will do well to observe the commandments properly.
+
+Verse 12
+
+דורש אותה, “He cares for it constantly;” He examines the people’s morals in that land especially carefully.
+מרשית השנה, “from the beginning of the year;” the word ראשית appears here without the customary letter .א
+ועד אחרית שנה, right until the end of the year. He is entitled to bless the fruit of the land even after it has reached their storage places in their homes. We know that from the promise in Deut. 28,8, יצו ה׳ את הברכה באסמיך, “the Lord will command the blessing in your barns.”
+
+Verse 13
+
+
+
+Verse 14
+
+ואספת דגנך, “you will gather in your grain harvest.” Even though you have been commanded to study Torah day and night, you have permission to go about your business in the full meaning of the word [not as in the desert when your bread came down from heaven and you were totally free to devote yourselves to Torah study. Ed.]
+
+Verse 15
+
+
+
+Verse 16
+
+פן יפתה לבבכם, “lest your heart be fooled;” the root פתה appears in this sense in Job 5,2: “passion slays the fool.” Moses warns the people not to be misled by the urges of their heart and commit foolishness. If the root of this word would be פתוי, “temptation,” Moses should have written: יפותה, as in Proverbs 25,15.
+ועבדתם אלהים אחרים, “you will worship other deities.” Rabbi Yossi queries why these deities are called elohim in the Torah seeing that they are idols.He said it so that the gentiles would not have a pretext to say that if these “deities” had been called by their individual names in the Torah, instead of simply “non gods,” this would be proof that G-d had had need of them for some purpose at some time. [Our author dealt with this problem already in his commentary on Exodus 20,3, the main point of which was that the translation “other gods,” is incorrect, and it should be translated as: “deities” worshipped by others.”]
+According to the Sifri on the word אחרים, that word could be translated as “exchangeable,” if the owner of a golden idol finds himself hard up, he will sell the golden one and exchange it for something similar made of silver, etc.
+
+Verse 17
+
+ואבדתם, “you will become lost,” the reference is to exile, similar to when the prophet Isaiah 27,13 refers to the exiles from Ashur returning to their homeland as האובדים בארץ אשור, “the ones who were lost in the land of Ashur.”
+
+Verse 18
+
+על לבבכם, “in your hearts;” the word על usually translated as “on, above, etc.,” also appears quite a few times as meaning “next to, beside,” the author cites Exodus 40,3 as an example where the Torah writes: וסכותה על הארון, which is translated as: “you shall screen the ark,” i.e. the dividing curtain before or beside the Holy of Holies screens the Ark from view. In our verse the meaning would be that G-d’s word shall always be close to our hearts.
+
+Verse 19
+
+
+
+Verse 20
+
+
+
+Verse 21
+
+למען ירבו ימיכם וימי בניכם, “so that you will live long and your children will live long, etc..” Women are also obligated to put mezzuzot on their homes when no man shares the home they live in. This is logical, seeing that they too wish to enjoy long life. (Talmud, Kidushin, folio 31.)
+
+Verse 22
+
+
+
+Verse 23
+
+
+
+Verse 24
+
+
+
+Verse 25
+
+
+
+Verse 26
+
+ראה אנכי נותן לפניכם, “Behold, I set before you;” up until now Moses had concentrated on the need to revere the Lord; from now on he concentrates on spelling out specific commandments.
+
+Verse 27
+
+
+
+Verse 28
+
+
+
+Verse 29
+
+ונתתה את הברכה, “you shall set the blessing;” verbally, as the author has explained in Deuteronomy 27,11-14; another example can be found in Leviticus 16,21: ונתן אותם על ראש השעיר, “he will place them on the head of the he-goat” (the sins of Israel). 
+על הר גריזים, “next to Mount Gerizim.” The word על meaning “next to,” is also used in this sense in Exodus 40, 3 וסכות על הארון, “you shall screen the ark.” So also Leviticus 24.7: And thou shalt put pure frankincense with each row.
+
+Verse 30
+
+אחרי דרך מבא השמש, “behind the way of the going down of the sun.” Rashi’s commentary on this phrase is that the people travelled a tremendous distance on that day. According to the Talmud, tractate Sotah, folio 36, the Israelites on that day, after having crossed the river Jordan, would have marched 60 mil to Mount Gerizim and Mount Eyval. After having performed all the commandments they were to perform there, on that day they would then march back to Gilgal where they would spend the night as detailed in Joshua 8,30-35 as well as in Sotah 36. [I am not sure if our author questions the literal meaning of the Talmud concerning this. Ed.]
+מול הגלגל, “facing Gilgal;” The reason why Moses pinpoints the location is because the chain of mountains is long, and Moses wished to give precise directions.
+
+Verse 31
+
+
+
+Verse 32
+
+
+
+Chapter 12
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+אלה החוקים, “these are the statutes;” whenever the Torah commences a paragraph with the word אלה, this means that what follows is not a continuation in some form of what had preceded it. In this case too, the subject of the function of the two mountains Gerizim and Eyval are not connected to what follows. The commandment to be performed on or near these mountains, were one time only commandments. The places near there on which the gentiles had worshipped idols had to be totally destroyed.
+
+Verse 2
+
+אבד תאבדון את כל המקומות, “you are to utterly destroy all the sites, etc.; ”the Torah here speaks of vessels used in the worship of idols, [not the earth itself on which the idol stands. Ed.] Besides, it is impossible to forbid the surface of the earth for use, as if so, the idolaters would be able to turn all habitable surfaces on the globe into forbidden areas. (B’chor shor)
+את אלהיהם על ההרים, “their deities on the mountains;” our sages explain that they had not turned the mountains themselves into deities. (Sifri )
+את אלהיהם, “this word has the letter ו missing after the letter ל.” In this way it is a continuation of the line: “upon which the gentile nations had served their idols.” The paragraph is a commandment to remove and destroy all idols everywhere the Canaanites had worshipped such socalled deities.
+
+Verse 3
+
+ונתצתם את מזבחותם, “you shall break down all their altars;” the phrase is a repetition as it is needed for the other half, the commandment to wipe out the names of these deities, (at the end of the verse). ואשריהם תשרפון באש, “and burn their asherim by fire.” In Deuteronomy 7,5, the Torah instructed that the asherim ought to be hewn down, מגדעון. Our sages explain this difference by saying that if these trees had been planted before they had been worshipped whatever had grown after that has to be cut down. If they had been planted after on that site idolatry had already been practiced, the entire tree or trees have to be burned.
+ופסילי אלהיהם תגדעון, “and the graven images of their deities you must cut down. In Deuteronomy 7,5, we read that ופסיליהם תשרפו באש, “and their carved images you must burn.” This refers to these images having been carved into the trunk of the tree while the tree was still planted in the earth. If a figure had been carved into the trunk after it had been cut down, you must burn the whole trunk of that tree. If he had cut down the image without burning the tree, the tree may remain standing. An alternate interpretation of the differing methods for destroying symbols of paganism: in both instances either cutting down such symbols or burning them is the appropriate method of destroying them.
+ואשריהם תשרפון באש, “and their existing asherim you must burn by fire.” Seeing that the Holy Land had been designated as belonging to Israel by G-d, and at the time when the Israelites had said at the time of the golden calf: “these are your deities O Israel,” they yearned for a multiplicity of deities. As a result of this outcry, all the various deities served in the land of Canaan became partially owned by the Israelites. (Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin folio 63) Idols owned by Israelites can never be utterly annulled. (Talmud tractate Avodah Zarah folio 53) They must be destroyed utterly beyond any recognition physically.
+ואבדתם את שמם, “you must abolish their names, even.” (Compare Numbers 32,38, their names had been changed)
+
+Verse 4
+
+לא תעשון כן, “You shall not do likewise, etc.” you cannot serve the Lord your G-d and sacrifice offerings to Him at any place that you choose.
+
+Verse 5
+
+כי אם אל המקום אשר יבחר, “except at a place of His choosing.” Moses did not spell out the name of that place, seeing that at different times G-d’s Presence decides to accept homage at different locations. [but never at more than one place at a given time. Ed.]
+
+Verse 6
+
+
+
+Verse 7
+
+ואכלתם שם “ you will eat there;” this is a reference to the priests and the Levites. (Ibn Ezra)
+אתם ובתיכם, “you and your household members.” The word: “and the Levite,” has not been repeated here seeing that this paragraph had been addressed to the Israelites before the land had been distributed to the tribes, and the Israelites had not yet been warned to give the Levite his due. However, later on, in verse 10, when Moses speaks of the period after the distribution of the land has taken place, as the period in which they will enjoy peace and security, the Torah does warn the Israelite not to neglect the Levites.
+
+Verse 8
+
+לא תעשון ככל אשר אנחנו עושים פה היום, “You are not to act as we are in the habit of doing here at this time;” the Torah connects the prohibition of offering sacrifices on private altars to the building of a central Temple; the reason is that such a Temple cannot be built until all the parts of the country have been conquered. Until such time the people would be afraid to absent themselves for longer periods from their homes for fear of encouraging attacks by the enemy. The Torah therefore links worship at a central Temple to feeling secure from attacks by potential enemies. Such a situation would not arise until four hundred years after the wars fought by Joshua, when we read in Samuel II 7,1 that David told the prophet Natan, that he felt the time had come to provide G-d with a permanent home (in Jerusalem). [We are told in Kings I 6,1 that Solomon’s Temple was not built until four hundred and eighty years after the Exodus from Egypt. David had told the prophet that he felt secure enough to undertake the building of a permanent Temple, seeing that he had vanquished all the enemies surrounding the land of Israel. While agreeing with that statement, the actual building was delayed so that a king who had not had to fight wars, i.e. his son Solomon, would be the symbol of peace, the symbol of G-d’s rule on earth. Ed.]
+איש כל הישר בעיניו, “everyone whatsoever was right in his eyes;” Rashi is at pains to make sure that we do not understand these words literally, but that it refers to offering sacrifices in his backyard, instead of bringing the animals concerned to the Tabernacle or its successor, such as Shiloh where a permanent structure, but without a solid roof, functioned as the central place of worship for over three hundred and fifty years. [The fact that Rashi is correct is proved, when in verse fourteen, Moses spells out that all sacrifices will have to be offered in a place designated by G-d Himself, or they would not be welcome, and the person doing so would instead be punished with the most severe punishment available, karet, being excised posthumously from membership in the Jewish people. (Leviticus 17,9) Ed.]
+
+Verse 9
+
+אל המנוחה, “to the rest;” you will not experience such a feeling until your enemies all around you have been thoroughly defeated.
+ואל הנחלה, “and to the inheritance;” this will not be the case until after you have crossed the Jordan and have taken possession of the west bank.
+
+Verse 10
+
+
+
+Verse 11
+
+
+
+Verse 12
+
+
+
+Verse 13
+
+השמר לך פן תעלה עולותיך בכל מקום, “Take heed not to offer your burnt offerings at any place;” the reason why the Torah is so insistent that offerings not be brought other than at a central location, is that seeing the Israelites are supposed to make at least three pilgrimages a year to the Temple in Jerusalem, if they were legally able to offer the sacrifices that they need to offer also on private altars, many would use that as an excuse not to make the pilgrimages to Jerusalem. Once they would get into the habit to offer sacrifices to Hashem on private altars, it would be a small step to also offer some sacrifices, such as calves, to other “deities.” [As we saw once Jerobam erected these calves by blocking the highways to Jerusalem to pilgrims. (Compare Kings I chapter 12) Ed.]
+
+Verse 14
+
+
+
+Verse 15
+
+תזבח ואכלת בשר, “you will slaughter and proceed to eat meat;” Rashi comments on this that the Torah does not speak about animals raised for food, but about animals raised to be offered as a sacrifice on the altar. What the Torah actually comes to approve here is the killing for food of animals raised for a holy purpose. According to Rashi, based on Sifri, the Torah speaks here of an animal that had been raised by its owner to be offered as a sacrifice. Before it could be sacrificed however, it developed a blemish that disqualified it as the sacrifice it had been intended for. This animal may now be slaughtered and its meat be eaten, though its wool may not be shorn nor may it not be milked for its milk to be drunk. The word: רק, “only, except,” is the hint of what is the true meaning of the verse. An animal destined as a sacrifice, when disqualified through a permanent blemish, may be used by its owner secularly only as food, but not for any other mundane purpose. However, if it had been shorn by someone other than the owner, the wool is not subject to any restrictions just because it had originally grown on the back of an animal that had been sanctified. The subject and its ramifications are discussed in the Talmud tractate Meilah folio 12. [Since, unfortunately for the last 2000 years this subject is not of practical significance, I have not given some more details mentioned in the Talmud there. Ed.]
+הטמא והטהור יחדיו “the ritually pure and the ritually impure, may eat it together.” Prior to that animal’s disqualification by its blemish, the ritually impure person would have been forbidden to eat of its meat. The penalty for doing so knowingly, is karet, posthumous separation from the Jewish people.
+
+Verse 16
+
+רק הדם לא תאכלו, “only the blood you must not eat.” Even though the Torah permits every Jew to eat the meat through a process of redemption, i.e. paying compensation to the Temple treasury for the one time sanctified animal, plus a small premium, its blood had been forbidden already prior to this animal having been sanctified, so how could it possibly be released through redemption? The same rule applies to the forbidden fat parts of any animal slated as a sacrifice. The reason why the Torah singled out blood as its example, is that blood of any animal, whether fit to become a sacrifice or not, is forbidden, whereas the fat of those animals not suitable as sacrifices were never forbidden. (Compare Talmud tractate Chulin folio 117)
+
+Verse 17
+
+לא תוכל לאכול, “you cannot eat;” Rashi quotes Rabbi Joshua son of Korchah as saying that the words לא תוכל, do not mean that the Levites are physically unable to eat the tithes in their homes or towns, but that they are forbidden to do so. [What applies to the first tithe given to the Levite also applies to the “second” tithe that the Israelite during the respective years may consume himself but only in Jerusalem, or other designated town housing the Tabernacle at the time. If such second tithe has been redeemed by the farmer, then the money received must be spent in Jerusalem or its equivalent, for food, drink or clothing and such for the farmer and his family. The same applies to other gifts given to the priests, such as the firstlings of the harvest each year. The “gift” known as t’rumah, from the grain fields, may be eaten in the priest’s home by himself and his family and household.] According to Rashi on Joshua 15,63, the words ולא יכלו בני יהודה להורישם, “and the members of the tribe of Yehudah were unable to dislodge the Jebusite from their city (Jerusalem)” are also to be understood as a prohibition. i.e. the covenant made between Avraham and Avimelech for four generations, had not yet expired, so that G-d had not yet given permission for the Israelites to conquer that part of the land of Israel. The inhabitants of that city at that time were not Jebusites, i.e. Canaanites, to whom that covenant did not apply, but were Philistines to whom it did apply.)
+לאכול בשעריך מעשר דגנך, “you may not eat in your gates tithes of your grain harvest.” After noting that Levites and their families may eat the First Tithe in their homes, Moses addresses the Israelites and instructs them that the second tithe (or food bought with the money used to redeem the second tithe) must not be eaten in their homes but only in Jerusalem.
+ובכורות בקרך וצאנך, nor the firstlings of your cattle or flocks. Seeing that the firstlings may only be eaten by the priests, this verse appears to present a difficulty; why would it be addressed to the Israelites as a whole? It could not refer to firstlings that had been born blemished. Apparently, the farmers would set aside two “firstlings.” The first would be given to the priest, and the second would be treated as sanctified also, and therefore be consumed only in Jerusalem, as if it were part of a second tithe. An alternate interpretation of this phrase: the verse speaks of firstling animals that had been born as females and thus did not have to be given to the priests. The farmers would eat these female firstborns in Jerusalem, voluntarily. In the Jerusalem Talmud there is a dispute concerning the accuracy of this version. One opinion treats the verse as applying to a regular male firstling animal, in which case Moses would have been addressing only the priests, whereas the second opinion claims that there is no problem as the priests are also Israelites and Moses did not need to address them separately. [Seeing that this quotation from the Jerusalem Talmud has not been found by Rabbi Chavell on whose annotations I base myself, I may be forgiven for feeling a little confused. Ed.] לפני ה' אלוקיך, “in the presence of the Lord your G-d, i.e. on sacred ground in the Temple precincts,” Moses addresses whoever this applies to, without spelling out who they are.
+
+Verse 18
+
+
+
+Verse 19
+
+כל ימיך, “as long as you live.” This includes even the years of sh’mittah and Jubilee years when no crops are harvested. (Sifri)
+על אדמתך, “on your soil.” Seeing that only the ordinary Israelites possess ancestral land in Israel, as distinct from the Levites, the Israelites are obligated to look after the needs of the Levites as long as they are on their own land, but not when all the Jews are in exile, and the ordinary Israelites do not enjoy the advantage of owning ancestral land.
+
+Verse 20
+
+כי ירחיב, “when He will expand, etc.” the content of this paragraph has already been written in verses 15-16 of our chapter. Why was it repeated? The reason is verse 27, in which Moses emphasises that the law to offer sacrificial offerings only in the Temple designated by G-d, i.e. Jerusalem is not affected by the size of country. An alternate interpretation: seeing that the laws Moses speaks about apply daily, he repeats them so that the people will be thoroughly familiar with them.
+כאשר דבר לך, “as He has said to you (promised);” We find this promise in Exodus 23,31, 'ושתי את גבולך וגו, “I will set your borders, etc.;” [an area far in excess of the Israel of King Solomon. Ed.]
+ואמרת אוכלה בשר, and you say: “I wish to eat meat” (other than sacrificial meat) from this verse we see that one should not eat without first having prepared it ritually. [You do not eat meat as you eat an apple or a pear. Meat must be soaked and salted to remove all traces of blood before it is fit to be eaten. Ed.]
+כי תאוה נפשך, “when you experience a true craving for meat.” The word כי in this verse is used as an alternative for the word אם, “if” or “when.”
+
+Verse 21
+
+כי ירחק ממך המקום, “for the place (the Temple) is located far distant from you.” The Torah here addresses Israelites who dwell beyond the borders of the Holy Land. In spite of this, the same law applies to them as to those who dwell within it.
+
+Verse 22
+
+הטמא והטהור יחדו, “the ritually impure together with the ritually pure.” Moses does not suggest that they both eat from the same bowl, as that would result in the ritually pure person becoming contaminated with a degree of the impurity of the ritually impure person. But they can both eat meat which was duly slaughtered etc., but not offered as a sacrifice, at the same table. Another example of the word יחדו, “together,” being used in this sense is Exodus 19,8: ויענו כל העם יחדו, “all the people responded together.”
+
+Verse 23
+
+
+
+Verse 24
+
+
+
+Verse 25
+
+
+
+Verse 26
+
+תשא ובאת אל המקום, “you shall take and go to the place;” when we pray on the festivals we say in our mussaph prayer: והשיאנו ה' אלוקינו את ברכת מועדיך, “cause us O Lord our G-d to take with us the blessing of Your festivals, etc.”
+
+Verse 27
+
+ודם זבחיך, “and the blood of your meat offerings,” this is a reference to the socalled sh’lamim, “peace offerings,” (consumed in the main by the donors)
+והבשר תאכל, “and the meat you may eat;” [as opposed to the blood and the fat parts. Ed.] the meat will be consumed by the priest on duty at that time according to the priestly roster, or the common Israelite, depending on the type of offering and the parts of the animal designated for either priest or laymen. (Ibn Ezra).
+
+Verse 28
+
+
+
+Verse 29
+
+כי יכרית ה' אלוקיך, “when the Lord your G-d will cut off, etc.” this paragraph has been inserted here, as unless G-d cuts off the gentile nations, how is He going to widen the boundaries of your Land?
+לרשת אותם מפניך, “and to dispossess them on your account;” the word מפניך actually is the continuation of the beginning of the verse, i.e. כי יכרית.
+
+Verse 30
+
+
+
+Verse 31
+
+אשר שנא, “which He hates;” He hates these rituals even if you employ them in order to serve Him;” it would enrage him.
+
+Chapter 13
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+לא תוסף עליו, “do not add thereto;” the letter ס here has the vowel tzeyre under it.עליו, additional numbers of sheep, goats of bulls to the offerings. Neither must you add other categories of offerings, such as your sons or daughters.
+ולא תגרע ממנו, “neither are you to detract from the number of animal species that I have authorized for of offerings”.
+
+Verse 2
+
+כי יקום בקרבך נביא, “if a prophet arises in your midst;” this subject is introduced here as the subject of idolatry will follow thereafter.
+
+Verse 3
+
+ובא האות והמופת, “and the sign or wonder predicted will come to pass;” the letter ו in the word והמופת means: “or.”We have a similar construction in Exodus 21,15, where the line: ומכה אביו ואמו, means: “anyone who strikes his father or his mother.” Similar constructions occur in Exodus 21,17, and in numerous other places in the Torah. The Sifri quotes a Baraitha in which Rabbi Akiva is cited as saying that we must not be misled into believing that G-d would interfere with the position of sun or moon in order to comply with the wishes of a false prophet. What is meant in our verse is that a true prophet, who has in the past performed miracles, and had thus legitimised himself by having performed such miracles, has become a heretic and the people now believe him, not knowing that he has become a heretic. If such a prophet would call on the people to perform acts of idolatry, he must not be believed, regardless of the fact that at one time he was a legitimate prophet. No true prophet is to be believed if his message entails violating laws of the Torah, regardless of how many times he had in the past demonstrated that he was a true prophet, unless when he did so he said that he suggested such a violation only as a one time emergency measure due to exceptional circumstances. If you were to ask, that seeing that G-d knew in advance that such a prophet would turn into a heretic, so why did He equip him with prophetic powers in the first place?The Torah answers this question by telling us that it is G-d’s way of testing our faith in Moses’ Torah being the one and only Torah He has given us, and that it will not undergo changes in the course of history. (verse 4) This is even more true, when the socalled prophet performs acts by a slight of hand which deceive the onlookers into believing that he had performed miracle. The same is true if such a charlatan knows how to trick you into believing that you had heard things in the name of the Lord, things which he had never heard from G-d. Do not let either your eyes or your ears deceive you when the subject is the inviolability of the laws of the Torah. You must follow only the revealed word of G-d as handed down by Moses in the Torah.
+
+Verse 4
+
+לא תשמע אל דברי הניא ההוא, “do not listen to the words of that “prophet;” it is illogical to believe that such a prophet’s miracle could override My commandments to you, seeing that I have warned you of the possibility of such false prophets arising already before any such person did in fact claim to be My prophet.
+כי מנסה “for He is testing;” I already explained the meaning of this “test.”
+הישכם, the letter י in this word has the vowel chirik.
+
+Verse 5
+
+
+
+Verse 6
+
+כי דבר סרה, “for something perverse;” he falsified the message he claimed to have received from Me,” What he did was to lead you astray from revering Me. Where is the warning to such a false prophet not to practice his perversion given? It has been spelled out in the words of the Torah, with which he his familiar, “do not listen to him!” (Exodus 23,13) (Compare Torah sh’leymah by Rabbi Menachem Kasher item 182 on that verse.)
+
+Verse 7
+
+אחיך בן אמך, “your brother, the son of your mother.” The same applies to “your brother, the son of your father;” the reason why the Torah chose as its example the brother, son of your mother,” is that normally the bonds to one’s mother are closer, and one is in the same house with one’s mother all the time, while the father is in the field or elsewhere outside the house, earning his livelihood. Moreover, brotherly love to one another is often tainted by the fact that one has to share the father’s inheritance with one’s brother of the father, but not with a brother of the same mother.
+
+Verse 8
+
+
+
+Verse 9
+
+לא תאבה לו, “you shall not consent to him (his suggestion) according to Rashi the root of the word is אהב, Hence the meaning of the line is: “do not profess to love him;” we have a similar construction when the Torah asks us to love our fellow human beings as thyself in Leviticus 19,18. ולא תשמע אליו, “and to not even listen to him.” If he pleads with you to forgive him, in order not to report his criminal suggestions to the authorities, although as a rule the Torah teaches us not to abandon a person in need, (Exodus 23,5), in this instance this rule is to be ignored. Even though we are not to indulge in reciprocal hatred when the hatred has been initiated by the other person, in this instance we must react differently and prevent the spread of idolatry by enabling such a person to convert naive people to his seduction.
+
+Verse 10
+
+
+
+Verse 11
+
+באבנים ומת, “with stones so that he will die.” The stoning is to continue until the false prophet or seducer will die. If the first rock did not kill him then more rocks will be hurled at him. (Sifri) Where did the Torah issue its warning against such seducers who had not claimed to be prophets able to perform miracles? Compare verse 12 and how it is explained in the Talmud tractate Sanhedrin folio 63.
+
+Verse 12
+
+
+
+Verse 13
+
+
+
+Verse 14
+
+
+
+Verse 15
+
+
+
+Verse 16
+
+
+
+Verse 17
+
+
+
+Verse 18
+
+ולא ידבק בידך מאומה מן החרם, “none of the loot shall cleave to your hand lest it appear that you wanted to “take the spoil and seize the booty.” (Isaiah 10.6). (B’chor shor)
+ורחמך, “and He will have compassion on you.” The letter ר in the word ורחמך has the vowel chirik, followed by the vowel patach under the letter ח, and the semi vowel sh’va, under the letter .מ
+והרבך, “and He will cause you to multiply” in another city [to compensate for the destruction of the idolatrous city.]
+
+Verse 19
+
+
+
+Chapter 14
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+בנים אתם, “you are the children, etc.;” this paragraph has been inserted here in order to warn you not to observe pagan methods of expressing mourning after the death of close relatives. Possibly, one of the inhabitants of the idolatrous city discussed in the previous paragraph was a close relative, and you might have had to observe mourning rites as he or she had been put to death as a result of that city’s destruction.
+בנים אתם לה' אלוקיכם, “you are children of the Lord your G-d;” it is just because you are children of Mine that you shall not cut yourself because of what happened (the death of a family member) even if you do not understand why this happened to you but you must accept that all of G-d’s actions are for the best. Just as small children do not always understand what their father does, but appreciate that it is for their benefit, the same is true in your relationship to Me.
+ולא תשימו קרחה בין עיניכם למת, “neither are you to make bald spots between your eyes for the dead.” Even if your father died, you are not as bereaved as would be one of the gentiles who lost his father, as you have a Father in heaven who will never die. Furthermore, you are a holy nation, and as such are not at liberty to desecrate your bodies.
+
+Verse 2
+
+
+
+Verse 3
+
+לא תאכל כל תועבה, “you must not eat anything that is abominable.” This subject is linked here to that of forbidden rites of mourning, as it too is part of your being a holy nation, as repeated in the last verse. Holiness, i.e. apartness, means, among other things, that your food is different from that of the pagans, who eat all kinds of abominations. You are to eat only what is ritually pure.
+
+Verse 4
+
+
+
+Verse 5
+
+איל, “the hart, etc;” [our author proceeds to translate the names of these seven species into medieval French, something of little use my readers. Ed.] In plain English, permitted species of mammals are: ox, sheep, goat; deer, gazelle, roebuck, wild goat, ibex, antelope and mountain sheep plus unnamed species (if there are such) displaying the identification marks listed by the Torah. 
+
+Verse 6
+
+מפרסת פרסה ושסעת שסע שתי פרסות מעלת גרה “And every beast that parteth the hoof, and hath the hoof wholly cloven in two, and cheweth the cud.” Any mammal that displays some of these identifying marks but not others are forbidden. [The Torah proceeds to name the most popular mammals kept as domestic beats, such as pigs, dogs, camels, hares and rabbits must not be eaten. The latter, including cats, must not be eaten because they have no hooves at all.]
+
+Verse 7
+
+
+
+Verse 8
+
+ ובנבלתם לא תגעו "you are not to touch their carcasses" with a view to preparing them as food, just as the Torah forbade touching holy things in Leviticus 12,4 for people in a state of bodily ritual impurity. Touching such carcasses and eating them is considered part of the same prohibition. If touching these carcasses by itself were the prohibition, why would the Torah have to bother forbidding eating them?
+
+Verse 9
+
+
+
+Verse 10
+
+טמא הוא לכם, “it is ritually impure for you.” The word טמא here is not to be understood in the ritual sense of impurity, the person having contacted such animals requiring to perform purification rites before handling matters that are holy, but is an expression for something detestable. The concept of ritual impurity does not exist concerning fish. The expression טמא as clearly meaning something detestable is found in Ezekiel 4,13: “shall the Israelites eat their bread unclean in a disgusting unappetizing manner (among the nations that banish them?)”
+
+Verse 11
+
+כל צפור טהורה, “any ritually pure bird;” whenever the Torah uses the term צפור instead of עוף for “bird,” it is automatically referring to a ritually pure species of birds. The latter term, however, is used on different occasions for either category of birds. Ritually impure birds are always described as עוף. (Sifri)
+
+Verse 12
+
+וזה אשר לא תאכלו, “and these are the ones of which you may not eat;” Rashi explains that the word זה is meant to include that the prohibition includes if these birds had been of the permitted kind, but were used in the procedure prescribed for the sin offering of a leper. They must not be eaten even though slaughtered in the appropriate manner. (Compare Leviticus 14,4)
+
+Verse 13
+
+.ראה, איה דיה, דאה “glede, falcon, buzzard and kite;” [none of these species can be indentified with certainty. This is why different translations use some of the names interchangeably. Ed.] According to our author, the four names mentioned here are really one. How is this to be understood? Seeing that we find the expression למינה, “according to its kind (species)”in the singular mode instead of in the plural mode at the end of this verse, they must have something important in common with each other. We find a similar verse in Leviticus 11,14, in connection with the bird called איה, this proves that איה and דיה are two names for the same species. Similarly, ראה and דיה are also the same species. [I have omitted the author’s somewhat convoluted method of proving this point. Ed.]
+
+Verse 14
+
+
+
+Verse 15
+
+ ואת בת היענה, “and the little owl;” the same is true of the יענה, the great owl. The Torah mentions the little owl as it is not fit to be eaten except as long as it is very young. Its flesh is hard as wood when it matures. (b’chor shor)
+
+Verse 16
+
+
+
+Verse 17
+
+
+
+Verse 18
+
+
+
+Verse 19
+
+
+
+Verse 20
+
+כל עוף טהור תאכלו, “you may eat every ritually pure bird.” According to the plain meaning of the text this includes certain species of locusts and grasshoppers not listed here by name.
+
+Verse 21
+
+לא תאכלו כל נבלה, “you must not eat the carcass of any animal that died of natural causes.” This includes carcasses of normally ritually pure mammals, free roaming beasts birds and ritually not pure fish. Ritually pure fish are permitted to be eaten whether they died from natural causes or were killed by man. The reason why this appears to have been repeated is so that no one would have an excuse to say that only the carcasses of mammals, free roaming beasts and pure birds are forbidden if they died from natural causes.
+כל נבלה, “any type of carcass that died of natural causes.” The use of the word כל to mean “any,” and not “all,” we have seen already in verse 3 in our chapter “כל תועבה,” anything abominable, as well as in Exodus 20,10: לא תעשה כל מלאכה,”you must not perform any work.”
+או מכור לנכרי, or to be sold to a gentile.” The letter ל in the word לנכרי has the semi vowel sh’va.
+לא תבשל גדי, “do not boil a kid;” This was repeated here to teach that (its youth notwithstanding?) it is considered as meat. (Ibn Ezra)
+
+Verse 22
+
+עשר תעשר, “you must surely tithe, etc.;” the reason why this paragraph was added at this point is that earlier we had read about not eating anything that is ritually impure. Here we are told that it is forbidden to eat any sanctified meat or agricultural products except in certain holy locations.
+עשר תעשר, “the command is repeated in order to also forbid trading in tithes, not only eating in the wrong location.” (Tanchuma, Reay section 18) An alternate interpretation: The words עשר תעשר, by themselves, could be understood as applying to anything that grows being subject to tithing. The fact that the Torah added the word: ואכלת, “and that you eat,” restricts the need to tithe to crops grown with the intent to serve as food. I might now have thought that such foods as honey and milk could be included also in the legislation to tithe; in order to tell us that this is not so, the Torah added the words: היוצא השדה, “which is the product of the field.” This excludes among other items plants that are grown in closed flower pots because they do not derive their nutrients from the moisture in the soil. Actually, the command about tithing has been written in three separate parts of the Torah, and each time it has been repeated a new element has been added to this commandment as Rashi has explained. At this stage the new element is that of not desecrating the second tithe, as indicated by the need to convert (redeem) it if it is not capable of being transported to Jerusalem.
+
+Verse 23
+
+למען תלמד ליראה, “in order that you may learn to revere, etc.” This expression is meant to refer to reverence for the Lord becoming something natural, a daily occurrence, part of your everyday life, not something restricted to when one visits the synagogue and prays intently. When people observe the laws of the second tithe that apply to the average farmer being observed by huge crowds coming to Jerusalem and being exposed to priests in great numbers, this will make a deep impression upon them and be an unforgettable experience. Seeing the Supreme Court in session in Jerusalem will also be an experience that will increase the degree of reverence for the Lord your G-d.
+
+Verse 24
+
+
+
+Verse 25
+
+וצרת הכסף בידך, ”and bind up the money (silver coins);” the letter ד in the word of בידך, has the semi vowel sh’va.
+
+Verse 26
+
+
+
+Verse 27
+
+והלוי אשר בשעריך, “and the Levite who is within your gates;” you are not to seek out Levites that do not live within your cities to give these tithes to. (Ibn Ezra)
+לא תעזבנו, “do not abandon him.” The Torah had already stated the same instruction in a positive formulation, i.e. to look after the Levites. (Deut. 12,12) Now it adds the negative aspect, forbidding us to abandon the Levite. Do not think that you have fulfilled the tithing obligation merely by giving your First Tithe to the local Levi. The new angle here is that in the event that the tithes that the Levite in your town receives are not adequate, you must dig into your pocket to offer him additional support.
+
+Verse 28
+
+תוציא את כל מעשר, “you shall bring forth all the tithes;” there are three years in the seven year sh’mittah cycle that the tithe instead of being deposited in your towns (your homes) awaiting Levites to ask for it must be brought out and not kept anymore. How does all this work? In the first year of the cycle the first tithe goes to a Levite, whereas the second tithe is taken to Jerusalem by the owner to be eaten there with his family. The same is true of the second year of the cycle. In the third year of the cycle the first tithe goes to the Levite, whereas the second “tithe” is to be distributed locally or as near as possible to the poor. The verse that is relevant to this is chapter Deut. 26,12. The Torah calls that year: “the year of the tithe,” as only the first tithe is given to the Levite in that year. The gifts given to the poor amounting to the same amount as the second tithe, is not called tithe, as it is designated for the poor at the full discretion of the grower of that produce. The second three years of the cycle are a repeat of the first three years.
+והנחת בשערך, “and deposit it in your gates.” Whereas the second tithe is to be taken to Jerusalem, the tithe for the poor is to he kept locally, so as to be available conveniently for the local poor.
+
+Verse 29
+
+
+
+Chapter 15
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+מקץ שבע שנים, “at the conclusion of seven years;” the rules governing the sh’mittah year do not commence until the end of the seventh year. The reason why this paragraph is appended here is that in 14,29, we have read that we have to care for the poor, the orphans, the widows, and the stranger, and this is what basically the sh’mittah legislation is also about.
+
+Verse 2
+
+וזה דבר השמיטה, “and this is the manner of the sh’mittah, release;” this year even releases a person from fulfilling an undertaking confirmed by an oath. If a person had undertaken to do something for his fellow and confirmed it by an oath, the advent of the end of the last day of the sh’mittah year releases him from it if he had not made good on his promise until then. (B’chor shor)
+שמוט כל בעל משה ידו, “every creditor shall release that which he has lent;” only loans are released, not proceeds from a robbery or something given to keep in trust. (Sifri)
+לא יגוש, “he (the creditor) shall not exact it.” Why does this have to be added? The Torah has already asked the creditor to release the debtor from his indebtedness, if he had been unable to repay him. Imagine the following scenario: a debtor, who owns a field, has dutifully released the seventh year’s crop to fulfill G-d’s commandment, as a result of which has no crop of his own to sell and to use the proceeds to repay his loan to his creditor. During normal years he would not have had a problem to repay his loan. If the creditor now presses the debtor to repay him what he owes him, but adds that he will gladly wait until after next year’s crop has ripened for the debtor to repay him, this is forbidden. The Torah forbids the creditor to extend the terms of the loan. This would not be fulfilling the Torah’s law of: “release it!” This is the meaning of the term: מקרא קודש in Leviticus 23,7 and elsewhere.
+כי קרא שמטה, “Time is of the essence in this legislation.”
+
+Verse 3
+
+את הנכרי, “the gentile debtor, who is allowed to grow crops during that year and sell them, and is therefore able to repay his debts, him you may exact repayment from during that year.
+את אחיך תשמוט ידך, “what is your brother’s you must not exact from him.”There is an exception to this rule when the creditor in question has deposited the loan agreement with a Jewish court, and he charges the court with collecting the debt from the debtor, as if the debt were owed to the court. In this way a debtor who is able to repay but hides behind this legislation to procrastinate repayment until the end of this year will not benefit by his insincerity. He will prefer to repay the creditor and not ruin his reputation as a potential borrower. This system known as prusbol, was introduced by Hillel, as otherwise lenders would simply not extend loans to indigent borrowers who did not either put up a security or pay interest, which it is forbidden for a Jew to charge a fellow Jew.
+
+Verse 4
+
+אפס כי לא יהיה בך אביון, “there will be no destitute among you;” this is the Torah’s promise if the people of Israel will meticulously observe the sh’mittah and yovel year legislation. [The latter occurs only once in 50 years. Ed.] The reason that is so is that the poor who had felt forced to sell themselves or their daughters, will automatically regain their status as free men in the next sh’mittah year, and if they still owe money, that debt will have been scrapped at the end of the most recent sh’mittah cycle. With the advent of the yovel year, they or their heirs will automatically regain their title to the ancestral heritage they might have had to sell earlier. No one will therefore be permanently destitute. (b’chor shor)
+כי ברך יברכך, G-d will bless both the lender and the borrower (hence the repeat of the verb ברך in this verse). We have already explained how the borrower will become blessed. As a result of the lender having foregone a claim he had on the borrower, G-d promises him that he will not become poorer as a result of having done so. In practice, G-d will see to it that he has the opportunity to extend loans to gentiles who will pay him generous interest for having received such loans. (Verse 6) If you were to argue that you do not even have contact with such gentiles, the Torah promises that they, of themselves, will make contact with you for such purpose, as you will dominate their countries politically, i.e. ומשלת בגויים רבים, “you will rule over many nations,” (end of verse 6).
+
+Verse 5
+
+
+
+Verse 6
+
+ברכך כאשר דבר לך, “He will bless you as He has promised you.” Where has this blessing been spelled out? Look at Deuteronomy 7,4.
+
+Verse 7
+
+ולא תקפץ, “and do not shut (your hand).” This expression occurs in the same meaning in Psalms 107,42 as well as in Job 5,16.
+
+Verse 8
+
+העבט תעביטנו, “take his security pawn as a guarantee that he will repay you the loan.”
+
+Verse 9
+
+קרבה שנת השבע, “the seventh year of the sh’mittah is approaching; “I might not get paid back because of the law to remit outstanding debts.” Moreover, in the coming year this lender will not even be allowed to seed his field and harvest a crop from which to sustain himself. As a result of such considerations he does not wish to extend a loan to the needy.
+
+Verse 10
+
+ולא ירע לבבך בתתך לו, “not only are you not to refuse a loan but you must not extend a loan reluctantly;” the Torah warns you not to think that you will suffer economic hardship for having been goodhearted. G-d promises that He will bless you for your good heartedness.
+
+Verse 11
+
+כי לא יחדל אביון, “for there will not cease to be destitute people.” This sounds like a contradiction to what the Torah had promised in verse 4, where it stated that there would not be destitute people in our land. The promise in verse 4 had been linked to a condition. i.e. that the entire population observes the sh’mittah and yovel legislation. The critical word there had been the word כי. In our verse here this word occurs again but here it means: “maybe, possibly.” In our paragraph the word כי occurs no fewer than four times. It has a different meaning each time. We have a conditional word כי in כי יהיה בך אביון, “if there should be among you a destitute person;” we have a word כי meaning “but,” in כי פתוח תפתח, “but you shall definitively open your hand;” we have the word כי meaning “because of” in בגלל הדבר הזה, “for the sake of this matter G-d will bless you;” and we have the word כי meaning “so that not,” in כי לא יחדל אביון “if perchance your actions were not charitable enough to prevent the existence of destitute people among you.”
+לאחיך, “to your brother, who takes precedence over your unrelated neighbour.
+לענייך, “to the poor,” in your family who take precedence over the other poor of your towns.
+לאביוניך בארצך, “to the destitute in your country (city),” who take precedence over the destitute people in other cities. (Ibn Ezra)
+
+Verse 12
+
+כי ימכר לך, “if your brother (fellow Jew) will be sold to you;” the reason why this paragraph has been written here is because the paragraphs written immediately preceding this one dealt with situations in which Jews have become poor, and how to forestall wholesale poverty amongst Jews.
+ועבדך, “and he will serve you;” the emphasis is on the pronoun ending “you,” which precludes this Jewish servant from being passed on to the heir of his master, even if the period for which he had been indentured had not come to an end. (Sifri)
+תשלחנו חפשי מעמך “you have to release him unconditionally.” If he was released due to having fallen sick, and he recovered, and you felt that he should recompense you for the period that he was not working for you, the Torah writes: “in the seventh year he will go free, period,” regardless of whether he has rendered the required number of years of service. (Sifri on Exodus 21,2)
+
+Verse 13
+
+
+
+Verse 14
+
+מצאנך, מגרנך, ומיקבך, “from your flocks, your threshingfloor or your winepress.” These terms are short for “bread, wine, and meat.” The verse discusses a thief who has been sold by the court as he did not have the means to repay his victim for what he had stolen from him. Seeing that he is penniless, how could he establish an economic footing and not begin to steal again unless you provided him with these essentials? (B’chor shor)
+
+Verse 15
+
+
+
+Verse 16
+
+
+
+Verse 17
+
+ונתת באזנו ובדלת, “and you will thrust it (the awl) through his ear into the door;” the door frame is presumed to be made of wood and therefore can be pierced easily, as opposed to a door frame made of stone. (B’chor shor)
+
+Verse 18
+
+לא יקשה בעיניך, “it shall not appear an unreasonably hard rule to you;” (that you have to give him so much for “free”) The Torah reminds the owner that he had obtained far more value in labour from this “slave” than he would have had from an ordinary hired labourer working for him as he had been at his disposal not only during the daylight hours, etc. Our author suggests a different comparison, one found in Isaiah 16,14, according to which fixed labour is hired only for three years and this man has served six years. [Different calculations are made by different commentators; the basic common denominator agreed is that the Torah reminds the employer/owner, that this servant/slave has done more for him than a hired hand would have done. Ed.]
+יברכך ה' אלוקיך, “the Lord your G-d will bless you.” Whenever the Torah asks members of the Jewish people to give up something they considered as belonging to them, we find a verse where G-d promises them that they will enjoy His blessing, i.e. that in the end instead of becoming poorer through sharing material blessings with the less fortunate members of society, they will become wealthier. They will experience beyond question that G-d will make all their undertakings successful.
+
+Verse 19
+
+כל הבכור, “all the firstling males, etc.;” this paragraph has been written here seeing that previously the Torah dealt with the rules governing the treatment of a Jewish “slave,” i.e. someone employed by a fellow Jew not of his free choice, and not free to leave such employment at will. Here, in verse 19, the Torah imposes restrictions on how the owner of an animal is not free to treat such an animal as if it did not possess any rights, i.e. לא תעבוד בבכור שורך, “you shall not make the firstborn of your ox perform menial labour.” Not only that, but the Torah has repeated this legislation in order to teach us that a blemished firstling animal must not even be offered as a sacrifice to G-d. 
+אשר יולד "which is born": exclude a first-born who was born by a Caesarian birth (Ibn Ezra)
+הזכר תקדיש, if such a firstling animal is male, you must treat it as holy for the Lord your G-d. You must offer such an animal to the Lord your G-d as His, and consume the parts that are permitted in a location that is sacred, after having performed the rites pertaining to sacrificial animals. The rituals are fewer than normal sacrificial offerings, as there is no need to perform s’michah, etc. i.e. the symbolic acts raising this animal to the status of being holy as such, as it has been born holy. (Talmud tractate Menachot, folio 90)
+
+Verse 20
+
+
+
+Verse 21
+
+כל מום רע, “any serious blemish;” for instance the offering to G-d as a sacrifice if it was born with a serious (permanent) blemish. (Sifri)
+לא תזבחנו, “you must not sacrifice it;” the reason is clear, seeing that G-d had already declared this animal as being “Mine,” so how could the owner of its mother bring it as “his offering” (compare Exodus 12,9) From that verse I would have inferred that both perfect and blemished firstborn animals could not be offered as a sacrifice. This is why the Torah repeats here that we speak about a blemished firstborn male animal only.
+
+Verse 22
+
+בשעריך תאכלנו, ”you shall eat it within your gates (not on sacred grounds);” the Torah here addresses the priest, as a commoner is not allowed to eat it anywhere.
+הטמא והטהור, “the ritually impure as well as the ritually pure.” The author already explained this term in his commentary on Exodus 12,15.
+
+Verse 23
+
+
+
+Chapter 16
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+שמור, “wait until the month of spring.” The month of Nissan is called the month of spring, as the spring equinox occurs always during that month.
+Crops known as אביב, ripen during that month in the land of Israel. They are primarily the barley crops. We have been told this already in connection with the plague of hail in Exodus 9,31.
+ועשית פסח, “and you must observe the Passover;” the Torah was forced to repeat this law as in verse 5 of this chapter it stipulated that once the people were in their own land they were forbidden to offer this offering and consume it in their own dwellings, outside of Jerusalem.
+In the expression: ממצרים לילה, “from Egypt, at night,” the word לילה here refers only to the eating of the Passover, as the Exodus did not commence until the morning of the fifteenth of Nissan, and they had been absolutely forbidden on pain of death to leave their homes already during that night. (Exodus 12,22)
+
+Verse 2
+
+
+
+Verse 3
+
+לא תאכל עליו חמץ, “you must not eat any leavened products with it.” The word עליו here means the same as the word: עמו, “with it,” elsewhere. Other examples where the word עליו is used in the same sense as here are: Exodus 12,9: ראשו על כרעיו ועל קרבו, “its head with its legs, and with the inwards thereof.” Compare also Exodus 34,25: לא תשחוט על חמץ דם זבחי, “do not offer the blood of My sacrifice with leavened bread. “
+שבעת ימים תאכל עליו מצות, “for seven consecutive days shall you eat unleavened bread with it.” In this verse we best translate the word: עליו as “on account of it.” Compare also Psalms 44,23: כי עליך הורגנו כל היום, “for on Your account we are being killed every day;” compare also Psalms 69,8: כי עליב נשאני חרפה, “for on Your account have I been reviled.” In other words: you are to eat unleavened bread on account of the Passover sacrifice which you offer as a memorial of the Exodus from Egypt.
+לחם עוני, “bread of affliction.” Poor people when given a small amount of flour, do not have a vessel at hand in order to make a proper dough. They also do not have enough time to spare to wait for the dough to rise before baking it. Therefore they throw the mixture of flour and water into the heated stove at once and retrieve is as soon as it is baked.
+כי בחפזון יצאת, “for when you departed from Egypt you were in a great hurry;” G-d could have waited until the Israelites had baked their dough by taking their time. However, He wanted them to have an eternal reminder of the haste in which their departure had taken place, and therefore He urged them to act with haste.
+למען תזכור את יום צאתך ממצרים, “all this in order that you will have a visible reminder of the day that you came out of Egypt.” Rabbi Eleazar ben Azaryah is quoted in the Haggadah shel Pessach as saying that although he feels as if seventy years old, he had not properly understood the meaning of the words: “in order that you may remember the day you came out of Egypt all the days of your lives,” until the sage ben Zoma had explained the word כל in this verse to mean: “the whole days of your lives,” i.e. not only the daylight hours but also during the nighttime.
+
+Verse 4
+
+ולא ילין מן הבשר, “and no part of the meat of the Passover lamb is to remain uneaten until the morning of the 15th of the month.”If it were allowed to remain uneaten all night long, it would follow that this sacrifice is the only one for which no timelimit for eating it had been fixed by the Torah. Rashi comments that this limitation actually had been decreed only for the original Passover which had been consumed in Egypt. This seems difficult, as we have a verse in Exodus 34,24 as well as in Numbers 9,12 where this prohibition to leave part of the Passover until the following morning is spelled out clearly.
+
+Verse 5
+
+לא תוכל לזבוח את הפסח באחד שעריך, “you must not slaughter the Passover in one of your gates;” this applies not only to the Passover but to all other sacrifices. The reason it has been repeated here is that seeing that the Torah had decreed that during the days of the Passover festival unleavened bread only must be eaten “in all your dwellings,” I might have concluded that seeing that at least on the first night when the Passover lamb is to be eaten at the same time as unleavened bread, someone might have erred believing that what applied to the eating of Matza would apply also to the Passover lamb. An alternate interpretation: even though the Torah had already warned concerning this, it saw fit to repeat the warning because seeing that this was a sacrifice permitted (commanded) to be eaten by all the commoners, it could also be slaughtered everywhere.
+
+Verse 6
+
+שם תזבח את הפסח, “there only, (in the place decreed by the Lord) you will slaughter the Passover.” Seeing that the Torah, in connection with the offerings of the firstling male animals which could be consumed only on the hallowed grounds of the Temple, and seeing that the rules of the second Passover (for people who through no fault of their own had been unable to slaughter it on the fourteenth day of Nissan, were also written in Numbers chapter 9, and there no mention was made of where such a substitute Passover was to be slaughtered, the Torah here makes sure that we cannot remain in any doubt about this. Not only the date, but also the location are of the essence. The Torah here did not bother to mention New Year’s or the Day of Atonement, as neither of these Holy Days involves assemblies in Jerusalem.
+בערב, “in the evening;” this may be understood literally, i.e. after noon, until nightfall. In the Jewish calendar, the evening commences “a half hour after noon.” Since the Israelites did not leave until the morning of the following day, our verse must speak about the afternoon and evening of the day before. The author admits that there is nowhere a definite proof that the evening starts that early, he cites support from verses in Jeremiah 6,4,
+
+Verse 7
+
+ובשלת, the true meaning of the word בשל is: “to make something ready and fit to eat.” The author cites Genesis 40,10, הבשילו אשכלותיה ענבים, “its grape clusters had become ripe,” or Exodus 23,19: גם, לא תבשל גדי בחלב אמו "do not boil the kid in the milk of its mother,” as support.
+
+Verse 8
+
+ששת ימים תאכל מצות, “for six consecutive days you must eat unleavened bread;” this too is basically a repetition as the commandment to eat unleavened bread only during all the days of Passover has already been spelled out, so that this line adds only that whereas during six of these days the eating of bread is optional (unleavened bread only of course,) on the first day, when the Passover is being eaten to the accompaniment of the eating of matza, i.e. eating “bread,” is mandatory. The subject of the pilgrimage to Jerusalem for Passover therefore is to be understood as follows: you will go up to Jerusalem no later than so that you time your arrival to be not later than noon, and having gotten rid of any chametz, something leavened, you proceed to slaughter your Passover lamb, and prepare it for consumption in the evening, and in the meantime you have baked your matzot which does not take long. When you have performed all the rituals on that evening, you are free to leave Jerusalem in the morning, [if you live within the distance that travel is allowed on a festival. Ed.] During the remaining six days, when you feel the desire to eat bread, you may bake fresh matzot every day.
+וביום השביעי, “and on the seventh day;” this is the seventh day when you started counting from the night of the Seder.
+עצרת, “shall be a solemn an assembly;” on that day you will abstain from all the activities that you have abstained from during the preceding six days. [This translation of the word: עצרת is borrowed from the commentary of Rash’bam Ed.]
+
+Verse 9
+
+שבעה שבעות, “seven weeks;” the reason why this verse too is a kind of repetition, i.e. we had already heard that unleavened bread was to be eaten during the festival of Passover, after which seven weeks were to be counted, etc. in Leviticus 23,14-22, is that there is a new element here, i.e. that the count is to begin when the first offering of the new barley harvest, the omer, is offered to G-d in the Temple. The validity of this law as a Biblical law is related to the Jewish people living on their own land at that time. (Compare verse 11)
+
+Verse 10
+
+ועשית חג שבועות, “you will keep the festival of weeks;” the author refers to his commentary on the significance of this festival in Leviticus chapter 23, where he explained why the Torah did not give us a date for when this festival is to be observed, as opposed to all the other festivals where the month and days they are to be observed have been spelled out.
+
+Verse 11
+
+
+
+Verse 12
+
+וזכרת כי עבד היית במצרים, “you are to remember that you used to be a slave in Egypt.” It is noteworthy that this festival, as opposed to Passover, New Year’s Day fasting on the day of Atonement, and Sukkot, is not accompanied by specific rituals which are to serve as such reminders. This is why it was necessary for the Torah here to tell us that we must remember the significance of this day without visible reminders of its significance.
+כי עבד היית במצרים; “the Torah reminds you that your preoccupation with bringing in the wheat harvest at this time is not to be considered as more important than a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, for if the Lord had not taken you out of bondage in Egypt you would not have a crop to harvest. While you had been in Egypt you did not have an opportunity to rest and enjoy a festival, so doing once you have taken up residence in your own country is by itself a fitting reminder of how your status has changed.
+
+Verse 13
+
+חג הסוכות, “the festival of huts;” this has also been repeated on account of the words: “in the place that the Lord will choose, i.e. Jerusalem.” (verse 15)
+באספך מגרנך, “when you have gathered in from your threshing grounds;” into your house;
+ומיקבך, “and from your winepress,” into the storage vats.”
+
+Verse 14
+
+ושמחת בחגך, “you shall rejoice on your festival;” “rejoicing” has been mentioned already in connection with the festival of weeks (verse 11); The reason why it was mentioned there is that it is the period of harvesting a major part of the grain harvest. (Isaiah 9,2.) At the time of Sukkot, such joy is increased greatly as everything that the fields and orchards produce is now being gathered in. Joy is not mentioned in connection with Passover as the season of ingathering produce has not yet started. Furthermore” we have been taught in the Mishnah Rosh hashanah 16,1 that one of the four days on which the world is being judged concerning the produce for the coming year is Passover. In other words, the fate of the harvest still hangs in the balance, and it would be premature to rejoice therefore.
+
+Verse 15
+
+שבעת ימים תחוג, “you are to celebrate for seven days;” seeing that in the days before Passover you have been very preoccupied with its preparations, as well as the harvesting of the barley crop, and in the days preceding Pentecost you have been preoccupied with harvesting the wheat crop, I bothered you with an interruption of only one day. By the time Sukkot arrives, your harvests have all been brought safely under a roof so that you did not have much to distract you, you can afford to enjoy this festival for seven days without having concerns of a secular nature. An alternate interpretation: you have already gathered a lot in your house in preparation for the journey, including the Second Tithe which must be consumed in Jerusalem. It will take you seven days to consume all this, as opposed to Passover and Shavuot when you do not bring so much with you to Jerusalem. Still another interpretation: Seeing that the mussaph offerings are different each day, this festival is actually like seven festivals of one day each. This is why this festival is different from the seven days known as חג המצות, “the festival of unleavened breads.”
+שבעת ימים תחוג, “you shall celebrate for seven days; but the eighth day is a special day, the final day; it does not need to be spelled out here. It is as if with the conclusion of the seventh day the eighth day commences automatically. [Our author mentions this as in Leviticus chapter 23 the eighth day has been given special mention as if it were part of the first seven days. Ed.] The fact is that that day has not been mentioned either in connection with the pilgrimage festivals in Exodus chapter 23 or in Exodus chapter 34. [The simplest reason is that the people observing that day have already been in Jerusalem for seven days and do not have to travel there now again. Ed.] On every occasion when the mussaph offerings are mentioned, the eighth day is mentioned also, as it has a different offering, (as in Leviticus 23,36. and Numbers 29,35.)
+והיית אך שמח, “and you shall be altogether joyful.” According to Rashi, we learn from this formulation that also the night of the eighth day is included in the time for active enjoyment. In other words, although days begin at nightfall, in this instance the last day is perceived as an extension of the seven previous days. On the other hand, the period of such joyfulness is not part of the evening of the first day as it has not been preceded by an especially joyful day. This has been spelled out in the Talmud. The plain meaning of the text, however, is that seeing that by now all the produce produced by the fields and the orchards have been harvested and put into storage your joy is complete. This is also why in connection with Passover, when none of this is the case, the Torah permits the pilgrims to return home on the day following the first day of the festival, i.e. the 16th day of Nissan. This is in spite of the fact that the duration of that festival is seven days.
+
+Verse 16
+
+שלש פעמים בשנה, “three times annually;” why did this have to be repeated? In order that you should not say that seeing that when the Torah writes about the festival of Shavuot in verse 11: “you shall rejoice in the presence of the Lord your G-d, you, your son and your daughter, your male servant as well as your female servant;” whereas on the Passover festival when no mention has been made of joy, the father need not take along his family, and the Torah had spoken of “all your males,” the sons have to be taken along on each of these festivals. A different interpretation: the instruction had to be repeated as we might have thought that the commandment not to appear before G-d emptyhanded which is written only here and in connection with Passover, also applies on the third pilgrimage festival.
+כל זכורך, “all of your males;” the law applies to all those who are able to make the journey with your males, i.e. not including people whose vocation is such that their very presence is so offensive due to the way they smell, for instance, that they would not be allowed to present themselves before a temporal king either, far less before the King of Kings. The details of these restrictions have been spelled out in the Talmud, tractate Chagigah 4,1.
+בחג המצות ובחג השבועות, on the festival of unleavened breads and the festival of Shavuot; the Torah compares these two festivals to one another as both allow for offering the specific gift offerings at a later occasion. This period lasts for seven days. (Talmud tractate Rosh Hashanah 4,2.)
+ובחג הסוכות, “and on the festival of huts;” the reason that it has been named here separately is that the Sages taught with regard to those who are liable for vows of monetary payment, for various offerings, for vows of charity tithes or for all the agricultural gifts that must be given to the poor, once three Festivals have passed they transgress the prohibition: “You shall not delay”. Rabbi Shimon says: These three Festivals must be in their proper order, with the festival of Passover first and Sukkot last. (Rosh Hashana 4ab) 
+
+Verse 17
+
+
+
+Verse 18
+
+ שופטים ושוטרים תתן לך בכל שעריך, “Judges and policemen shall you provide for yourselves in all your gates;” this paragraph has been inserted in the Torah at this point in order to tell you that although you are obligated to travel to the place where the priests officiate all year three times a year and you can submit all your legal problems to them on those occasions, this arrangement will suffice until you have judges and enforcers in all your towns (Ibn Ezra)
+
+Verse 19
+
+לא תטה משפט ולא תקח שוחד, “do not pervert judgment, nor accept any bribe;” earlier in Exodus 23,6 the subject of not perverting judgment when destitute people are before the court has already been discussed; here the warning concerns all the people. [The people addressed are primarily the judges. Ed.].
+ולא תקח שוחד, do not even accept a bribe in order to pass fair judgment. Bribing judges in order for them not to pervert justice has already been forbidden.
+ויסלף, “nor pervert,” we find this root used in the same sense in Proverbs 11,3: וסלף בוגדים ישדם, “but the perversity of the treacherous will destroy them.”.
+דברי צדיקים, “the words of the righteous.” Here the Torah refers to the litigants, not the judges. Compare Deuteronomy 25,1: והצדיקו את הצדיק, “by justifying the righteous.”
+
+Verse 20
+
+צדק צדק תרדוף, “Justice, Justice, you are to pursue;” here too the Torah addresses the litigants. [Bechor Shor notes that this warning is addressed to the judges, as well as to the litigants. Ed.]
+
+Verse 21
+
+לא תטע לך אשרה, “do not plant for yourself an asherah; even if that asherah was not meant to be used as a place of worship. When conflicting claims face a judge, and he has to decide with which claims to deal with first, he is to deal with any matter that involves idolatry first. The term describes trees at the entrance to house of worship. Rashi understands the verse as prohibiting the planting of a tree or house on the Temple Mount. The words: לא תטע, would refer to the former, and the words: כל עץ, would refer to someone building a house, i.e. even from wood that is not fit to become a tree, having been cut and then reassembled.
+אצל מזבח, “next to an altar;” it was a common practice for the pagans to do this. This has been explained in Judges 6,25. Furthermore, the purpose of not allowing such trees in such locations was to prevent people seeing someone going there from thinking that that individual was on his way to worshipping an idol. Jeremiah 17,2, describes such worship of an asherah as a widely accepted practice.
+
+Verse 22
+
+
+
+Chapter 17
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+לא תזבח, “do not slaughter as a sacrifice, etc.;” After having prohibited sacrificing to idols, the Torah proceeds to prohibit defective, blemished, animals to the Lord our G-d, also.
+
+Verse 2
+
+כי ימצא, “if there will be found amongst you, etc.;” now the Torah addresses individual Israelites who may become guilty of idolatry.
+
+Verse 3
+
+
+
+Verse 4
+
+
+
+Verse 5
+
+אל שעריך, “to your gates;” according to the plain meaning of the text “the gates” is the place where the court sits in judgment. The location has been chosen as it is so central and public that any accused cannot avoid passing it for any length of time, at which time the judges will arrest the accused for a hearing. We find an illustration of this in the Book of Ruth, (Ruth 4,1) when the potential redeemer of Ruth is accosted by Boaz in such a square.
+וסקלתם באבנים, “you shall stone them with stones;” males or females as the case may be; we find a similar formula when the penalty is death by burning (swallowing molten lead) (Leviticus 20,14)
+
+Verse 6
+
+
+
+יומת המת, “he that has to die shall be executed;” we find similar constructions in Genesis 48,21, concerning Yaakov and Joseph, הנה אנכי מת, “here I am dead;” and in Deuteronomy 31,27, where Moses describes a situation after his death,ואף גם אחרי מותי, “and also after my death.”
+לא יומת על פי עד אחד, “he must not be executed on the basis of the testimony of only one witness.” If you were to ask what news this verse contains, after all a single witness cannot bring about a conviction even if the case involves only a possible fine! [something reversible if proven to have been based on a false testimony. Ed.] How much more impossible is it to convict someone of a capital crime based on the testimony of only one witness! We would have to answer that seeing that the crime carrying a death penalty is so severe, surely the testimony of one witness is sufficient, if the penalty is to be a deterrent. The Torah does not accept this kind of reasoning and insists on at least two eye witnesses.והוגד לך ושמעת, since in verse 4 the Torah had written that the commission of the crime of idolatry had been so well known that you had heard about it, and it had been accepted as fact, the Torah insists that this is not the basis of convicting someone.[One of the reasons that the Torah insists on this is that even if no witnesses were prepared to testify to what they are known to have seen, G-d will punish the accused sinner for what he did, even if a panel of human judges was unable to do so for technical reasons. Ed.]
+
+Verse 7
+
+
+
+Verse 8
+
+ כי יפלא ממך דבר, “if there is a matter which is too difficult for you. [a local court, Ed.] The word יפלא is similar in meaning to the word יתכסה, “hidden;” The word belongs to a category of words that can have two meanings depending on the context in which it appears. We find the phrase כי יפליא נדר, (Leviticus 27,2) “when someone clearly utters a vow;” on the other hand we find כי יפליא לנדור, (Numbers 6,2) “when someone makes a vow to deny himself something. The author cites more examples.”
+ממך דבר, “the Torah addresses a specific judge who is unable to determine whether the accused in a capital case deserves the death penalty. 
+The Torah lists three different categories of subjects in which the judge in question does not feel competent to hand down a ruling. [All three categories are subjects for which the priests are the proper address to give rulings. Ed.]
+
+Verse 9
+
+ ובאת אל הכהן, “and you come to the priest, etc.” This verse is a clear example to the scoffers who question the teachings of the Sages. They maintain that the written Torah was to be interpreted literally and that there is no parallel oral Torah. If there were no such oral Torah, the most competent scholars of which reside in Jerusalem, what would be the point of travelling to Jerusalem for clarification?
+
+Verse 10
+
+
+
+Verse 11
+
+
+
+Verse 12
+
+ העומד לשרת, (to the priest) “the one who stands to minister;” the reason the Torah adds the word: העומד, is to teach that service in the Temple, or ritual service generally, must be performed while standing. (Sifri)
+
+Verse 13
+
+
+
+Verse 14
+
+
+
+Verse 15
+
+ שום תשים, “be sure to appoint for yourself!” Once the Torah mentions the authority of judges, it also describes the limitations imposed on the ruler [the first one being that he must be appointed with the approval of G-d. Ed.].
+אשר יבחר ה, “whom the Lord will choose;” how do we know that the King has been chosen by the Lord? He will be chosen by the foremost prophet at that time, or in the absence of prophets, through consultation by the High Priest with G-d by means of the urim vetumim, the parchment in a pocket beneath the High Priest’s breastplate.
+לא תוכל, “you are legally forbidden, hence “unable;”(Sifri).
+לתת עליך איש נכרי, “you may not appoint over yourself a foreigner.” The reason for this is that a foreigner may wish to impose his religion upon you.
+
+Verse 16
+
+וה׳ אמר לכם לא תוסיפו, “seeing that the Lord has said to you (not to return to Egypt to reside there).” (Ibn Ezra)
+
+Verse 17
+
+ וזהב לא ירבה לו, “and he is not to amass gold for himself.” Rashi understands this imprecise instruction to mean that he must not amass more gold than necessary in order to pay the wages of his soldiers. (Sifri)
+
+Verse 18
+
+מלפני הכהנים, “a copy of the original retained by the priests.”
+
+Verse 19
+
+
+
+Verse 20
+
+ לבלתי רום לבבו מאחיו, “so as not to lift his heart above that of his brethren.” This is the reason why the king must not amass material wealth mentioned in verse 17.
+ולבלתי סור מן המצוה, “and in order not to turn aside from the commandment;” this is the reason why the King must always have a Torah scroll with him from which he is to read daily.
+למען יאריך ימים, “so that he may prolong his life;” it is a well known fact that the burden of high office is bound to shorten the life of the people charged with it. In order to counteract this, the Torah provides the King with an antidote, i.e. regular daily Torah study. This is also why when the King is crowned, the crowd welcomes him with the shout: יחי המלך. “long life to the King!” (Kings I 1,25)
+
+Chapter 18
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+ לא יהיה לכהנים, “the priests (and Levites) shall not have (own);” after the Torah had spelled out details pertaining to Jewish Kings, it proceeds to do the same for the hereditary positions of priests and Levites. They are charged with teaching the people Torah, [i.e. worrying about their spiritual welfare, whereas the King is charged with looking after their material well being. Ibn Ezra].
+The reason why the priests and Levites will not own ancestral land in the Holy Land is that if they did they would neglect its upkeep, as they are required to constantly be present in the Temple.
+
+Verse 2
+
+ ונחלה ��א יהיה לו בקרב אחיו, “they shall have no inheritance among their brethren.” In the Sifri (according to the version at the disposal of Rashi) the word נחלה is understood to refer to inherited land i.e. through being brothers only through the father’s side, whereas the words בקרב אחיו, would refer to brothers both from the same father and the same mother. [in other words the sons of Leah, Ed.] The Torah was forced to list these two categories separately; as if it had not included each category separately we might have thought that when their claim was based on being full brothers by sharing the same father and mother they would qualify for such an inheritance. [In order for this to make sense, we would have to distinguish between ancestral land allocations made by Moses during his lifetime, and that made by Joshua. Once the land had been distributed and settled no questions could arise, as Levites had been born to Levites and priests to priests, and neither had a father who had left him his ancestral share of the land. The versions of this Sifri are confusing and who are we to determine the correct version? Ed.]
+
+Verse 3
+
+ וזה יהיה משפט הכהנים “and this will be the priests’ due;” after denying the priests ancestral land, the Torah proceeds to tell us how the priests were compensated. They receive the foreleg as payment for performing the slaughter;they receive the cheekbones as payment for blessing the people, and they receive the stomach as reward for performing the examinations required to make sure that the animal was not blemished internally. (Talmud, tractate Chulin folio 136)
+
+Verse 4
+
+ ראשית דגנך, “the first fruit of your grain harvest;” According to Rashi, the average amount donated to the priests from this harvest was 2%. This is based on a verse describing how the loot from the campaign against Midian was shared out. (Numbers 31,47) Why was this repeated once more, when it had already been repeated? The donation called תרומה גדולה, to describe the first donation,” was called such called by this adjective was because it is the largest of the gifts the farmer has to make or to allow to remain in the field, uncut. How do we arrive at such a statement, when on the face of it the tithe of a tenth of the harvest appears to be much more? After deducting the 2% set aside from the harvest before any other deductions, the remaining 49 parcels of 2% each have to be divided into 50 equal amounts in order to set aside 5 parts of each as the tithe to be given to the Levite.
+וראשית גז צאנך, “and the first of the fleece of your sheep.” According to the view of Rabbi Ilai this had to be done only in respect of sheep raised in the land of Israel. (Chulin 136).
+צאנך, “your sheep or goats;” this excludes animals which prove inedible due to faulty slaughter or diseased part discovered afterwards which would have led to the death of this animal within less than 12 months, in other words: an animal that was treif.
+תתן לו, “you are to give to him” (one or more of the priests who is on duty during that roster (usually a week, except during the pilgrimage festivals when all the priests we equally entitled to share in this). The expression תתן, i.e. something valuable enough to qualify for the term מתנה, “gift,” led to the peculiar system where if you lived in the territory of Yehudah, you were required to give a minimum of 5 shekel worth, as opposed to the Galil (northern section of Israel) where you had to give the priest twice as much. (as only then would people in that part of the country consider that amount as a “gift.”
+
+Verse 5
+
+
+
+Verse 6
+
+ וכי יבא הלוי, “and if a Levite comes, etc.” the Levites are mentioned after the priests as they too have been charged with teaching the people the Torah, [and the fact that they do not have to work the land makes them free to do so. Ed.] Their task has been spelled out clearly in Chronicles II 17,79; in fact, we see there that they were travelling teachers, leaving the towns set aside for the Levites and visiting small communities in order to teach there. This is the plain meaning of the words as written.
+
+Verse 7
+
+
+
+Verse 8
+
+חלק כחלק יאכלו, “they shall eat (receive) equal shares, etc.” when we were told in Samuel I 2,36 that the sons of the High Priest Eli would have to go begging to get a morsel to eat, from which we see that even as priests they did not get their allotted shares, and from which we also know that allocations were based only on service actually performed in the Temple, we must remember that these offspring of Eli described there had not yet attained the age at which they were fit to perform such service, i.e. they were below thirty years of age. This is clear from what is written in Samuel I 2,33. [There they were destined not to die until they had attained full maturity, i.e. the age at which, but for the curse, they could have performed Temple service. Ed.].
+לבד ממכריו, “beside what is due to them as a result of his having sold the house he had inherited from his parents.” [The fact that therefore he had independent means and did not need to go begging was not taken into consideration by the Torah when it legislated what he was entitled to due to having been born a Levite.]’An alternate interpretation of this phrase: the word ממכריו is derived from מכיר, “knowing someone personally.” The Torah tells us if the Levite in question has friends who are willing to give him handouts from the goodness of their hearts, this does not therefore prevent him from claiming what is due and sharing it with his fellow Levites. This is so even if he does not ask for his share during the week his roster is performing the sacrificial service in the Temple. [This is an important piece of legislation, as the Rabbis stipulated that when someone has independent means, even minimal amounts, he is not entitled to ask for handouts. Ed.]
+
+Verse 9
+
+ 'כי אתה בא אל הארץ וגו, “when you will come to the land, etc.” After the Torah had told you what type of authority the priests and the King possess, and that you must be obedient to them, it now tells you what kind of instructions you must disobey, if such are decreed by them. [You are to record those in writing also.]
+
+Verse 10
+
+ 'לא ימצא בך מעביר בנו באש וגו, “there must not be found amongst you any father who makes his son pass through fire, etc.” Where is the penalty for such abuse of parental authority written? It is found in the otherwise superfluous words: אשר מזרעו, “from his offspring,” in Leviticus 20,2, where the same subject has been discussed already.
+קוסם קסמים, “someone using divination to learn about future events;” according to Rashi, an example of divination would be if a person takes hold of his walking cane, asking it if it is in his interest to undertake a certain journey. The subject appears also in Hoseah 4,12, although no examples are given how the cane would give its sign. [Some commentators therefore do not understand the word: “walking cane” literally, but see it as a synonym for an idol made of wood. The idol would be asked and give some sign to the questioner. Ed.]
+
+Verse 11
+
+ ושואל אוב וידעוני, “or consulting a ghost or familiar spirit.” According to the Talmud tractate Sanhedrin, folio 65, the people referred to are those who pretend that they can produce answers by consulting carcasses or skeletons, and producing what sounds like responses to their questions that appear to emanate between the joints of the bones of the dead. Rashi quotes a different version of this kind of trickery. The point is that through appearing to be able to communicate with the dead, these people presumably make a good living by misleading their naive customers. All of this kind of necromancy is punishable by death if performed by a Jewish person in Israel.
+
+Verse 12
+
+ובגלל התועבות האלה מוריש אותם מפניך, “on account of the previous inhabitants of this land having performed all of these abominations the Lord is dispossessing them of this land.” Their expulsion is proof that their protectors were powerless, so why would you even think of turning to such means for knowing the future? As a result of this failure of the idols G-d suggests that you  “be wholehearted with the Lord your G-d.”
+
+Verse 13
+
+תמים תהיה עם ה' אלוקיך, “be wholehearted with the Lord your G-d.” The expression תמימות, means “to have an exclusive relationship with either man or G-d.” One does not flirt with any alternatives. The opposite of this occurred with the nations that were made to live in Israel as exchange for the Ten Tribes which the Assyrians had exiled. They professed to worship the Jewish way of life, but without abandoning their own religion. As a result, they became victims of the lions invading their part of the Land of Israel. (Compare Kings II 17,33)
+
+Verse 14
+
+ כי הגוים האלה, “for these nations, etc.” The nations that you are about to dispossess if they do not emigrate, or to kill outright, had a need to turn to all these pseudo prophets or healers seeing that they have no direct line of communication with the Lord G-d, their Creator. [I have provided you with a prophet similar in stature to Moses, G-d has said. He said nothing of the kind to the Canaanites. G-d first listed the King, then the Judges, and finally the Prophets, as means of communicating with Him. Ed.]
+ואתה לא כן “but as for you, the Lord thy God has not permitted you to do so” – because you do not need to listen to soothsayers and diviners because you have a prophet from amongst you, like me (verse 15).
+
+Verse 15
+
+מאחיך כמוני, “from amongst your brethren, someone like me;” Moses refers to Joshua in this verse.
+אליו משמעון, “you are to be obedient to him.” Compare what is written in Deuteronomy 34,9, “all the Israelites listened to him” (were obedient).
+
+Verse 16
+
+ לא אוסף, “I do not wish to continue, etc.” [Moses refers to when, during the revelation at Mount Sinai 39 years earlier, the people who had been listening to G-d’s voice directly, had found that voice so frightening that they asked Moses to be their go between. (Exodus 20,16)] The letter ס in the word אוסף has the vowel tzeyreh;
+
+Verse 17
+
+
+
+Verse 18
+
+
+
+Verse 19
+
+
+
+Verse 20
+
+
+
+Verse 21
+
+
+
+Verse 22
+
+ ולא יהיה הדבר ולא יבא, “and that thing will not come to pass; it will not happen;” for instance, if that “prophet” had promised that an impending disaster will be averted, or if he had promised something positive, that something will not occur; Jonah was afraid of being labelled a false prophet when Nineveh was not destroyed as he had predicted. [He had not told the people that penitence was a remedy that would be the reason through which it could be averted. Ed.] An alternate explanation for the apparent repetition in our verse: the prediction would not come true at the time promised nor would it come true sometime later. This could be taken as proof that it would never come true. In Deuteronomy 13,3, when the same subject is discussed, the Torah writes about the “prophet’s” prediction coming true. How are we to account for the difference? Here the Torah speaks about a charlatan, someone who had never been a prophet; there the Torah speaks of someone who had been known as a true prophet in the past but had become a heretic, so that what he had predicted lately had not been something that G-d had told him about.
+
+Chapter 19
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+ כי יכרית, “When the Lord shall cut off, etc.” after Moses had dealt with the subject of impostors of different kinds, he now turns to the subject of cleansing the earth of the Holy Land of any vestiges of idolatry left behind by its former inhabitants. It must also be cleaned of traces of blood spilled that had belonged to innocent people.
+
+Verse 2
+
+ שלש ערים, “three cities, etc.; the people had already been commanded concerning these cities of refuge in Numbers 35,14, and the only reason this is repeated here again is to add the instruction to the population to erect signposts for the benefit of the people searching for such a city in order to escape the wrath of a blood avenger of the slain victim.
+
+Verse 3
+
+
+
+Verse 4
+
+ את רעהו, “his neighbour;” the word את here is to be understood as meaning: עם, “with;” (while together with him).
+בבלי דעת, “without intent;” these words are meant to exclude someone who did intend to kill his animal, but instead killed a human being. (Talmud, tractate Makkot folio 7)
+
+Verse 5
+
+ הוא ינוס אל אחת הערים האל וחי, “he will flee to one of these cities and live.” The population of these towns is deliberately limited, so that a potential blood avenger cannot hide in large crowds and carry out his plan undetected. (Talmud Makkot, folio 10) The city fathers see to it that the persons consigned there will have employment or work enabling them to make a living. If a Torah scholar has the misfortune to have to reside there, his teacher is brought there and looked after also. If he is himself a Rabbi of a Torah academy, his students are brought to him to live there.
+
+Verse 6
+
+ והכהו נפש, “and strike him fatally;” there is a word missing in this phrase, i.e. the word מכת “a blow;”.
+ולו אין משפט מות, “while he was not deserving of the death penalty;” this teaches that even an intentional killer who has not been sentenced to death by the court (for some technical reason connected to the evidence presumably) may still be subject to death at the hands of the blood avenger.
+
+Verse 7
+
+
+
+Verse 8
+
+
+
+Verse 9
+
+
+
+Verse 10
+
+
+
+Verse 11
+
+
+
+Verse 12
+
+
+
+Verse 13
+
+וטוב לך, “that it may go well with you,” so that the number of people guilty of bloodshed may not increase in your land.”
+
+Verse 14
+
+ לא תסיג, “do not remove, etc.;” the reason why this legislation has been written here [when on the face of it, it is not related to what preceded it. Ed.] is that most serious disagreements resulting in bloodshed have their origin in disputes over borders. This is why immediately afterwards we also have the line: “an eye for an eye, a life for a life etc.” (verse 21). We also have the warning not to convict anyone on the basis of the testimony of only a single witness. (Verse 15).
+אשר גבלו ראשונים, “which (the borders) have been marked by those who divided the Land,” that is, by Joshua, Elazar and the tribal leaders.
+
+Verse 15
+
+ לא יקום עד אחד באיש, “one witness shall not rise up against a man;” as written here it appears as if this restriction applies only in cases involving a possible death sentence; how do we know that it applies also in matters involving only damages of a financial nature? This is why the Torah adds: לכל עון, “concerning any sin;” how do I know that it applies even in matters involving ritual matters, sacrifices? This is why the Torah added: בכל חטא אשר יחטא, “concerning any sin that he may become guilty of,” between man and G-d or between man and man. How do I know it applies also concerning any misdemeanor? This is why the Torah had commenced with the comprehensive words: לכל עון.
+
+Verse 16
+
+
+
+Verse 17
+
+
+
+Verse 18
+
+
+
+Verse 19
+
+ ועשיתם לו כאשר זמם, “you will do to him in accordance with the penalty that he had planned for his victim to be convicted of. The Torah has taught the penalty here; where is the prohibition to commit such a crime written? See Exodus 23,1 as well as at the ninth of the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20,14.
+
+Verse 20
+
+
+
+Verse 21
+
+ולא תחוס עינך, “and your eye shall not display pity.” You shall not have pity with the guilty person; on the other hand, even during war time you shall display pity on people who are in the process of building their homes for the first time, be it that they are engaged to be married, that they are in the middle of building a house, or planting an orchard. The Torah teaches you a lesson here of when it is appropriate to display pity and concern, and when not. This is why these two paragraphs one dealing with expansionist wars, the other about people undermining faith in the Lord of their brethren, follow one another in the Torah.
+עין בעין, “an eye for an eye, etc.;” the Torah once more repeats that justice must be based on the punishment fitting the crime. In Exodus 21.24 these penalties are decreed for bodily injuries, while here they are intended for conspiring witnesses.
+
+Chapter 20
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+ כי ה' אלוקיך עמך, “for the Lord your G-d is with you.” The Torah refers to the Holy Ark, and the trumpets, both of which are instruments representing the presence of the Lord among the Jewish people which will give them courage when fighting a war.
+
+Verse 2
+
+והיה כקרבכם אל המלחמה, “and it will be when you will be close to the battle, etc.” once the soldiers have approached the borders of the enemy, before actually engaging him in battle, Moses informs them of all the conditions which must be observed during active warfare. They are, of course, reserved for the men actually engaged in the fighting. This is clear from the wording in verse three, where only those men are being addressed. [Seeing that the Torah speaks not of a defensive war, but of a war designed to enlarge the borders of Israel, with the approval of G-d of course. Ed.]
+ונגש הכהן ודבר אל העם, “the priest shall approach and address the people. The soldiers are being addressed separately by the priest, representing the spiritual voice of the people, and the mundane authorities, officers, charged with ensuring success in battle, According to the Talmud, what is written from the words: ונגש in verse three, until verse five, when the secular authorities the commander continues. [There are different opinions about these sequences. Seeing that we cannot prove which is correct, it does not pay to go into further details. Ed.]
+
+Verse 3
+
+ אל תיראו, “do not be afraid;” these words address the heart.
+ואל תחפזו, “and do not be alarmed,” resulting in fleeing;.
+”ואל תערצו, “and do not display fear, [even if you feel it. Ed.]
+
+Verse 4
+
+
+
+Verse 5
+
+ אשר בנה, “who has built;” the Torah here teaches the correct order in which young men are to approach the subject of matrimony; first they have to make a commitment to the woman they have chosen; then they have to provide for their bride a place to live in; then they have to establish a sound economic base, such as planting a vineyard. Having done so, they may proceed to complete the wedding ceremonies. The reason why such people are excused from fighting in an expansionary war, is that their worries about if they will be able to complete their plans for the future will distract them from performing their military duties to the best of their abilities. They will worry that in spite of promises from G-d they may be or have been guilty of sins which will be used by G-d to withdraw His protection from them when they are facing danger.
+ילך וישוב לביתו פן ימות, “he would not be much use in battle if he is too preoccupied with his personal concerns.” [As to the fainthearted soldiers, they are excused so that their low morale does not infect and undermine the confidence of their comrades in arms. Therefore they are best sent home.]
+יחנכנו, “will dedicate it.” The letter ח in this word has the semi vowel sh’va under it.
+
+Verse 6
+
+ ולא חללו, “and has not been able to enjoy the fruit of it.” The word describes dancing of a kind. It was customary at the end of the fourth year after planting a vineyard for the owner to give a party seeing that up to then the fruit of that vineyard was not at his free disposal. (Compare Judges 21,21, about the daughters of Shiloh.)
+
+Verse 7
+
+
+
+Verse 8
+
+ מי האיש הירא, “who is the man who is afraid?” The first part of this verse speaks about people whose fear is based on becoming the victim of painful injuries, or worse. 
+The second part of the verse describing “fear,” speaks of someone who is uncomfortable about having to inflict pain, injury or worse, on opponents that have never done him any harm or even threatened to do so. Such a person is described by the Torah as רך הלבב , “faint hearted.” (Ibn Ezra)
+ילך וישוב לביתו, “let him go and return to his house.” He is not released from every duty, but is assigned to support the troops in the frontline by keeping the lengthening lines of supply open. This is as opposed to the previous three categories of mobilized men, who are released from any participation.
+Any war which involves defending the land of Israel against an invasion by Gentiles is to be resisted without any reservations such as listed above. In fact, according to the Talmud in tractate Sotah folio 44, even a bridegroom just after the vows have been completed must join his unit to defend the country and its people.
+
+Verse 9
+
+ופקדו, “and they shall appoint, etc.” This takes place after all those that have been allowed to return home have done so. The use of the root פקד to describe making appointments is first found in the advice Joseph gave to Pharaoh in Genesis 41,34.
+
+Verse 10
+
+
+
+Verse 11
+
+למס ועבדוך, “shall become liable to be taxed by you and become subservient.” Rashi explained that it is sufficient that they make an oral declaration to do so. Seeing that some of their cities may be a long distance away from you, it is unlikely that they will teach you and your children their pagan culture; this is why the rule that you must not allow a soul to survive in the lands captured by Joshua does not need to be applied in such situations as described here. Conversion to Judaism by any of the members of the seven Canaanite nations whose territory would form the first Jewish state is out of the question.
+
+Verse 12
+
+
+
+Verse 13
+
+
+
+Verse 14
+
+
+
+Verse 15
+
+
+
+Verse 16
+
+לא תחיה כל נשמה, “you must not allow to remain for anyone to be alive;” if you were to ignore this commandment, the survivors would stir up trouble internationally, even, over having been deprived of their ancestral land. The validity of this commandment is limited to the generation Moses is addressing, i.e. the period during which the Israelites will be engaged in fighting the Canaanites in order to settle in the land promised by G-d to their patriarchs, Avraham, Yitzchok, and Yaakov. If members of these tribes had emigrated voluntarily, and at some future date return individually, and even wish to convert to Judaism this is acceptable. According to this interpretation, the Israelites under Joshua did not sin when they accepted the conversion of the Givonim, even though these had misrepresented themselves.
+
+Verse 17
+
+ כי החרם תחרימם, “but you shall utterly destroy them.” You might think that also their belongings would be out of bounds to you, (as the booty from Jericho); in order to assure you that this is not so, the Torah wrote in Deut. 6,11, that you will capture (and keep) their houses and contents intact.
+
+Verse 18
+
+
+
+Verse 19
+
+כי תצור אל עיר ימים רבים , “when you lay siege to a city for a long time;” from this we learn that one does not lay siege to a city for less than three days before the Sabbath. If the city had been encircled and the Sabbath occurs before the city surrenders, this is not a reason to cease military activity on the Sabbath. This rule is one of three that the sage Shammai, (contemporary of Hillel) had stated. The three are: one does not engage in an ocean voyage less than three days before the Sabbath. This rule applies when the destination is further way than a three day voyage. If it closer, under normal circumstances, it may be undertaken closer to the Sabbath. (Sifri) These restrictions apply to those who travel for voluntary matters but not to those whose travel is for a matter of mitzva; the latter can leave on any day. All the rules concerning how to conduct a siege are valid only during expansionary wars. [Defensive wars when the land of Israel has been attacked, are not subject to any of these restrictions. Such defensive action may be commenced on any day of the week. Ed.]
+לא תשחית את עצה, “You must not destroy its (fruitbearing) trees;” this applies to trees near the town under siege.
+כי ממנו תאכל, “for you will be able to eat their fruit once you have conquered the town.”
+כי האדם עץ השדה, according to Rashi, the word כי here means :”perhaps” and is used as a question, i.e. “did you think perhaps that rules that apply to human beings are the same as those applying to fruitbearing trees?” Why should the tree which is giving man of its fruit suffer and endure the hardships of the population of the town you have laid siege to? Seeing that these trees are not guilty of anything why would you destroy them?
+
+Verse 20
+
+ כי לא עץ מאכל הוא, “for it is not a tree providing food; the Torah suggests that once a fruitbearing tree has reached a stage when it no longer bears fruit, it may be treated as if it had never born fruit. Another interpretation: you must not cut down any fruitbearing tree on the field; the exception are those trees that serve as cover for your enemies and help them escape you and continue in their fight against you. If such trees make it impossible for you to reach the walls of the city which you are besieging, you may remove such an obstacle by cutting it down even if it still does bear fruit.
+רק עץ אשר תדע כי לא עץ מאכל הוא וגו, “only a category of tree of which you know that it does not bear edible fruit, you may destroy even it is far from the walls of the city which you are besieging. ”Why did this line have to be written here? If it is permissible to cut down a fruit-bearing tree under certain conditions, is it is not simple logic that you may cut down non fruit bearing trees? The answer is something that we have come across repeatedly. Punishment for a sin committed may never be imposed based only on logic. Unless the Torah has specifically spelled out such punishment, it is not for us human beings to determine appropriate penalties for violating laws made by the Creator.
+An alternate interpretation: The text has to be understood literally, “It you must not cut down.” If you wish to understand the rationale: for man is similar to the tree of the field; for just as the people who lay siege to a city and the living beings inside are compared here to the tree of the field. In order to illustrate this better, let us compare it to Deuteronomy 24,6, כי נפש הוא חובל, “for this would be equivalent to taking that person’s life;” where the Torah compares vital household utensils taken by a creditor to secure his loan as the creditor taking the debtor’s life. The human being owing the money can continue to exist only as long as he is not deprived of these vital utensils. The fruit-bearing trees around a city are similarly a basic utensil ensuring the inhabitants’ economic survival. Since the object of the siege is not to kill all its inhabitants,but to make them subservient to you, depriving them of their fruit bearing trees would be neither in your interest and certainly not in their interest.
+
+Chapter 21
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+כי ימצא חלל, “if someone unidentifiable is found slain,” after the Torah discussed certain aspects of war between nations, it now turns to the result of individuals who had apparently fought one another and the victor had escaped as there had not been any witnesses.
+כי ימצא חלל, “he had been found dead, the killer not having buried him;”.
+נופל בשדה, “lying in the field;” he was not hung from a tree; it is not customary for a murderer to take the time to hang his victim as he is busy hiding his identity as quickly as he is able to. An alternate interpretation of the words: נופל בשדה: not floating on the surface of a body of water. There was no indication of where he might have come from.
+
+Verse 2
+
+ומדדו, ”they (the authorities) will measure;” even if it clear how far he is removed from the nearest habitation, the act of performing the measuring will draw the attention of the public to what has happened in their vicinity; the people of the neighbouring towns or villages will institute searches for any resident not accounted for so that the identity of the slain person may be established. If someone in the neighbouring towns has not been accounted for, the family members will come to inspect the carcass to determine if he was related to them. Through these searches it may be determined who might have kept company with the slain man, and if there was a woman in the vicinity whose husband had disappeared and who was therefore an agunah, an abandoned woman unable to remarry until proof would forthcoming that her husband had died, and who could be able to remarry once the identity of the slain main was determined as having been her husband.
+
+Verse 3
+
+והיה העיר, “and it shall be that the city, etc.;” it will be up to the elders or inhabitants of the site closest to where the slain person was found to take a female heifer of the herd, etc.;” the inverted use of the male pronoun for a female i.e. עבד “he was worked,” instead of: “she was worked,” is also found in Genesis 24,13, with the word: הנערה
+
+Verse 4
+
+ אל נחל איתן, “to a virgin piece of land of ancient origin;” we find this same expression also in Psalms 74,15: אתה הובשת נהרות איתן, where the psalmist credits G-d with both drying up rivers, and with providing the driest parts of nature suddenly producing torrents of water. According to Ibn Ezra, איתן means: hard as rock. If we needed proof, perhaps it can be found in verse 6 where the elders suddenly wash their hands in that driest of regions. Where did they take the water from to do so ?.
+אשר לא עבד בה, “which has never been made to work;” there had never been water holes in that vicinity from which it could have been irrigated.”
+ולא יזרע, “it had never been sown;” nor had the adjoining soil ever been sown.
+We have read about similar pieces of land in Leviticus 16,22, ארץ גזרה, “a land completely cut off,” the final resting place of the scapegoat that carries the sins of the Jewish people on the Day of Atonement.
+וערפו, “they shall break the neck;” this symbolises what had been the method by which the slain person had died.
+את העגלה, “the heifer;” the entire procedure symbolises that just as the slain person had been deprived of what a human being can accomplish in life, so the animal that takes its place is one that had never been allowed to fulfill its function in life. It had died in a state of virginity and had been consigned to virgin earth that also never fulfilled its function, the reason for its existence, to be the source of nourishment for man. The simile of “virginity,” also applies to the people who perform these rites and who profess to be totally innocent, (virginal) of any guilt in the death of the slain person
+
+Verse 5
+
+ונגשו הכהנים, “and the priests will approach;” they as well as all the elders of the town nearest the slain person; the Torah resumes the narrative interrupted in verse 2. The priests are often identified with the judges of Israel, and have been referred to as such in that verse as colleagues of the elders.
+בני לוי, the Levites, who are not subject to having to have unblemished bodies in order to fulfill their normal functions related to the Temple. (Sifri)
+ולברך בשם ה, ”and to pronounce the blessings using the name of The Lord;” we learn from here that the priests may pronounce the priestly blessings even if they have blemished bodies. [Although they may, of course, not perform service on consecrated ground. Ed.]
+
+Verse 6
+
+ירחצו את ידיהם, “they shall wash their hands;” a symbolic gesture, as if to say: “just as our hands are clean from dirt, so our bodies are free from sin.”
+
+Verse 7
+
+ וענו ואמרו, “and they shall speak and say:” this verse addresses the elders who are taking leave from the ritual;.
+ידינו לא שפכה את הדם הזה, “our hands have not spilled this blood;” it is unusual for the last letter in the word שפכה to be the letter ה instead of the appropriate letter ו, for the plural ending plural. According to our sages, a host is duty bound to provide his guest with five amenities: food, drink, accompany him a short distance when he leaves, provide with a bed for the night if he wishes to stay for the night, and to give him an ever so minimal gift on his departure. The letter ה would therefore be a veiled reference to that law. You may well ask if the Torah really thought that the priests and elders who lived many kilometers distant from where this murder occurred, had really been suspected of having had a hand in this foul deed; why should they need to have to declare that they were innocent of this crime? Rashi explains that the declaration by the elders and priests refers to the murdered person not having been seen by any of them and not having been denied anything he had asked for. The Rabbis felt also that possibly the murdered person, after having been denied his needs in the last city he visited, turned to the first person whom he encountered who had some food on him and snatched it, as a result of which a fight developed during which he was killed. He may even have acted in selfdefense, and have become a victim.
+ועינינו לא ראו, “and our eyes have not seen;” i.e. have not seen this individual while he was alive so that we could have become guilty of not performing our duty toward him. The duty hinted at, according to Rashi, is to give him safe conduct. An alternate interpretation; there is a saying in the Talmud, according to which when someone accompanies a person he has to remain where they parted until that person is no longer within his field of vision.
+
+Verse 8
+
+ כפר לעמך ישראל, “forgive Your people Israel!” They ask forgiveness for not having provided adequate security on the roads leading to their town so that this kind of murder could not have occurred and the perpetrator escaping with impunity. (Ibn Ezra)...
+אשר פדית, “just as You have liberated the people of Israel from Egypt in spite of their shortcomings, exonerate us from any responsibility in the killing of this unknown individual.” Do not burden Your people with the guilt of shedding innocent blood.
+
+Verse 9
+
+ ואתה תבער, “So You shall remove, etc;” Rashi explains here that the reference here is that in the event that the murderer is found after the eglah arufah, the heifer that was supposed to atone for the deed, had already been put to death, the people who had killed that beast should not be held responsible for wasting its life, and the murderer will be dealt with judicially. Although Rashi says that he will be executed, seeing that there were neither witnesses nor warning how can that be? [Rashi, of course quoted the Talmud, Sotah folio 47 to that effect. Ed.] If you were to ask that we have learned in the Talmud in tractate Ketuvot, folio 37, that the meaning of the verse in Numbers 35,33: ולארץ לא יכופר לדם אשר שופך בה, “but no expiation can be made for the land for the blood that is shed therein (of innocent people)”, so why was this verse necessary at all? The answer is in order to give us guidance for the scenario described by Rashi, as quoted in the Talmud Sotah 47. Why do we need the request that G-d should remove the innocent blood? It is to teach that all murderers are basically compared to the paragraph dealing with the heifer discussed in our chapter. Just as that heifer’s death is caused by breaking its neck, the neck of all murderers is broken as part of the execution, [Cutting off his neck with a sword. Ed.] On the other hand, that leaves the problem with the sage who holds that the death penalty for murder is strangulation. That death penalty is rated as harsher than the death penalty by cutting off one’s head with the sword. [The reader must remember that whereas the two death penalties by stoning or burning have been spelled out in the Torah, the other two types of death penalties have not been spelled out. Ed.] If not for the verse in the Talmud in tractate Ketuvot folio 37, we would have thought that the sin of murder warrants a more severe penalty that cutting off the head. Our author pursues these details; I have decided that they are not of great interest to either a potential victim or an innocent bystander. Ed.
+
+כי תעשה הישר, “when you will do what is right in the eyes of the Lord.” The word כי in this verse is to be understood as if the Torah had written: אם, ”if.” or “when.” In practice the essential part in carrying out this commandment is the measuring of which is the nearest inhabited location to the site where the body of the slain person was discovered. Without determining this, the whole procedure leading to atonement cannot even commence. As mentioned previously, the “measuring” is far more than a mere technicality. The publicity connected to the taking of these measurements sets in motion a search for the killer.
+
+Verse 10
+
+כי תצא, “when you go forth;” the introductory words of this paragraph are intended to teach that what follows are rules that apply only outside the boundaries of the Holy Land, and that they are not comparable to those that apply in the Holy land. The paragraphs that we have read prior to this, generally applied to conduct of Israelites in the Land of Israel.
+כי תצא למלחמה, “when you go forth to do battle;” the Torah refers only to what are known in the Talmud as milchemet r’shut, wars that have been sanctioned by G-d after consultation with Him through the High Priest. The reason that this is clear beyond doubt is that the Torah permits you to take prisoners.
+ושבית שביו, “and you carry away prisoners you have taken.” This includes Canaanites, who might have emigrated from their land during the wars conducted by Joshua. (Rashi, based on Sifri)
+
+Verse 11
+
+אשת יפת תואר, “an attractive looking woman.” The term includes women that are married.” If you were to ask where the Midrash making that statement had its source, the fact that the word אשת instead of אשה, is in a construct mode, strongly suggests this. If married prisoners were excluded from the legislation about to follow, the Torah should have written: אשה יפת תואר. If you would query further by quoting the Talmud in tractate Sanhedrin, Tossaphot folio 52, that the term “marriage” as understood in Jewish law does not exist among gentiles, the Torah uses the term here only because you might have thought that if this woman had been “married,” i.e. in an exclusive sexual relationship with one partner, she could not be married by a Jewish soldier, at least not unless divorced, the Torah makes clear that this is not so. It is certainly remarkable that the Torah permits a Jewish soldier to marry such a prisoner of war even after she had undergone all the procedures which follow.
+ולקחת, “you will marry,” according to the plain meaning of the text this means that you, the captor, intend to marry her as soon as possible. We had been told already in Deut.20,14, that it is permissible to take women, children and livestock as loot in the expansionary war described in that paragraph.
+
+Verse 12
+
+וגלחה את ראשה, “she is to shave off the hair of her head.” This is parallel to the rites observed by a person afflicted with the skin disease known as tzoraat prior to that person regaining a status of ritual purity. (Leviticus 14,9) Even Levites, prior to their appointment to their new status, had to do this, as it is a symbolic way of advancing to a level of holiness from the level of profaneness. (Numbers 8,7) [Whatever can be removed from that prisoner while she was still a gentile must be removed before she can become a member of a holy nation. Hence both hair and nails have to be removed.] 
+ועשתה את צפרניה, “she must pare her nails.” When speaking of paring nails, the Torah does not use the term: “shave,” but uses a term which implies that the result will be an improvement in one’s appearance. We are familiar with a parallel to this from Samuel II 19,25: לא עשה את שפמו ולא עשה את רגליו, “he had not trimmed his mustache or pared his toe nails (as a sign of mourning or distress).” This is how Rabbi Eliezer in the Sifri interprets our verse.
+
+Verse 13
+
+והסירה את שמלת שביה, “and she is to remove the outer garment she wore when taken prisoner;” this was a garment she wore while worshipping her idols. We have examples in the Bible of such garments having to be scrapped in Genesis 35,2, where Yaakov commands his family members to scrap the captured garments they were wearing, which had originated in the city of Sh’chem. Anything that she was able to remove, which was a reminder of when she worshipped idols, had to be removed and destroyed. 
+There was no need for the Torah to add that her body too must undergo an immersion in a ritual bath, Such a rule had already been made plain in Numbers 31,19 where the Jewish soldiers returning from the penal expedition against Midian had to undergo bodily purification for seven days as they had been in contact with dead bodies of Midianites.
+ובכתה את אביה ואת אמה, “and she is to observe a period of weeping (mourning) for her father and mother.” Weeping helps a person release feelings that had been suppressed. This will help her get over the loss of her parents.
+She may have assumed that her parents had died during the fighting. (Ibn Ezra)
+ואחר כן תבא אליה, “after all this, her captor may join her and marry her.” He is not allowed to have carnal relations with her before this. It would be in very bad taste to indulge in carnal relations with such a prisoner while she was weeping for her parents, and you were enjoying her body. 
+
+Verse 14
+
+לא תתעמר בה, [the Torah now addresses the soldier, Ed] “do not treat her as a slave;” this verb is used for treating merchandise. The Torah warns the husband, or ex husband, of this prisoner of war, not to treat that woman as if she were merely chattel to be sold; (verse 24)
+תחת אשר עניתה, “seeing that you have already humbled her.” These words still refer to the line: ושלחתה לנפשה, “you shall let her go her own way;”
+
+Verse 15
+
+כי תהיינה לאיש שתי נשים, “If a man has two wives;” this paragraph is appropriate here as we have just read of a union that is unsatisfactory to the husband, although it had commenced with mutual fondness of the parties. (verses 11 and 14)
+וילדה לו, “and she gives birth for him;” by any means, even by caesarean section. (Sifri)
+
+Verse 16
+
+את אשר יהיה לו, “whatever he shall own.” From this formulation we learn that a son is entitled to inherit also what is owed to his father at the time of his death as well as what is on hand.
+על פני בן השנואה, “in preference to the firstborn son of the wife he dislikes;” [if he had literally hated her, he would have had to divorce her. We find that our matriarch Leah also considered herself “hated” by her husband, clearly an exaggeration; otherwise Yaakov would have kicked her out after the wedding night. (Compare Genesis 29,33) Ed.] We find the expression: על פני, meaning “preferable to” also in Exodus 20,3: לא יהיה לך אלוהים אחרים על פני, “you must not have other deities that you prefer to Me.” Compare also: Numbers 3,4: ויכהן אלעזר ואיתמר על פני אהרן אביהם, “he appointed Eleazar and Ittamar as priests (even) while their father was still alive.
+
+Verse 17
+
+בן השנואה יכיר, “he must recognise the son of the “hated” wife as his firstborn. The reason why the Torah chose the expression “recognise” here is that usually when someone wishes to deny a relative some favour that the latter claims he is entitled to, he behaves as if he does not even ”know” such a person. We find an example of this expression in such a situation when Joseph’s brothers came to Egypt to buy grain and he pretended not to know who they were, i.e. ויתנכר, (Genesis 42,7). The Torah there had told us that he had recognised them immediately. On the other hand, when Boaz treated Ruth, whom he had never even met, with kindness and consideration, (Ruth 2,10) she is so astounded that she asked him what prompted him to treat her as if he had known her for a long time, מדוע מצאתי חן בעיניך, “what caused me to have found favour in your eyes, ואני נכריה, when I am a complete stranger?”The Torah demands of the father of his biological and chronological firstborn to introduce him as such to anyone who does not know him. Moreover, Jewish law decrees that when a father introduces his son in such a way he is trustworthy and does not have to provide independent proof for his claim. (Talmud, tractate Kidushin, folio 74.)
+פי שנים, “a double portion,” (inheritance); I have already explained on Numbers 3,12 why this is so.
+ימצא לו, “of all that he actually owns and has control over at the time of his death.” (excluding receivables)
+
+לו משפט הבכורה, “the rights of the firstborn are his.” (not a female firstborn.)
+
+Verse 18
+
+כי יהיה לאיש וגו, “if a man has, etc.” the reason why the paragraph dealing with a wayward son is appended here is that if such a son is a firstborn, his rights as such are null and void, and the parent must deliver him to the court in order that he will be executed, i.e. he will inherit nothing, not only no double portion.
+בן סורר ומורה, “a son who is stubborn and rebellious.” We have learned concerning this in the Mishnah in Sanhedrin folio 70, that such a son does not become legally guilty of such treatment by his parents until he has consumed a certain amount of meat and drunk a certain amount of wine, both of which he had stolen from his parents. There is some discussion of what precisely is the amount of meat and wine described there. Either way, it is a relatively insignificant amount. Furthermore, according to the Talmud, this theft must occur while the son in question is between 13 years and three months, but before he has become thirteen and a half. Rashi explains that the law as it stands is not only not cruel, but is designed to preserve the afterlife for such a wayward son, for if, at such a tender age he were allowed to continue in this way, most likely he would become guilty of the kind of crime that would lead to his forfeiting his share in the world to come because he would have killed an innocent person. If you were to ask how it is that we punish someone for a sin never committed, or punishable merely by a fine, consider the law of the רודף, someone observed chasing a second person with clear intent to murder that person unless stopped in time. Jewish law not only permits, but expects us to kill this potential murderer before he can carry out his evil intention. Do not quote me Genesis 21,17 when Yishmael is about to perish from thirst and an angel is dispatched to save him, (against the protestations of other angels who predict the harm his descendants will do to the descendants of Avraham), and where G-d explains that He cannot allow him to die now as now is not guilty. [The comparison is very lopsided when examined closely and with reference to a period when no Torah had as yet been given. Ed.]
+מורה, “rebellious;” compare Genesis 26,35: מורת רוח, “of rebellious spirit.”
+
+Verse 19
+
+
+
+Verse 20
+
+
+
+Verse 21
+
+
+
+Verse 22
+
+וכי יהיה באיש חטא משפט מות, “If someone had been guilty of a capital offense, (and had been duly executed);” this was added at this point as the corpse is going to be hung (for a few hours maximum)
+על עץ, not a tree that is still rooted in the earth, but on a wooden structure that had once been a tree. All the sinners guilty of death through stoning, including the rebellious son, will be hung afterwards as a deterrent, but must be buried before sunset. Compare Esther 5,14, where the gallows constructed by Haman to hang Mordechai from is called: עץ, “tree.”
+
+Verse 23
+
+.לא תלין נבלתו על עץ , “you must not allow his corpse to remain hanging from a tree or gallows,” but bury him on the same day. The reason for this is so that people will not confuse this corpse with the one of a blasphemer whose body is to be displayed by hanging, and people might believe that the corpse they are looking at is that of a blasphemer. It would be considered as an insult to a mortal king if too much publicity would be given to someone who had mutinied against him even if he had already been punished for his crime. Similarly, it would be an insult to the immortal King, our Creator, if too much publicity were to be given to someone who had been audacious enough to insult the Creator through blasphemy. An alternate interpretation for the line: כי קללת אלוקים תלוי, people seeing the corpse of someone who had been executed for violating G-d’s commands would reason that the guilty party had already paid the price for what he had done; why subject him to indignities by displaying his body?A third interpretation for the above line: this line is addressed to the judges; people seeing the face of the corpse hanging, and knowing the judges who decreed the corpse’s execution might curse them for having executed him for a minor crime, or for not looking for a technicality to avoid having to convict that person of a capital crime.
+כי קבור תקברנו ביום ההוא, “but you must inter him the day of his execution,” instead of becoming ritually contaminated by touching the corpse or by being with it under the same roof.
+
+Chapter 22
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+לא תראה את אחיך או את שיו נדחים, “do not inactively watch the ox or sheep of your brother which has gone astray” (voluntarily or against its will); this law applies even in war time when you are on the way to the front; what applies to ox or sheep applies to all categories of domestic beasts.
+והתעלמתם מהם, “and you blithely ignore them or hide from them;” you must not ignore their plight. The examples chosen by the Torah are animals that are too big for you to be able claim that you overlooked them as their owners hid them.
+השב תשיבם לאחיך, “you must make every effort to restore these animals to your brother.” The Torah is so serious about this demand that it repeats it with slightly different wording in another place (Exodus 23:4).
+
+Verse 2
+
+
+
+Verse 3
+
+
+
+Verse 4
+
+או שורו נופלים בדרך, “or his donkey or ox collapsing on the way,” [due to having been overloaded, Ed.] even though the owner is someone who hates you, you must not ignore this, but assist them in helping the animal to get up.
+
+Verse 5
+
+לא יהיה כלי גבר על אשה, “a woman must not wear men’s clothing;” it is an act of disgrace and sexual provocation;”Having taken note of this law, Yael, the Kenite woman who killed Sisera, the general who had commanded the army of the Canaanite King Jabin of Chatzor, did not use weapons used by male soldiers, such as arrows or a sword when doing so, but took a tent pin. (Judges, 4,21) This paragraph has been written immediately after those dealing with women and warfare, in order to remind us that warfare is something reserved for men, not women. When men go out to war they are likely to encounter situations making promiscuity a great temptation. They are therefore warned not to add to such temptation by dressing up as women. (Ibn Ezra)
+
+Verse 6
+
+כי יקרא קן צפור, “if a bird’s nest happens” (to be along the way you are walking,) the reason why this paragraph has been written here is because it also deals with chance encounters on the way, i.e. בדרך, “on the way,”
+קן צפור, “a bird’s nest;” whenever the word צפור instead of עוף occurs in the Torah meaning bird, it refers to a ritually pure bird, one that Israelites are allowed to eat if slaughtered in the prescribed fashion. Therefore the legislation following next applies only to this category of birds. (Compare Rabbi Yitzchok in the Talmud, tractate Chulin folio 139)
+לא תקח האם על הבנים, “you must not take the mother bird together with its young ones;” it would be an act of cruel insensitivity, comparable to cooking the kid in the milk of its mother, something the Torah has repeatedly forbidden. (Deut.14,21) as well as the prohibition to slaughter, even as a sacrifice, a mother cow together with its calf on the same day. (Leviticus 22,28) Our author considers the requirement that the fruit of one’s vineyard even after four years may be consumed by the owner only in Jerusalem, as also in a category intended to teach us how not to give in to the urge to indulge in drinking wine, etc.
+על הבנים, “with the young.” Other examples of the word על being used as meaning “with,” are found in Leviticus25,31, על שדה הארץ יחשב, “it will be considered as belonging with the fields of the land.” Compare also Numbers 28,10, על עולת התמיד, with the daily burnt offering, or Numbers 19,5: על פרשה ישרוף, “he is to burn it together with its excrement.”
+
+Verse 7
+
+ואת הבנים תקח לך, “and the young ones you may take for yourself,” in order to eat them. We learn from here that the eggs may be eaten even, though they have been taken from a living bird. (Talmud, tractate Chulin, folio 64, and Tossaphot there)
+והארכת ימים, And you will enjoy long life.” The reward will be far greater than if you had ignored G-d’s law and taken mother bird and its young for yourself.
+והארכת ימים, the reward matches the fulfillment of the commandment. By not killing both mother bird and all its young, thus not making that family extinct, you will yourself be rewarded with additional years of healthy life.
+
+Verse 8
+
+כי תבנה בית חדש, “When you build a new house;” This command appears to only include one who builds a house. From where do we derive also one who purchases a house or receives it as a gift? The verse states, “House,” which means any kind of house.
+ועשית, “you must install a parapet for your roof.” If the old roof had collapsed, you must replace it with a new one. This law is introduced here to remind you that after you have completed the conquest of the Holy Land, and have taken over many houses intact from their previous owners, who may not have had such a protective rail or fence on their roof, you must now provide such a parapet. [After dealing with one kind of hazard that your property may present to outsiders, the Torah warns against being the cause of other kinds of hazards by writing as a general rule:]
+לא תשים דמים בביתיך, “do not place anything in a position in your house that might cause bloodshed.” This includes ferocious dogs and shaky ladders. (Talmud, tractate Ketuvot folio 41)
+
+Verse 9
+
+לא תזרע כרמך כלאים, “do not sow your vineyard with more than one kind of seed;” previously, in Leviticus 19,19 we had a similar law where we were warned not to sow two seeds in one field. [The reason given is that the seeds might mingle and produce a new species that is not fit for human consumption because it is something that runs counter to the way G-d created the earth, where we were always told the word למינו, “according to its species.” Ed.] פן תקדש The use of the verb קדש here is similar to קדש וקדשה “man-prostitute and woman-prostitute” (Compare Deut. 23,18) because they too, are mixing with other people.
+כלאים, different kinds of seeds, that are hard to tell apart, and therefore are apt not to be recognised. In order to give the warning more deterrent power, the penalty for having grown crops based on mixing seed is not only that they are forbidden to be eaten, they are forbidden to make any kind of use of. [When the mixing of species is more visible, such as mixing linen and wool, or mating two different species of animals, the penalty is less severe.] 
+
+Verse 10
+
+לא תחרוש בשור וחמור, “do not plough with an ox and donkey together pulling the plough.” The ox, being an animal that chews the cud is constantly eating, whereas the donkey in the meantime is being overworked. This is an example of inflicting pain on living creatures. (Baaley Tossaphot.) Another explanation is that the ox is considered to be the king of the domesticated animals and his image is engraved on the Divine Throne, while the donkey is considered to be a despicable animal. This is not a befitting union.  An alternate interpretation; G-d’s mercy extends not only to human beings but to all of His creatures. Therefore these two categories of beasts being mismatched as one is far stronger than the other, it would be causing the donkey pain to be part of such a team pulling the plough.
+יחדו, “together;” it is forbidden only when the two animals are tied together to the ploughshare. (Sifri). Our sages in the Talmud, tractate Baba Kama folio 54, state: what is stated here includes any two animals of different species, but excludes two human beings pulling the plough together, even if one is considerably stronger than the other. The reason why this law is written here is that we previously spoke about sowing different kinds of seeds, and ploughing is closely related to sowing.
+
+Verse 11
+
+צמר ופשתים יחדו, “wool and linen together.” The reason why only these two categories of yarns are forbidden to be mixed is that the two were involved in the first murder. Kayin’s offering to G-d had consisted of leftover flax that he had grown, while Hevel had offered sheep which grow wool. Seeing that these two species had been indirectly responsible for the first disagreement between two human beings ending in the death of one, we are to be forever mindful of this. An alternate interpretation: These two fibers were used in the garments worn by the priests when performing service in the Temple but are not permitted to be worn by the priests at any other times. This is why the affliction known as tzoraat, does not strike garments consisting of any other fibers. This is a reminder that there is a basic problem involving these fibers, one that is overcome only on holy consecrated ground when used by the priests in their service to G-d. The Torah teaches that the expression shatnes, means a mixture of woolen and flax (linen) fibers. 
+
+Verse 12
+
+גדילים, “twisted strings;” the expression is a variant for קליעה, “plaited work.” This law appears here as in connection with the tzitzit, fringes used in a ritual context that must be attached to four cornered garments, the prohibition for plaiting wool and linen has been waived. (Ibn Ezra)
+ארבע כנפות, “four corners.;” only four-cornered garments (or more corners) are subject to this commandment, not three-cornered ones. (Ibn Ezra)
+
+Verse 13
+
+כי יקח איש אשה, “When a man marries a woman, etc.” seeing that the Torah had dealt with man’s basic preoccupations previously, i.e. building a house, planting and harvesting a field, and the rules governing his clothing, it is appropriate to add some aspects of marriage and its restrictions at this point.
+ובא אליה ושנאה, “and after having had marital relations with her he hates her;” this translation is inaccurate: the Torah means that he had hated her already previously.
+
+Verse 14
+
+ואקרב אליה, “when I wanted to become intimate with her, etc.” an elegant expression for carnal relations. Compare Genesis 20,4: ואבימלך לא בא אליה, “and Avimelech had not slept with her.” Or, Isaiah 8,3: ואקרב אל הנביאה, “I was intimate with the prophetess.”
+
+Verse 15
+
+
+
+Verse 16
+
+
+
+Verse 17
+
+
+
+Verse 18
+
+ויסרו אותו, “they will chastise him;” they will administer punitive lashes to his skin for having transgressed the positive commandment that “you shall love your neighbour as if he were yourself.” (Leviticus 19,18)
+
+Verse 19
+
+ונתנו לאבי הנערה, “and they (the elders of the town) give to the father of the girl;” all of the elders. The word נער is repeatedly spelled without the letter ה at the end of the word in this paragraph, but here it is read as if spelled with that letter, suggesting that harmony is being restored through the procedure decreed by the Torah.
+לא יוכל לשלחה, “he can never divorce her at his own initiative;” this is in spite of the fact that generally, when husbands claim to have found that their wives had betrayed them they are considered as telling the truth. This type of individual is not believed unless he can corroborate his claim of her lack of virginity when she got married by eye witnesses. He has been proven a liar, therefore in the future his claims must be substantiated if he is to be taken seriously. A different interpretation: he is being dealt with on the basis of מדה כנגד מדה, “measure for measure,” i.e. tit for tat. He had tried to send her away (i.e. divorce her), hence he will never be able to rid himself of her. The Torah decreed the same penalty for someone who had raped (compare verse 29 this chapter). Seeing that he had forced himself upon his partner once, it is likely that sooner or later he will tire of her and try to divorce her. The Torah therefore prevented such a person from doing so. כל ימיו, “all his life.” [The Talmud there queries why the Torah used language that implied that he had done such a thing as divorcing her once before, whereas he had actually not done anything! The answer given by the Talmud is that this is the reason why that person also has not been punished with 39 lashes as he would have been had he violated a negative commandment by performing a forbidden act.] 
+
+Verse 20
+
+
+
+Verse 21
+
+
+
+Verse 22
+
+ומתו גם שניהם, “they will both have to die;” Rashi explains the unusual wording, i.e. not “they will both be executed,” by saying that this includes the descendents of this pair of sinners. We are not to assume that as soon as these people have been convicted, even though not yet executed, any unborn children will not be affected by their deeds, since their parents had already been considered legally dead. What these people had done does not come under the heading of “if the parents sinned why should the children be punished for this? The word גם, “also,” in our verse is the Torah’s hint that this situation is different from other situations in which parents are both guilty of a serious sin violating the laws of chastity. An alternate approach to our verse: the word גם does indeed refer to the descendants of this pair of adulterers. Even if the willing female partner is a minor, she will also be subject to the penalty of having committed adultery. The same is true for an adult married woman who committed adultery with a boy that had not yet reached puberty. This is though even though we had been told in verse 21 that the girl involved who by being described as נערה was not yet an adult was alone in being stoned to death, (seeing she shamed her father under whose roof she had indulged in such shameless conduct). Furthermore, we cannot punish the person with whom she lost her virginity as we do not know who he was. If the adulterer (male) was known and there is evidence against both, they will both be subject to death by strangulation. Another interpretation of the apparently superfluous word גם: even if the woman involved in this adultery is pregnant at the time, we do not wait with carrying out the death sentence until her baby is born. According to an interpretation in Ibn Ezra, the word גם is a hint that more laws concerning forbidden sexual unions will follow.
+
+Verse 23
+
+
+
+Verse 24
+
+וסקלתם אותם באבנים, “you shall stone them (to death) with stones. The Torah decrees a harsher mode of death for the woman who committed an adulteress act while betrothed, seeing that still having been a virgin, and not having tasted the physical gratification of sexual intercourse, she nonetheless shamed her family; this is a sin which reflects on her father and her family in whose house she lost her innocence and therefore reflects on there having been something wrong in her upbringing. Once she has been married and lived in her husband’s home, the family can blame her aberration as connected to her having left her father’s home. The adulterer is also stoned because he prevented the fiancé of this woman from being the first one to have sexual intercourse with her.
+על דבר אשר לא צעקה בעיר, “because she did not loudly protest being violated,” even though in a city where help would have been at hand. Her silence is proof that she did not really object to being violated by the rapist. She had no reason to fear being killed as the rapist would surely have been found and brought to justice.
+
+Verse 25
+
+ואם בשדה וגו, if this rape had taken place on an field, far from civilization and help; you might argue that there is not much difference between rape in this paragraph and that in the previous paragraph, as the fact that the Torah decrees the death penalty for her attacker makes it is clear that witnesses must have been at hand, otherwise how could her attacker have been brought to justice? We have to answer that there is a basic difference between a rape that takes place in an open field, of a woman who walked there without a chaperone, and rape in a city where a woman feels safe in walking the streets alone, unaccompanied. If the victim did not raise her voice in the city when attacked, where the chances are great that her cries will be heard, we must interpret this as tacit consent on her part, hence the more severe type of the death penalty. If that woman was attacked while walking alone in the field, and she had raised her voice and by chance her rape had been observed by witnesses who had heard her cries, and the attacker had been caught then he is brought to justice; he would be brought to justice even if she had not cried out, as we give her credit for having been afraid that if she cried out her attacker would also kill her. She is therefore not considered as having consented to her violation. The Torah does not justify her tacit compliance, but even if she told the witnesses not to interfere, she is not executed, as her compliance is presumed to have been influenced by fear for her life. The Torah even excuses her behaviour if when the witnesses arrived the rape was in full progress and her libido had been aroused by her attacker. Whenever there exists doubt about the victim of a rape having consented tacitly, no court will punish her. [Public opinion might. Ed.]
+
+Verse 26
+
+
+
+Verse 27
+
+
+
+Verse 28
+
+כי ימצא איש נער בתולה, “if a man finds a young girl who is a virgin, etc.;” this paragraph is added at this point as other laws concerning virgins preceded it.
+
+Verse 29
+
+לא יוכל שלחה, “he is not permitted to divorce her;” (lit. he must continue to drink out of the vessel he has chosen) he cannot terminate this marriage even if she was blind or lame. (Talmud tractate Ketuvot folio 39)
+
+Chapter 23
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+לא יקח איש את אשת אביו, “a man must not marry a woman who had been the wife of his father;” (even if she had only been raped by his father, and not legally married) This law does not come under the heading of a woman legally married to his father, as the offspring of such a marriage, i.e. the man the Torah speaks about here, would then be a bastard who cannot marry any Jewish woman. If he had done so he would be guilty of the karet penalty, and would forfeit his share in the afterlife. Here we speak of a woman who had been raped by his father, and this is why this verse follows the last verse of the last chapter which dealt with rape, when the penalty had been a financial one payable to the girl’s father. According to the opinion of rabbi Akiva, the karet penalty is sometimes also applicable to violation of commandments where this had not been spelled out. According to the other sages, our paragraph would have to speak of someone sleeping with his aunt while that aunt was awaiting completion of the process of completing the levirate marriage.
+ולא יגלה כנף אביו, “and neither is he to uncover his father’s robe.” According to the Talmud, tractate Yevamot, folio 49, what is meant here by the word כנף, is a robe which his father was in the habit of revealing, i.e. a woman with whom his father had indulged in extra marital relations. We find this word in a similar context in Ruth 3,9, where Ruth requests that Boaz, as her late husband’s redeemer become her partner in a levirate marriage.
+
+Verse 2
+
+לא יבא פצוע דכה בקהל ה, someone with crushed private parts must not marry a Jewish woman. Seeing that such a person cannot sire children there is no point in his marrying a Jewish girl who will thus be prevented from becoming a mother.
+וכרות שפכה, “or maimed genitals;” this refers to a problem involving transmitting semen to the tip of the penis.
+
+Verse 3
+
+לא יבא ממזר בקהל ה, “a bastard must not marry a Jewish woman;” seeing that he is a product of a union punishable by extinction of its seed, what point is there in such a male impregnating a Jewish woman with his seed? 
+The definition of a mamzer from the root זר, alien, is someone whose mother was out of bounds to the male who had impregnated her.
+
+Verse 4
+
+לא יבא עמוני ומואבי בקהל ה, “male members of the Ammonite or Moabite peoples must not marry Jewish women. This rule follows the rule about bastard because marriage with both is forbidden forever. 
+
+Verse 5
+
+על דבר אשר לא קדמו אתכם, “the reason why male members of the last named two nations may not marry Jewish women is that their forbears did not offer the Israelites who were coming out of Egypt either water to slake their thirst nor bread to still their hunger. If they had offered to sell their water or bread, there still would not have been any reason to be grateful to them for this, as they would have done so out of greed.
+
+Verse 6
+
+
+
+Verse 7
+
+לא תדרוש שלומם וטובתם, “do not seek their peace nor their prosperity.” If you will be engaged in war with them it is a duty for you to destroy their cities and property including any fruitbearing trees inside their territory. We find this spelled out by the prophet Elisha in Kings II 3,19 when the Israelites were ordered to attack Moav after the latter had ceased paying taxes to the Kingdom of Israel. This treatment of the Moabites is in direct contrast to other expansionary wars when felling fruit bearing trees is strictly forbidden. Neither were the Israelites at the time allowed to offer peace to the Ammonites or to the Moabites if they decided that they had no other option. (Compare Deuteronomy 20,10 and 19)
+
+Verse 8
+
+לא תתעב אדומי ומצרי, “do not abhor an Edomite for he is your brother, nor an Egyptian for you were a stranger in his land” [in the days of Joseph when no other country was able to provide food and for many years thereafter until they became slaves. Ed.] This verse is written here as the members of these nations could not marry a Jew or Jewess until the third generation after their conversion. 
+
+Verse 9
+
+דור שלישי, “the third generation;” at that point the relationship to the original Egyptians, (also generally speaking) is no longer considered as meaningful in the character development of the great-grandson. We know this from Exodus 10,2 where the Torah commands us to familiarise our children and grandchildren with what happened to us in Egypt.[Does the Torah not expect the third generation to relate to matters so long in the past, long before they were born, seriously? If so why were we commanded throughout our history never to forget what Amalek did to our forefathers 100 generations ago? The prophet extends this by one more generation (Yoel 1,3). Ed.].
+
+Verse 10
+
+כי תצא מחנה, “when you go forth in camp, etc.;” this verse was written here as the punitive against Midian was mentioned which had been conducted on account of Bileam’s having caused the Israelites to be seduced into sinning and 24000 had died on account of that. There was a reference to this evil prophet in verse 6 of our chapter.
+
+Verse 11
+
+מקרה לילה, “due to nocturnal emission of semen during the night;” the letter מ in the word מקרה here is a prefix not part of the word itself, just as it is in the word משדה in Leviticus 27,16: משדה אחוזתו, “part of his ancestral field.”
+
+Verse 12
+
+
+
+Verse 13
+
+
+
+Verse 14
+
+ויתד תהיה לך על אזנך, “you shall have a paddle amongst your weapons;” seeing that only men were going out to fight a war, and seeing that they had the Holy Ark with them when they went to war but were not able to build separating walls, which would have insulated the Ark from exposure to the ritually impure, the people who had nocturnal seminal emissions were required to leave the camp. But when the Israelites wandered for forty years in the desert, there were men, women and children in the camp. Therefore, separating walls were built to separate the Ark and the Tent of meeting from the camp. In the desert those who were ritually impure did not have to leave the camp of the Israelites (but only the camp of the Levites) because of the ever-present danger. In the army everyone had to dig his own hole outside the camp to bury his excrement and cover it, but during the forty years in the desert, everyone dug his own hole in his backyard within the camp of the Israelites.
+
+Verse 15
+
+מתהלך בקרב מחנך, “Who walks in the midst of your camp;” the reference is to the Holy Ark which Moses had made in order for the people to have such an Ark to take with them when going out to war. (Rashi on Deut. 10,1)i
+
+Verse 16
+
+לא תסגיר עבד אל אדניו, “do not hand over to his master a slave who had escaped from him.” This verse was inserted here as it was the habit during wartime that many slaves used the confusion reigning to escape from their masters. [They chose the land of Israel as a favourite destination, as they knew they would be treated there humanely. Ed.]
+
+Verse 17
+
+במקום אשר יבחר, “in a place of his choice;” a place where he could find an opportunity to earn a livelihood.
+לא תוננו, “do not treat him unfairly.” The Torah bids us to treat him fairly, just as it had bidden us to treat all aliens fairly, escaped slaves or not.
+
+Verse 18
+
+לא תהיה קדשה, “there must not be Jewish harlots;” the verse is appended here on account of the previous verse having dealt with escaped gentile slaves, many of whom might have been forced to be harlots.
+
+Verse 19
+
+לא תביא אתנן זונה בית ה, “do not bring the payment received for practicing harlotry to the house of the Lord;” this verse is added here as the Torah just warned us not to tolerate Jewish harlots in our midst. The expression אתנן from the root נתן “to give,” means “gift.” It is an expression used exclusively in connection with payments made to harlots. The letter א at the beginning, which appears extraneous, is similar to the letter א in the word אזרוע in Jeremiah 32,21, instead of זרוע for “arm.” We also find such an apparently superfluous letter א in the word אתמול for “yesterday,” which appears more frequently meaning the same as תמול.
+
+Verse 20
+
+לא תשיך לאחיך, “do not charge your brother interest on a loan.” (Brother=fellow Jew) In Leviticus 25,36 we read about this subject as applying to the poor even if he is a resident stranger. Here it is addressed only to fellow Jews, but includes wealthy Jews who are short of cash but not short of saleable assets. The reason that this verse appears here is that seeing we have been warned not to treat escaped gentile slaves unfairly, this does not include that we must extend loans to such people without charging interest.
+
+Verse 21
+
+לנכרי תשיך, “you may charge interest to gentiles.” (According to some authorities this is even a positive commandment. Maimonides and Sefer Hachinuch). All other nations are called gentiles when compared to the Israelites. Compare Ovadiah 11: ונכרים באו שעריו גם אתה כאחד מהם, “the gentile nations came to its gates, you were as one of them.” Compare also Judges: 19,12, and Solomon’s prayer in Kings I 8,41.
+
+Verse 22
+
+כי תדור נדר, “When you shall vow a vow, etc.” It is possible that this verse appears here as we read previously (verse 19) about a harlot not being allowed to fulfill a vow she had made to the Lord by using money earned from practicing her trade.
+והיה בך חטא, “and you would wind up having committed a punishable sin instead of a good deed.”
+
+Verse 23
+
+
+
+Verse 24
+
+מוצא שפתיך תשמור, “that which has come forth from your lips you should observe and do.”  “Observe” what you have vowed not to do and “do” what you vowed to do but make sure that you do this for the sake of Heaven.
+כאשר נדרת, “as you have vowed, voluntarily.” No one forced you to make such a vow, so that not honouring it, or delay in honouring it is entirely your fault.
+
+Verse 25
+
+כי תבא בכרם רעך, “when you came into your neighbour’s vineyard, etc.” The reason why this subject is discussed here is to contrast it with your having vowed something. When you make a vow it can only be concerning something that you own; when you enter your neighbour’s private property anything you remove comes under the heading of “taking.” (Ibn Ezra) [Ibn Ezra assumes that you have business in your neighbour’s vineyard, seeing you have been hired to help harvest the grapes. Ed.]
+ואכלת ענבים כנפשך  ,“you may eat as many grapes as you desire;” provided the owner has not specifically forbidden you to do so. (Meiri) The sages disagree about the significance of the sequence in which the Torah’s laws have been written, i.e. if the order implies a legal linkage to what preceded it. According to Rabbi Joseph in the Talmud tractate Yevamot folio 4, the laws in the Book of Deuteronomy are an exception in that even the scholars who hold that elsewhere such a linkage does not exist, concerning such sequences in the Book of Deuteronomy they agree that the order in which these laws have been written are of some legal significance. He quotes as examples all the laws written in these chapters, including even the command to wipe out the memory of what Amalek did to the Israelites when they had come out of Egypt. (Deut.25,19)
+
+Verse 26
+
+
+
+Chapter 24
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+
+
+Verse 2
+
+והלכה והיתה לאיש אחר, “and she goes and has become someone else’s wife;” the wording implies that even if she had only become betrothed to another man and had not yet consummated this bond, her former husband must on no account take her back as his wife. The sages derive this from the passive: והיתה, “she has become some other man’s.” If, after having been divorced, this woman had engaged in sexual relationships with another man without having a legal marriage with him, even if she had been paid as a harlot for such a relationship, her former husband is allowed to remarry her. If that woman had been divorced because she had been guilty of adultery, her husband cannot remarry her even if she had not remarried or had not been intimate with any other man. 
+
+Verse 3
+
+
+
+Verse 4
+
+אחרי אשר הטמאה, “she had been defiled.” This means that she had absorbed semen from her partner in sin.
+הטמאה , The letter מ in that word has the vowel kametz.
+
+Verse 5
+
+ולא יעבור עליו, “and no summons to explain himself in the court applies to him;” he fill not be fined.
+לכל דבר, “concerning serving in the army in any capacity;” the letter ל at the beginning of the word לכל, is superfluous. (Ibn Ezra)
+נקי יהיה לביתו, this refers to the person discussed already in Deut: 20,6 i.e. someone whose bride was betrothed to him but the last stage in the marriage ceremonies, i.e. the chuppah, and the bride receiving her ring and a declaration by her groom that he married her and that the ring was the token of this, had not yet taken place. If he had reported for military duty, he is sent back home with orders to complete the marriage ceremonies. Once these have been completed, he is to devote the whole first year of his marriage to make life pleasant for his bride. We needed several extra words in the Torah to make clear that he is not subject to auxiliary duties not connected with actual service at the front where he would not be exposed to danger. For instance, he might have been required to repair damage to roads, etc., or to help with bringing food and drink to the soldiers serving at the front. The rules applying to this newly wed are identical to the rules applying to someone who had not yet moved into his new house, or had not yet harvested the fourth-year crop from his new vineyard. 
+
+Verse 6
+
+לא יחבול ריחים, “A creditor is not to take as a pledge for an overdue loan the upper millstone;” although the word: “creditor,” did not appear in this verse it is clear that the creditor is the subject in this legislation. An alternate interpretation: The verse addresses itself to the creditor, who normally is not even allowed into the house of the debtor, seeing that such pledges are taken by the court’s messenger in order to preserve the self respect of the debtor. In this instance, the creditor was allowed into the debtor’s house to look for a suitable pledge. 
+The Torah warns him not to take something which is essential for the debtor to earn his livelihood.
+ריחים, this is one of a number of words (nouns) that always appear in the plural mode; some others are: ,שמים מים, חיים, פנים, מלקחים, מעים. (Seeing that the lower millstone is anchored to the ground, only the upper one could serve as a pledge. Ed.)
+
+Verse 7
+
+כי ימצא איש גונב נפש, “when a man is found having kidnapped a person, etc.;” why has this verse been repeated seeing that it has been written already in Exodus 21,16? (In Exodus nothing is mentioned about the nationality of the kidnapped person. Here the circumstances are defined more clearly, i.e. from among his brethren, i.e. excluding gentiles and even Edomites, i.e. descendants of Yitzchok who elsewhere were addressed even by Moses as “brother.”(Numbers 20,14). An alternate interpretation: Ed.) if we had only heard about the first verse dealing with this subject, I might have thought that even an eight day old baby is included in the legislation, i.e. if such a young baby had been kidnapped. (Sifri, as elaborated on by Malbim) The Torah in our verse therefore adds the word מאחיו, “from among his brethren,” meaning that a baby under 30 days old is not included, as we are not sure yet that he is healthy enough to grow up to be a man.
+מאחיו מבני ישראל, “from among his brethren the Children of Israel.” The words: מבני ישראל, are intended to exclude a Jew kidnapping an Edomite (even though Moses addressed the Edomites (who descended from Isaac) as “brothers”. (Numbers 20,14.) The death penalty does not apply in that case. Where do we find the verse in which kidnapping is forbidden as a crime? See Exodus 20,13 in the Ten Commandments, לא תגנוב, “do not steal!”
+
+Verse 8
+
+השמר בנגע הצרעת, “be most careful with the plague known as tzoraat;” Do not give honor to someone who is great to exempt him from being sent outside of the three camps. Remember what Hashem, your God, did to Miriam, who was the sister of the king and the sister of the <i>Kohein Godol</i>, and even so was quarantined outside the camp for seven days.
+
+Verse 9
+
+
+
+Verse 10
+
+כי תשה ברעך, “when you lend your neighbour something;” what follows has also been written before in Exodus 22,24; the reason it has been repeated here is that Moses added the warning to the creditor that when requesting a pledge as security for this loan (which is overdue) he must not enter the home of the debtor; it also teaches that when the debtor is unable to repay the loan in cash and the debtor owns land of different qualities, the creditor may only demand repayment from the lowest grade of soil owned by the debtor.
+משאת מאומה, ”any kind of loan;” even the wages owed the debtor as day labourer, or his credit at the store where he buys his groceries. (Sifri)
+משאת, the letter א in this word is not heard when reading the Torah in public.
+לא תבא אל ביתו, “you, the creditor, must not enter his (the debtor’s) house when requesting the pledge or the payment. The reason may be that to preserve the sense of privacy, i.e. chastity of the people dwelling inside.
+
+Verse 11
+
+
+יוציא אליך “the debtor is to bring it to you while you are waiting outside.” From these words we learn that the debtor may bring inferior items as pledge, as unless forced, it is natural for him to tender his least valuable possession. (Talmud, tractate Gittin, folio 50)
+העבוט החוצה, “the pledge to the outside.” The pledge does not have to be something portable as suggested by these words.
+
+Verse 12
+
+ואם איש עני הוא, “and if the debtor is a poor man;” what follows does not only apply to a poor man, but the Torah used this example as it applies mostly to poor people. The temptation of the creditor to take a pledge from the poor debtor before he will have nothing left to pledge, while he will wait for the rich debtor to repay the loan.
+
+Verse 13
+
+ולך יהיה צדקה, ”and it shall be accounted as a righteous act for you;” if you restore the pledge to that debtor every evening or every morning. If after thirty days of your doing this the debtor still has not paid up, the court will sell it and give the proceeds to the creditor. If it was sold for more than what was owed, the surplus is given back to the debtor. (Talmud, tractate Baba Metzia, folio 114a).
+
+Verse 14
+
+לא תעשוק שכיר, “do not oppress a hired hand.” This has also been written already in Leviticus 19,13, but has been repeated here to include the resident stranger.”
+
+Verse 15
+
+ביומו תתן שכרו, “you are to pay him his wages on the day that he has worked.” The wages become due as soon as he has completed the required number of hours. If he was hired to perform his work during daylight hours, he must be paid no later than sunrise of the following day; if he was hired perform his work during the night , he must be paid no later than sunset of that day. This we have learned in the Talmud tractate Baba Metzia folio 111. This is based on the Torah writing here: ולא תבא עליו השמש כי עני הוא, “(on the same day you are to pay him;) before the sun sets.” We also have another verse spelling out that the night must not pass before the labourer receives his pay for the previous day’s work. (Leviticus 19,13)
+כי עני הוא. Especially if he is a poor person.
+ואליו הוא נושא את נפשו, “for he has depended on being paid on time with all his heart.” We find this expression used in the same sense in Psalms 25,1: אליך ה' נפשי אשא, “to You My Lord I hope with all my soul.”
+
+Verse 16
+
+ובנים לא יומתו על אבות, “and children must not be executed for the sins of the fathers.” The Torah addresses itself to the courts. We have an example of such a dilemma facing a court, in Kings II 14,6. King Amazzia was tempted to execute the children of the assassins of his father, but the Bible compliments him for resisting this temptation by obeying the warning in our verse not to do so. While human courts are not permitted to do this, the Lord, Who knows what is in our minds at all times, is permitted to do so as when He does so, He does so because it is in the best interest of those who are treated thus. (Compare Exodus 20,5) Basically, whenever G-d does so, He had waited for generations for the new generations to become better than their fathers and grandfathers. None of these children and grandchildren would ever have been born if G-d had punished their sinful parents and grandparents, instead of extending His mercy for two more generations. They are therefore being punished for their own sins, not for the sins of their parents. (Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin 27.)
+
+Verse 17
+
+ולא תחבול בגד אלמנה, “and you are not to take (as a pledge for an overdue loan) the garment of a widow.” You may not even take the garment of a wealthy widow as a pledge, even if you give it back to her, for she is single and this may lead to sexual impropriety.
+
+Verse 18
+
+וזכרת כי עבד היית, “you shall remember that you used to be a slave in Egypt.” The Lord liberated you from that sorry state by having mercy on you. You should have learned from this to have mercy on your less fortunate neighbours. Do not ever exploit their misfortune by treating them unfairly.
+
+Verse 19
+
+לגר, ליתום, ולאלמנה יהיה, למען יברכך ה, “(these sheaves the owner appears to have forgotten) are rightfully the stranger’s, the orphan’s and the widow’s, in order that the Lord will bless you (also in the future).” You will not be deprived of anything by not going back to pick up what you left behind by mistake.
+
+Verse 20
+
+לא תפאר, “do not go over the boughs again,” (to look for something you had not noticed the first time.) (According to Ibn Ezra, we find the word פארות in Ezekiel 17,6: where it means “branches pointing upwards” which would eventually bear fruit. [If so, our verse would instruct the owner of the orchard not to harvest every last branch so that in the next year the tree would have difficulty in regenerating itself. Ed.]
+
+Verse 21
+
+כי תבצור כרמך, “when you gather the grapes of your vineyard, etc.;” why did this verse have to be written, seeing that we have a similar verse already in Leviticus 19,10? If you were to say that the word אחריך, “after you,” is new here, i.e. that the prohibition applies only to grapes the farmer has left behind him, this is not so, as we have learned in the Mishnah in Peah 7,4 that these types of grapes known as ollelot, prematurely fallen grapes, may not be picked up by the farmer even if they are in front of him.
+עוללות, Rashi explains that grapes known as ollelot have no shoulder and are not shaped like drops. [The Talmud goes into greater detail, explaining which kind of grapes the farmer must not keep for himself. Ed.]
+
+Verse 22
+
+
+
+Chapter 25
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+
+
+Verse 2
+
+בן הכות, “deserves to be punished by physical lashes;” the expression is similar to בן מות, “deserving of the death penalty,” the word בן here with the vowel chirik under the latter ב, is similar to the one in the name of Joshua, i.e. יהושע בן נון, “Joshua, son of Nun,” or אגור בן יקה, in Proverbs 30,1.
+והכהו לפניו, “and he has to strike him in his presence.” The man carrying out the court’s judgment must do so in the presence of the judge who had convicted the sinner. (Compare Talmud, tractate Makkot folio 22.)
+כדי רשעתו, “according to the measure of his wickedness.” This sounds somewhat indefinite, as if the judge could impose different penalties of lashes for different sins. The conclusion of the Talmud is that under no circumstances must the number 39 be exceeded. Possibly, the degree of force used to apply the lashes varies with different sins.
+
+Verse 3
+
+ארבעים, “forty;” the number 40 is symbolic of the forty days Moses spent on Mount Sinai when he received the Torah, so that it takes forty lashes to cleanse the sinner of the guilt he had accumulated by having deliberately violated a negative commandment by committing an act which must be interpreted as rebellious. (Tanchuma Bamidbar section 23.)
+יכנו, “he will beat him;” on his body, not on the garment or garments he is wearing. The part of the body where these lashes are to be applied is between the shoulders of the sinner.
+לא יוסיף, “he must not exceed this number;” why was this repeated seeing that we read it already in Deuteronomy 4,2, where it appeared as a general rule? According to the Rabbis, it means that whereas the sages do not have the right to increase this mode of punishment, they may impose fewer lashes, such as when the health of the sinner is fragile, and similar considerations. This is also why the Rabbis divided the areas of the body to which these lashes are to be applied, to shoulder, chest, and the upper back where it joins the shoulder.
+
+Verse 4
+
+לא תחסום שור בדשו, “do not muzzle the ox while it is engaged in treading corn.” Rashi claims that this wording is meant to exclude human beings. You may muzzle the mouth of a human being under such circumstances {Sifri) If you were to argue that seeing that the Torah permitted human labourers engaged in assisting the owner in harvesting his vineyard, the Torah had made it plain that while so engaged the labourer could eat to his heart’s content, (Deut.23,25) the Rabbis stated that if the owner of the vineyard had muzzled his labourer to prevent him from eating any of his grapes, he does not have to compensate him for this financially, it is plain that our verse applies only to animals? [The Talmud, tractate Baba Metzia folio 91, states that if a farmer had violated this commandment and muzzled his ox while it was threshing, he is assessed a certain amount of monetary fine depending on the size of the animal involved, i.e. more for an ox than for a donkey, since the former eats more. The Torah does not excuse a human being from a trespass involving the penalty of 39 lashes, however. Had the Torah not written both the verse in Deut 23,25, and our verse here, I would have thought that the Torah excuses the employer of a human being only from the penalty of being subjected to lashes, but not from the financial compensation due for being denied his rights. Therefore the Torah wrote both verses to make sure that we understand that only animals are subject to this legislation and the penalty for violating it. The critical words are respectively: כנפשך “according to your heart’s desire,” and: בדשו, “while engaged in threshing.”According to Rash,i we must question why the Torah writes: בדשו, ”when he is busy threshing;” surely the rule of not muzzling someone’s mouth applies also before the ox had started to thresh, otherwise nobody would bother to observe this commandment! Besides, why was the ox singled out as an example for this commandment, surely it applies to other animals engaged in performing work with food also? The example of the ox was chosen as it is the animal that is used for such tasks more than any other. The law applies, of course, also to other animals that can be used to do threshing, It does not apply to human beings, even if these were used for threshing corn, as this is not a normal occupation for which human beings are used. The word בדשו is chosen as it applies to an activity that is as yet not completed, you may not use the product until other commandments have been fulfilled, such as tithing, setting aside challah. But it applies to activities preparing nature’s products to serve man as food, working with dough, etc. These are products that are not yet even “owned” in the full sense of the word by the farmer himself until he has given the appropriate portions to the priests, the Levites, the poor, the orphans and the widows. Anyone engaged in such a process must not be denied partaking of the product while working with it. The exception is: milking cows and making cheese. [no part of those need to be shared with the poor or the priests. Ed.]
+
+Verse 5
+
+כי ישבו אחים יחדו ,“when brothers live together, etc.” the word: [“together” here is not to be understood in terms of space but in terms of time, i.e. both are alive at the same time. They share time on earth. In addition,] only brothers who share the same father are referred to in the legislation about to be revealed here. [We are familiar with the basic principle about the levirate marriage from Tamar and the sons of Yehudah in Genesis chapter 38, long before the Torah was given to the Jewish people. Ed.] That there are distinctions between brothers from the father and brothers from the mother, we know from when Joseph’s brothers on their arrival in Egypt described themselves by saying that they were all the sons of one father. (Genesis 42,11)
+ומת אחד מהם, “and one of them died;” the letter א, has the vowel patach;
+יבמה בא עליה ולקחה, “her husband’s brother shall go into her and take her as a wife;” this is a positive commandment, whereas previously this woman had been out of bounds for him as a possible wife, now she is not only permitted, but it is considered a good deed to marry her. This is the preferable solution to this widow’s problem, although the Torah offers an alternate solution, also. This is indicated by the fact that the widow has not returned to her previous status before she had become married to her deceased husband, i.e. free to marry other men. Our author refers the reader to his commentary on Leviticus 6,9 where he compared the situation to the words .
+ויבמה, “and he will perform the ritual of the levirate marriage with her.” This is one of the words which allows for two ways to interpret them. It is similar to Exodus 27,3, לדשנו, and other similar words. The meaning of the expression: ויבמה, therefore is: ”the period of suspended status of potential levirate marriage will come to an end” and “he will make her his wife” in the full sense of the word.
+
+Verse 6
+
+
+
+Verse 7
+
+
+ועלתה יבמתו השערה, “his deceased brother’s widow will proceed to the gate” (where the elders are in session) she will be walking behind her brother in law.
+השערה, it is a rule that the place where the elders are holding their deliberations is on an elevation relative to the rest of the town’s streets. (Sifri)
+להקים לאחיו שם בישראל, “he refuses to establish a name for his deceased brother in Israel.” The addition of the word: בישראל “in Israel,” prompted the sages to declare that the levirate marriage legislation does not apply to the two brothers who were conceived before their parents converted, but who were born after their parent’s conversion so that they were Jews from birth. (Sifri) Nevertheless, the ritual described here would not be necessary for the widow of such a husband and she is free to marry any Jewish man of her choice.
+
+Verse 8
+
+ועמד, “and her brother-in-law is required to stand up;” he is required to do this in order that all the elders present can hear his refusal clearly;
+
+Verse 9
+
+וחלצה נעלו, “she will loosen his shoe;” this shoe must be made from leather, as we know from Ezekiel 16,10: ואנעלך תחש, “and I shod you in Tachash leather. [The skins of the animal from which this leather was made was used as the upper layer of the coverings of the Tabernacle, Exodus 26,14. Ed] This procedure has to be performed on the right foot of the brother-in-law, seeing that whenever the word רגל, foot or leg, is used without any other adjective, the right foot is meant. (Talmud tractate Yevamot folio 104)
+וחלצה נעלו, according to the plain meaning of the text this procedure enables her to become the heir of her deceased husband, as her brother-in-law who would normally inherit his estate had refused to “inherit” the whole estate, i.e. his widow also. The best known example in the Bible of the procedure is the story of Ruth and Boaz, in Ruth chapter 4. In answer to the heretics criticising this procedure as demeaning for women, this procedure may be understood as follows: “if you wish to perform your duty to marry me, I will serve you like a maid serves her master.” ...
+When he replies that he is not willing to do so, she will spit out in front of him to signal that she thinks his refusal by rejecting her is disgusting. She hints by her action that as of now she considers him as not worth any more than the spittle she has ejected from her mouth.
+וענתה ואמרה, she will reply and say: she does this in order 1) to shame her brotherinlaw, and b) to put her mind at rest.
+
+Verse 10
+
+
+
+Verse 11
+
+אשת האחד, “the wife of the one,” (of the two men fighting one another) as opposed to the wife of the messenger from the court. (According to the Sifri, the altercation may have been the result of one of the men having been convicted of receiving 39 lashes, and the wife attacks the messenger from the court who was supposed to carry out the sentence.) The text wants to make plain that this is not the scenario here.
+והחזיקה במבושיו, “and she takes hold of his private parts;” seeing that the Torah singles out the man’s private parts I might have thought that the woman will be punished only for the fact that she chose to attack those parts; in order to show that this was only one example, but the same applies to other parts of the body, the word והחזיקה, “she takes a firm hold,” has been added.
+
+Verse 12
+
+וקצותה את כפה, “you shall cut off her hand;” this penalty excludes the wife of the court messenger who had been sent to beat a condemned person. If this person attacks her husband (the court messenger) and she defends him by taking hold of that person’s private parts, she will not be convicted. (Talmud tractate Baba Kamma folio 28) [After looking up the folio quoted in the Talmud, I have come to the conclusion that the point that the Talmud is making there is that if an authorised messenger from the court is attacked and forced to defend himself, he will not be held culpable even if he had attacked the other party by hurting his private parts when he had no other option. Ed.]
+
+Verse 13
+
+גדולה וקטנה, “large or small.” Rashi comments here that the Torah speaks of two stones used as weights, both having the same markings. The deception practiced by this is that when selling, the merchant uses the smaller stone when weighing the goods for his customer, whereas when he is buying he is using the larger stone when weighing what is due to him. When the Torah writes that we are not to have two weights, the meaning is that when these two stones, one weighing 1.25 liter (a weight used in those days) and the other .75 liter, are both put on one side of the scale, together show the weight of 2 liter; but one is smaller and the other, larger - thus hiding the deception when they are each used independently. This is what he meant when Rashi wrote that “the larger stone contradicts the smaller stone.”
+בכיסך, not literally in your pocket, but in the place where weights are normally kept. (Ibn Ezra)
+
+Verse 14
+
+
+
+Verse 15
+
+
+
+Verse 16
+
+
+
+Verse 17
+
+
+
+Verse 18
+
+ויזנב בך, “and attacked the hindmost of you.” Amalek chased after the Jewish people until he caught up with the slowest moving ones. (Ibn Ezra) [The people had not yet been organised into army groups, etc., as we learned in the Book of Numbers. Ed.]
+הנחשלים, as if spelled הנחלשים, “the weakest of them.” 
+ואתה עיף ויגע, “while you were tired and worn out.” There is no reason for your being surprised at his taken advantage of you at that time, as he exploited the fact that you were worn out from long marches. (Mechilta) Another interpretation of the words: ולא ירא אלוקים, “he displayed no fear of G-d,” these words are addressed by Moses to the Jewish people; he tells them that if they at the time had observed the commandments that they already knew about, Amalek could not have done them any harm and could not even have caught up with them.
+
+Verse 19
+
+!תמחה, “blot out!” do so before Amalek can attack the Temple. When the Torah, in Exodus 17,14 had written that G-d had said that He would blot out Amalek, it referred to the period after Amalek had successfully attacked the Temple. (early version of Tanchuma)
+
+Chapter 26
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+והיה כי תבא אל הארץ, “it will be when you come to the Land, etc.” seeing that Moses had told the people in Deut. 25,19 that the commandment to wipe out Amalek would apply only after Hashem had given the people rest from all their enemies, he has to tell them here that what follows applies as soon as they enter and make their homes in the Holy Land. Some notable commandments that become due as soon as they will reap harvests in that land, are: the bringing to the Temple of the first ripened fruit of the seven species for which the land is famous, tithing the grain harvest by giving the Levites their share, inscribing the text of the Torah in the stones of the Jordan river, building the altar, as well as reciting the blessings and curses detailed in chapter 27,12-26 on the two mountains designates for this.
+
+Verse 2
+
+ולקחת מראשית פרי האדמה, “you shall take of the first of all the fruit of the ground;” the reason why the Torah repeats this commandment which had appeared already in Exodus 23,19, is to list the commandments in a certain order.
+מראשית, from the first,” Rashi emphasises the importance of the letter מ i.e. “from,” as opposed to “all.”It is not even necessary to bring the entire fruit only part of it. [My version of Rashi, does not have this, but states that the farmer may designate the respective fruit before it has fully ripened. Ed.] An alternate interpretation: the word מראשית does not describe a time but describes quality, i.e. the best of these first fruit is to be brought to the Temple. The word ראשית appears in this sense of quality also in Jeremiah 2,3 ראשית תבואתו, “the best of His harvest;” [G-d comparing other nations to Israel whom He had chosen. Ed] The prophet Amos in Amos 6,6 also uses the word ראשית in that sense when he said: וראשית שמנים ימשחו, “and they anoint themselves with the choicest oils. Still another interpretation: the word מראשית means from the first in their respective category that have ripened, the very fact that they ripened earlier making those fruit superior.
+כל פרי האדמה, “you are to bring these specimens in their original state,” i. e. when whole, not the wine you made out of the grapes, or the oil out of the olives, for instance. (Sifri)
+ושמת בטנא, ”and you shall put it in a basket;” it should be presented in a dignified manner.
+והלכת אל המקום, “and you will go to the place, etc.;” the owner of the first ripened fruit is to do all this himself, not through someone whom he designated in his place. This refers both to collecting the fruit from the tree or cutting it from the ground. When a King employs a servant to tend to his fields, he also expects that tenant to bring him his share personally, not to delegate someone else with performing that duty.
+
+Verse 3
+
+אשר יהיה בימים ההם, “who will be on duty during those days; he is not to wait until a relative of his who happens to be a priest is on duty and to give it to him.
+הגדתי היום, “I profess this day, etc.;” I give thanks today for having been privileged to come to this country [or to have been born in it] the land that Lord your G-d had sworn to your forefathers to become ours. He has kept His promise, and I have received my share of it. Now it is my turn to tender a gift from its produce in order to demonstrate that it is He Who has given it to our people.”
+
+Verse 4
+
+ולקח הכהן הטנא מידך, “the priest will accept the basket from your hands;” the priest acts as the delegate of the king, i.e. Hashem, in this instance.
+והניחו לפני מזבח ה' אלוקיך, “he will deposit it in front of the altar of the Lord your G-d.” If there is no altar, i.e. if the Temple is not standing, there are no bikkurim. (Sifri)
+
+Verse 5
+
+ארמי אובד אבי, “my forefather used to be a wandering Aramean;” this verse has been abbreviated. In full, it should have read: “Yaakov my forefather was a wandering Aramean.” While he was serving Lavan in Aram he was no better than a wandering Aramean, he had no house or land of his own; he was not even a resident in that country.”
+אובד, “poor,” compare Proverbs 31,6, תנו שכר לאובד, “give liquor to the one who is perishing.”It is not astounding to find Yaakov referred to as Arami, as in Chronicles I 2,17 (יתר(ו is called Ishmaelite, although in Samuel II 17,24, he is clearly called Israelite.
+
+Verse 6
+
+
+
+Verse 7
+
+
+
+Verse 8
+
+ובמורא גדול, “and with awesome power,” compare Deuteronomy 7,19.
+
+Verse 9
+
+ארץ זבת חלב ודבש, “a land flowing with milk and honey.” Just as the land flowing with milk and honey refers to only five of the seven Canaanite tribes where it is first mentioned in Exodus 13,5 so here too Moses refers to the areas of these five tribes. This is also the source of the statement of Rabbi Yossi ha’glili who ruled that firstling fruit could not be brought from produce grown on the east Bank of the Jordan because that area is not part of the land flowing with milk and honey  [as the quality of the soil there did not lend itself to producing superior fruit].
+
+Verse 10
+
+ והנחתו והשתחוית, “and you shall set it down and worship the Lord your G-d;” the verse teaches that these fruit have to be deposited twice. Once at the time the recitation is read, and once when the donor prostrated himself in prayer.
+והשתחוית, “you will bow down,” as people do when taking leave of a superior such as a Rabbi.
+
+Verse 11
+
+
+
+Verse 12
+
+כי תכלה לעשר, “when you complete tithing, etc.” this verse is also a repetition of Deut. 14,28; it is inserted here only on account of the confession as per verse 13: בערתי הקודש מן הבית, “I have removed everything that is holy (second tithe) from the house;”
+ונתתי ללוי לגר וליתום ולאלמנה, “and I have also given to the Levite, the stranger the orphan and the widow.” This is not necessarily to be understood as cumulative, but you have given to any of the above mentioned categories of people.
+
+Verse 13
+
+בערתי הקודש, this is a reference to the bikkurim as these have to be brought to the Temple. Compare Mishnah in tractate Bikkurim 2,2: tithing and firstling fruit rules have something in common with one another which they do not share with T’rumah (2% of the grain harvest given to the priest as the first type of tithe) in that they require to be brought to Jerusalem, and that failing this they have to be destroyed.
+
+Verse 14
+
+לא אכלתי באוני ממנו, “I have not eaten from it when it was stolen property;” the expression און occurs in this sense in Job 20,10: ידיו תשבנה אונו, “his own hands must restore his wealth” (the illegally acquired wealth).
+ולא בערתי ממנו, “neither I have destroyed any of it unlawfully;” בטמא, “nor have I eaten any of it while in a state of ritual impurity.” It is forbidden to make any use of the harvested grains before the tithes are separated.
+ולא נתתי ממנו למת, “nor have I given any of it for the dead;” (a euphemism for given it to idols, i.e. “dead deities.”) I have given all of it to the living G-d, the King of the universe.
+עשיתי ככל אשר צויתני, “I have acted in accordance with all that You have commanded me.” regarding first fruits and the tithes (of all that my fields produced).
+
+Verse 15
+
+ואת האדמה, “and the soil,” in order that You will provide the rain at the appropriate time so that I can continue to serve You with the same fervor next year, and fulfill all the commandments connected with ownership of this land.
+
+Verse 16
+
+את החוקים האלה, “these statutes.” The ones pertaining to the tithes and the firstlings of the fruit,
+ואת המשפטים, “and the details surrounding these laws,” a reference to the details connected with the laws of tithing, such as not eating from these when in a state of mourning. (verse 14)
+ושמרת, “you shall observe,” in your heart.
+ועשית אותם, “and perform them, in the Holy Land.”
+
+Verse 17
+
+את ה׳ האמרת היום, “you have avouched the Lord this day;” you have singled out the Lord today; by accepting G-d’s commandments you, Israel, have adopted the Lord your G-d as your only deity. He has reciprocated by making you His special people, as He demonstrated by all the miracles He performed for your sake.
+אמרת, according to Rash’bam,“you have become as if betrothed;” An alternate interpretation: you traded, exchanged; you have abandoned all other powers in nature by accepting Me as comprising all those forces combined. (seeing that I created all these forces.) He, in turn, has abandoned all attempts to directly educate the other nations by concentrating on you as His pilot project. [Some of these words are mine Ed.] [In order to understand this interpretation, the letter א in the words האמרת and האמירך have to be considered as non existent, something similar being the case in Jeremiah 32,21: ובאזרוע as well as in Kings II 4,2: דאסוך, and in Psalms 90,4: אתמול. A different interpretation: the word האמירך is an expression of admiration, praise, as in Psalms 94,4: יתאמת, ”will they indulge in self-glorification? [The psalmist speaks of the wicked. Ed.]
+
+Verse 18
+
+
+
+Verse 19
+
+ולתתן עליון, “and to place you supreme;” where is the source for G-d doing this? Compare Deut. 28,13: 'ונתנך ה לראש ולא לזנב, “and the Lord will make you the head and not the tail.”
+
+Chapter 27
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+
+
+Verse 2
+
+והקמות לך אבנים, “you shall set up for yourselves stones;” according to Rashi the Torah decrees three times that such stones shall be set up; once in the river Jordan, once in Gilgal, the first stop of the Israelites after crossing that river; and the third time at the base of Mount Eyval. He bases himself on the Talmud, tractate Sotah folio 35. [Actually, according to the Talmud there, one set of stones was erected in the land of Moav, another in the Jordan river by Joshua, and the third was erected by Joshua at Gilgal. The Talmud has two versions about this subject, Rashi apparently having preferred the other version. There is much discussion about this subject; seeing that we cannot resolve what the sages did not resolve who were chronologically much closer to the event, there is no sense in our pursuing the subject further, as it is of no consequence even after Moshiach will have come. Ed.]
+ אבנים גדולות, “large stones;” large enough to engrave the list of the commandments in the Torah just as the Gaonim wrote Asharot (piyutim, i.e. poems about the commandments) in the volume Halachot Gedolot.
+These stones were to be placed on one another and separated by some kind of mortar, just as in any normal building.
+
+Verse 3
+
+
+
+Verse 4
+
+תקימו את האבנים האלה, “you shall set up these stones.” This verse refers to the stones mentioned in verse two.
+בהר עיבל, “at Mount Eyval.” In order to pacify the tribes that had been ordered to stand on Mount Eyval while listening to the curses, Moses ordered the building of an altar of stones to be built there on which burnt offerings were to be offered [This is the only time we hear about burnt offerings being offered other than on the altar at the entrance to the Tabernacle, inside its compound for the last 39 years. Also peace offerings were to be offered there, i.e. offerings that in the main were eaten by the people at large, not the priests and their households. Ed.] This would convince the tribes lined up there that the presence of the Lord was as much in evidence there as above the Tabernacle itself.
+
+Verse 5
+
+לא תניף עליהם ברזל, “you shall not lift up any iron tool over these stones in connection with building this altar. אבנים שלמות תבנה, “you are to use whole stones for building it.” (unhewn) Our sages in the Mishna Middot 3:4 derive from this verse that if any of these stones had been touched by iron the altar is disqualified from being used. Moreover any blemish on any of the stones used in building it, similarly disqualifies an altar from being used. Having heard the commandment not to use iron, where did we learn about the penalty if these instructions would be disregarded? It is found in Exodus 20,22: כי חרבך הנפת עליה ותחללה, “for if you have lifted an iron tool over it you have desecrated it.”
+
+Verse 6
+
+
+
+Verse 7
+
+
+
+Verse 8
+
+
+
+Verse 9
+
+היום הזה נהיית לעם, “on this day you have become a nation” after you have  accepted the laws of the Torah with a solemn oath.
+
+Verse 10
+
+
+
+Verse 11
+
+
+
+Verse 12
+
+אלה יעמדו, “the following are to stand, etc.;” all the tribes that stood on the mountain listening to the blessings were descended from Yaakov’s principal wives Leah and Rachel. Seeing that Leah had so many sons, they took the oldest and the youngest of these and placed them with the four tribes that were descended from the auxiliary wives. Leah’s oldest son who had been under suspicion of having committed an inappropriate act with one of Yaakov’s auxiliary wives was placed there so that the curse on people sleeping with their neighbour’s, or their father’s wives would be impressed on the descendants of his who heard it.
+לברך את העם, “to bless the people;” the following tribes are to stand on Mount Gerizim, etc.” Rashi following the Mishnah tractate Sotah, folio 32, comments that six tribes ascended Mount Gerizim, and 6 tribes ascended Mount Eyval, the priests and that the Levites were standing at the respective bases of these two mountains. On the other hand, the opinion of Rabbi there, is that both the twelve tribes and the Levites stood at the base of the mountains as described in the Book of Joshua, the latter standing next to the Holy Ark. (Joshua 8,33) According to Rabbi, what has been described in Deuteronomy 11,29 means that the other tribes stood near each of those two mountains. The word על mentioned there, means the same as in Exodus 40, 3: וסכות על הארון, “you will screen the Ark with it.”Rabbi Eliezer, son of Yaakov, in tractate Sotah 37, claims that it is impossible that the members of the tribe of Levi stood at the base of these mountains as they had already been included as one of the tribes that stood on the mountain in our verse here, [which was written long before the one in Joshua 8,33. Ed.] At the same time, the verse in Joshua 8,33 clearly appears to contradict this. How are we to resolve this apparent contradiction? According to Rabbi Yoshiah, the Levites who were potentially fit to carry the Holy Ark, i.e. the ones 30 years and older but below the age of 50, stood at the base of the mountain, next to the Holy Ark, whereas the other Levites stood on Mount Gerizim. Rashi further comments on our verse here, that the Levites standing at the base faced the six tribes standing on top of Mount Gerizim commenced blessing the six tribes, using the text written for the curses but inverting it by saying that all the people not guilty of the sins described in our chapter are blessed.
+
+Verse 13
+
+
+
+Verse 14
+
+
+
+Verse 15
+
+ושם בסתר. “and he set it up in secret;” all the transgressions mentioned in this chapter deal with sins usually committed in the privacy of one’s house, and therefore it is impossible to find witnesses who had warned the perpetrator in a legally acceptable manner. To quote just one example: “who would know if someone had cursed his father or mother?”
+
+Verse 16
+
+
+
+Verse 17
+
+מסיג גבול, “who removes his neighbour’s landmark.” The perpetrator certainly would not do such a thing in broad daylight. Similarly, he would not deliberately make a blind person go astray where there were witnesses observing this. He knows that the blind person himself cannot identify him.
+
+Verse 18
+
+
+
+Verse 19
+
+גר, יתום, ואלמנה, “a stranger, orphan, or widow;” all these categories of people lack influential friends or protectors who will protest their having been maltreated to the authorities. People who have carnal relations with their closest relatives who live in the same house with them are not suspected of having been guilty of such behaviour, neither are people normally suspected of having sexual relations with their domestic animals. The only two sins listed here which are committed openly are idolatry and violent behaviour against one’s neighbour committed usually while angry and out of control. This is why the Torah adds the word “committed secretly,” when speaking of these two sins. When these two sins are committed openly there is a court which can take action against the perpetrator.
+
+Verse 20
+
+
+
+Verse 21
+
+
+
+Verse 22
+
+
+
+Verse 23
+
+
+
+Verse 24
+
+On this verse Rashi comments that there are eleven sins which have been introduced here with the word: “cursed be.” They correspond to eleven tribes. No such “curse” is written concerning the tribe of Shimon, as Moses did not have in mind to give this tribe a blessing, Zimri, its leader, having announced publicly that Moses had violated this law by marrying a Midianite woman, thus making him and the whole tribe guilty of “badmouthing” Moses. The court had ample evidence of convicting him of that sin. According to Rashi’s commentary, the last of the list, referring to people who do not uphold Torah law, would refer to people guilty of lashon hara, i.e. badmouthing others. There is no one who is not guilty of this at one time or another. There are scholars who claim that there are twelve sins to which the introductory word: “cursed be” applies, so that Moses did not make an exception concerning the tribe of Shimon. The word: “cursed be,” therefore had to be used only eleven times.
+
+Verse 25
+
+
+
+Verse 26
+
+אשר לא יקים, “who does not accept;” this expression is used in the same sense in Deut. 29,12: למען הקים אותך היום לעם, “in order to accept you this day as a nation.”
+
+Chapter 28
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+
+
+Verse 2
+
+ובאו עליך כל הברכות האלה, “and all these blessings will come upon you;” you will not have to strive to secure them.
+
+Verse 3
+
+ברוך אתה בעיר, “you will be blessed in the city;” all kinds of merchandise will be available there. An alternate interpretation of this phrase: you will be able to bring your harvests from the field safely into your barns in the city.
+בשדה, “in the field;” both at the time of seeding and of planting.
+
+Verse 4
+
+
+
+Verse 5
+
+
+
+Verse 6
+
+ברוך אתה בבואך...ובצאתך, ”you will be blessed when you are coming in ...and when you are going out.” This refers to coming home from war and going out to do battle. The expressions בא and צאת, are used in this sense in Numbers 27,17: אשר יצא לפניהם ואשר יבא לפניהם , “who will go out in front of you when going to war and before you when returning from battle.” 
+
+Verse 7
+
+
+
+Verse 8
+
+
+
+Verse 9
+
+יקימך, same as יעמידך, “He will establish you.”
+
+Verse 10
+
+וראו כל עמי הארץ, “and all the peoples of the earth will see, etc.” concerning Israel it had been said in Yoel 3,5: כל אשר יקרא בשם ה׳ ימלט; “but everyone who will invoke the name of the Lord will be saved.”
+כי שם ה׳ נקרא עליך, “that the name of the Lord is proclaimed over you.” When G-d has blessed you visibly to all the nations, you are perceived as being the favorite of the G-d of Israel.
+וראו, “they will understand” (i.e. see with their mind’seye) Compare Ecclesiastes 1,16: ולבי ראה הרבה חכמה ודעת, “and my mind has absorbed much wisdom and learning.”
+
+Verse 11
+
+
+
+Verse 12
+
+והלוית גוים רבים, “and you will lend to many nations;” to nations who were plagued with crop failures or storage problems in their barns.
+
+Verse 13
+
+
+
+Verse 14
+
+
+
+Verse 15
+
+
+
+Verse 16
+
+ארור, just as the meaning of ברוך commonly translated as “blessed,” means enjoying the abundance of success and good things, so the word ארור, its opposite, means loss of valuable things and dearth of many essential things.
+
+Verse 17
+
+
+
+Verse 18
+
+
+
+Verse 19
+
+
+
+Verse 20
+
+ואת המגערת, “curse;” the root of the word is גער to be angry;” G-d will express His anger by letting your crops fail. Proof that this is the correct interpretation of the word מגערת, can be found in Malachi 2,3: הנני גוער לכם את הזרע, “I will put your seed under a curse;”
+
+Verse 21
+
+
+
+Verse 22
+
+ובחרב, “and with fiery heat;” here the word חרב is not used in the literal sense meaning “sword,” but as something derived from חורב and יובש, “dried out by excessive heart of the sun.” (Compare Ibn Ezra)
+
+Verse 23
+
+נחושת, “copper;” not literally turning the sky into copper, but delivering moisture only like copper when its “sweats.” The same euphemism is used also for the word ברזל, “iron,” describing the earth beneath. In the commentary by Torat Kohanim, these euphemisms are understood in the reverse sense, i.e. the earth being like copper and the sky like iron. This is the way it had been described in Leviticus 27,19, where the chastisement has been authored by G-d Himself.
+
+Verse 24
+
+אבק ועפר, “powder and dust;” the strong winds which normally bring rain from the sky, will instead be sandstorms originating in the tops of the mountains so strong that they turn the trees’ roots upside down.
+אבק ועפר, the letter א has the vowel kametz under it.
+
+Verse 25
+
+
+
+Verse 26
+
+ואין מחריד, “and there is no one to frighten them away.” No one will bother to bury these carcasses as the survivors have so many other problems to deal with. An alternate interpretation: no one will chase the vultures away.
+
+Verse 27
+
+ובטחורים, and incurable hemorrhoids. Seeing that these ailments originate in hidden regions of the body they cannot be treated medically, and are described in the written text as עפולין, “from a dark place.” 
+Since these ailments have been inflicted by G-d and are not phenomena known in nature, it is evident that physicians cannot deal with this.
+
+Verse 28
+
+
+
+Verse 29
+
+כאשר ימשש העור באפלה, “as the blind gropes in the darkness.” He does so out of fear. If he felt that he was in an area that was lit up, there would be people who would assist him, or at least warn him of obstacles in his way. (Talmud Megillah, 24)
+
+Verse 30
+
+אשה תארש; ”you shall betroth a woman to become your wife, seeing that normal people first build themselves a house wherein he and his wife can live, before he offers to marry a woman, something we know already from Deuteronomy 20,5: “who is the man that has built ahouse and has not consecrated it, .... and has planted avineyard,...or has become engaged to a woman?” here the Torah illustrates the foolishness of the person who did not do this in the accepted order, and how his plans therefore will not be realised. He only has his own foolishness to blame for this, not fate.
+
+Verse 31
+
+
+
+Verse 32
+
+בניך ובנותיך נתנים לעם אחר, “your sons and your daughters will be given to another nation.” According to the Talmud, tractate Yevamot folio 63, here the Torah speaks of the second wife of a father who maltreats his children from his first wife.
+וכלות, an expression describing longing for something in vain. Compare Psalms 84,3, וגם כלתה נפשי, “and my soul almost perished from longing.” (Ibn Ezra)
+
+Verse 33
+
+יאכל עם אשר לא ידעת, “a nation which you do not know will consume it.” They do not do you any favours as they do not even know you.
+
+Verse 34
+
+
+
+Verse 35
+
+
+
+Verse 36
+
+
+
+Verse 37
+
+
+
+Verse 38
+
+
+
+Verse 39
+
+
+
+Verse 40
+
+
+
+Verse 41
+
+
+
+Verse 42
+
+
+
+Verse 43
+
+
+
+Verse 44
+
+הוא יהיה לראש, “he shall become the head;” this is based on Proverbs 22,7, עבד לוה לאיש מלוה, “the borrower is a slave to the lender.”
+
+Verse 45
+
+
+
+Verse 46
+
+
+
+Verse 47
+
+
+
+Verse 48
+
+
+
+Verse 49
+
+כאשר יראה הנשר, “as the eagle sweeps down,” this is a reference to the Babylonian Empire concerning which it has been written in Daniel 7,4: “like a lion with eagles’ wings.”
+גוי אשר לא תשמע לשונו, “a people whose language you do not understand.” This is why you cannot even plead with them and come to terms with them. Apart from that, you can tell from their facial expressions that they are cruel and tough.
+
+Verse 50
+
+גוי עז פנים, “a nation of fierce countenance;” this is a reference to the Roman Empire, as we know from Daniel 8,23: ובאחרית מלכותם הימים ככלות הפושעים יעמוד מלך עז פנים, “and at the end of their kingdom when the sinners have met their end, a brazenfaced king shall arise;”
+
+Verse 51
+
+
+
+Verse 52
+
+
+
+Verse 53
+
+
+
+Verse 54
+
+אשר יותיב, “whom he has remaining;” a reference to the enemy, or: the remnant in hiding. (Ibn Ezra)
+
+Verse 55
+
+
+
+Verse 56
+
+
+
+Verse 57
+
+
+
+Verse 58
+
+
+
+Verse 59
+
+והפלא, “He will make wonderful, in the sense of the plague being extraordinary long lasting.” The last letter of the word is an א, (not a .(ה
+רעים ונאמנים, “painful and of long duration;” compare Samuel II 7,16: ונאמן ביתך וממלכתך עד עולם, “and your house and your dynasty will endure for a long time.” Compare also Isaiah 22,3 which both the Targum and Rash’bam understand in the same sense.
+
+Verse 60
+
+את כל מדוה מצרים, “all the diseases current in Egypt;”
+
+Verse 61
+
+אשר לא כתוב, “which have not been recorded (in the Torah);” the Chaldeans used to tie good looking male Jews to their bedposts during the time they engaged in sexual relations with their wives, in order that their wives at the time by looking at these good looking males would become aroused and their babies would resemble what they had seen at that time. It happened once that one of them told his colleague that this is what has been written here, i.e. what is meant by “perversions which have not been recorded in the Torah.” (Talmud, tractate Gittin folio 58.)
+
+Verse 62
+
+
+
+Verse 63
+
+
+
+Verse 64
+
+
+
+Verse 65
+
+
+
+Verse 66
+
+
+
+Verse 67
+
+
+
+Verse 68
+
+והשיבך ה' מצרים באניות, ”and the Lord will ship you back to Egypt in ships;” there is a river separating the Land of Canaan from Egypt as explained by Rashi on Numbers 34,3.
+באניות, “in ships;” this is a severe punishment, as all kinds of people of both sexes and ages, sick and healthy, were thrown together into the holds of these boats.
+
+Verse 69
+
+אשר צוה ה' את משה, ”that G-d had commanded Moses. Theses chastisements were also told him as a form of revelation.
+מלבד הברית, Rashi explains the reference is to all the curses recorded in the Book of Deuteronomy which have been authored by Moses, but approved by G-d to be said to the people publicly. In some instances he even repeated commandments that had already been recorded in one of the other four Books of Moses. Rashi calls these curses as having been revealed to Moses already while he stood on Mount Sinai.
+אשר כרת אתם. “which He concluded as a covenant with them at Mount Chorev” (Sinai). This is a reference to chapter 26 in the Book of Leviticus which Moses wrote down at the end of that Book, before the people had left for their journey after staying around Mount Chorev for about a year, after having been given the Ten Commandments.
+
+Chapter 29
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+
+
+Verse 2
+
+
+
+Verse 3
+
+ואזנים לשמוע עד היום הזה, “and ears with which to hear until this day.” This day is included in that statement.
+
+Verse 4
+
+
+
+Verse 5
+
+למען תדעו כי אני ה' אלוקיכם, in order that you will know that I am the Lord your G-d.” Moses had not spoken these words (i.e. at his own initiative), but from the words: ואלך אתכם at the beginning of verse 4, until the end of this Parshah, we are reading G-d’s word, as our sages have already explained on Exodus 32,13, in respect of the words: וכל הארץ הזאת אשר אמרתי, “and this whole land of which I have spoken;” we would actually have expected there the word: אמרת, “which You spoke of,” as Moses had been the speaker at the beginning of that verse.” The truth is that as far as there we read the words of the student, from there on we read the words of the Teacher.
+
+Verse 6
+
+
+
+Verse 7
+
+
+
+Verse 8
+
+ושמרתם את דברי הברית הזאת, “observe therefore the words of this covenant;” you are obligated to do so in light of all the favours the Lord has done for you as recorded earlier.
+
+Verse 9
+
+אתם נצבים היום כולכם, “you are standing this day all of you;” all of you regardless of your social standing in the community are equally standing facing the Lord, in order to enter into the new covenant. (see verse 11). This had already been announced by Moses in the verses of our chapter leading up to this point.
+ראשיכם, זקניכם, the leaders of your tribes; who are these leaders? זקניכם ושוטריכם, “your elders and your appointed officials;”
+
+Verse 10
+
+מחוטב עציך, “including the hewers of wood, i.e. male servants;”
+עד שואב מימיך, “including the drawers of your water, i.e. female servants.”
+
+Verse 11
+
+לעברך, “so that you will participate,” (note the singular mode) i.e. all as if you were one single person.
+כורת עמך היום, “which He concludes with you this day.” No one can ever claim that he had not been present at that time and had confirmed accepting the covenant. This was the last time the entire nation would be present at the same spot simultaneously, as after the land had been distributed to the tribes, the elderly and the mothers who had just given birth, as well as any sick people could not be expected to come to Jerusalem on the festivals designated for the annual pilgrimages.
+
+Verse 12
+
+
+
+Verse 13
+
+
+
+Verse 14
+
+
+
+Verse 15
+
+אשר ישבו בארץ מצרים, “who had dwelled in the land of Egypt;” together with the ones who had still dwelled in the land of Egypt (who had been minors at the time of the Exodus) and who had experienced all that you have witnessed during the last forty years in the desert, etc. The decree to die in the desert had applied only to males who had been twenty years of age at the time of the Exodus, and had not been older than 60 years at the time when it was issued.
+
+Verse 16
+
+
+
+Verse 17
+
+פן יש בכם שרש פורה ראש ולענה, “lest there be amongst you a root that bears gall and wormwood. “
+
+Verse 18
+
+את דברי האלה הזאת, “the words of this curse.” This is a reference to the curses pronounced at Mount Eyval, in chapter 27, 15-26.
+והתברך, “and he blesses himself, i.e. he reassures himself; he considers himself immune from these curses (by interpreting them as applicable only to the community, not to individuals.)
+
+כי בשרירות לבי אלך, “even though I do my own thing,” i.e. I ignore rules meant for others.
+למען ספות הרוה, “the irrigated plants will be swept away with the dried out ones.” He feels that if the community has sinned and G-d will punish them, it makes no difference that he adds a few extra sins which he as an individual indulges in. [He denied G-d’s supervision of individuals who are sinful, as otherwise the community would be made to pay for the sins of each individual. We can perhaps understand this logic as the deluge swept away everyone and they could not all have been equally guilty. He also distinguishes between sins that are due to the evil urge, such as indulging in forbidden but tasty food, and others such as not wearing garments with a mixture of wool and linen, which did not require him to resist temptation. Ed.] An alternate interpretation of the line: למען ספות הרוה את הצמאה; he cannot wait until violation of Torah laws becomes popular, so that he may indulge in it openly rather than secretly and make an outcast of himself. In the meantime he has to suffer like a plant suffers that is not irrigated. He may even have restrained himself from sinning although harbouring a fervent desire to do so as he is afraid of being caught and convicted. The Torah appears to compare the righteous to the well watered plant, and the sinner or potential sinner, to the plant that thirsts for water. (Compare Yehudah Halevi quoted by Ibn Ezra)
+
+Verse 19
+
+
+
+Verse 20
+
+והבדילו, “and the Lord shall separate him, etc;” his punishment will correspond to the principle of the punishment matching the sin. He used his individualism as a way to escape punishment; as a retribution he will be singled out for punishment while G-d is not (yet) dealing with communally committed sins.
+לרעה, “for evil;” this had to be spelled out as G-d also singles out people “for good,” when the occasion justifies this. A well known example is the tribe of Levi, who, as the only tribe not to worship the golden calf, was rewarded by being singled out to become a special tribe.
+
+Verse 21
+
+ואמר הדור הארון, “and the next generation will say, etc.” Moses refers to a generation that had not yet been born at the time when this covenant was entered into by the Jewish people.
+והנכרי אשר מארץ רחוקה, “as well as a stranger who had come from a distant land;” and had not heard about the solemn covenant; he will be astounded at the desolation in the land of Israel between the Jewish people and their G-d; the people around who knew about this covenant and its having breached by the Jewish people will not be surprised at all at what happened to this nation and its land.
+
+Verse 22
+
+גפרית ומלח שרפה כל ארצה, “all of its land having become salt and brimstone;” what is the connection between salt and brimstone? Nothing can withstand fire better than salt, and nothing can be destroyed more totally that when it is treated with brimstone. The Torah means to tell you that if the Israelites had remained loyal to their covenant, they could have withstood any attempt at destruction as salt can withstand it; seeing that they had not, they were destroyed utterly as if they had been rubbed out with brimstone. Brimstone destroys even what the fire had not been able to destroy.
+ומלח, “and salt;” the Torah had reported that the wife of Lot who had failed to obey the instruction of the angel not to look back, was turned in a pillar of salt. (Genesis 19,26(
+שרפה כל ארצה, “its whole land is as if burned.” Is it conceivable that G-d would become so angry on account of a sin committed by a single individual? The fact is that the destruction of the area occupied by the Ten tribes and the population being sent into exile, had nothing to do with an individual’s sins, but with erection of public idols, two golden calves built to block the route to Jerusalem during the lifetime of Solomon’s son Rechavam, hundreds of years before theKingdom of the Ten Tribes went into exile and the idol erected by Michah, and the appointment as Levites by people not born to members of that tribe. (Judges chapter 8,33) The latter phenomena happened already prior to the time of the prophet Samuel and the dynasty of David/Solomon, long before the Kingdom of Solomon was divided.
+
+Verse 23
+
+
+
+Verse 24
+
+
+
+Verse 25
+
+
+
+Verse 26
+
+
+
+Verse 27
+
+
+
+Verse 28
+
+הנסתרות לה' אלוקינו, “sins committed in the privacy of one’s home, (which could not be witnessed and brought to court) will be taken care of by the Lord our G-d;” this had to be stated specifically in light of what we read in verse 18 about individuals who feel safe from punishment for their personal sins in periods when the community at large is Torahobservant.
+לה׳ אלוקינו, “it is His duty to punish sins committed in places inaccessible to witnesses.”
+והנגלות, ”but the sins committed publicly, etc,” dealing with deliberate sins committed in full view of the public must be dealt with by the judiciary by both you and your children, as otherwise such phenomena cannot be eradicated from your midst. This law becomes effective from the moment the Jewish people will cross the river Jordan. From that moment on their acceptance of the covenant with G-d meant that each individual Jew shared in the responsibility for the conduct of each fellow Jew. From that moment on we also became responsible. In order that you should not say that this approach applies forever (under all circumstances), the words והנגלות לנו ולבנינו, “and the publicly committed sins are also the responsibility of us and our children,” have been dotted, i. e. as long as we observe that part of the law, by letting our judiciary punish sinners of sins committed in public, G-d will take care of those that were committed secretly.[The dots, wherever they appear, have been added by learned scribes long after the Torah had been given, i.e. have been added by human initiative. There are dots only on ten letters, whereas there are eleven sins that were listed in the list of curses as being typical of sins committed secretly in Deuteronomy chapter 27, commencing with verse 15. This is deliberate in order to avoid giving the impression that we are telling G-d how to administer His laws. This is also the reason why the dots which we would have expected over the words לה' אלוקינו, where they would have made more sense, appear instead over the words לנו ולבנינו, Ed.]
+הנסתרות לה' אלוקינו, when the prophet Isaiah, at the end of describing the idyllic state of mankind on earth after the arrival of the Messiah, states that G-d will also select priests and Levites from among the gentile nations,(Isaiah 66,13) this is also something reserved for G-d’s judgment, covered by the line הנסתרות לה' אלוקינו, “that there are hidden matters which only G-d is aware of,” not man.
+
+Chapter 30
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+
+
+Verse 2
+
+
+
+Verse 3
+
+ושב ה' את שבותך, “the Lord will return with you from your captivity;” in chapter29,27, G-d had been described as expelling His people from the Holy Land to any other land, now, if the people have repented their wrongdoings, He promises to bring them back and remain with them.
+
+Verse 4
+
+
+
+Verse 5
+
+
+
+Verse 6
+
+
+
+Verse 7
+
+
+
+Verse 8
+
+
+
+Verse 9
+
+כאשר שש על אבותיך, ”as He used to take delight in your forefathers.” This is a reference to the generation who inherited the Holy Land. G-d is addressing the exiles at this point.
+
+Verse 10
+
+כי תשמע בקול...כי תשוב, “if you will listen to the voice of Hashem.....and return to the Lord;” we learn here that the time for the redemption from exile depends on two factors, a) penitence, b) performance of the positive commandments and avoiding the transgressions listed in the negative commandments.
+הכתובה, “which has been recorded in writing; we would have expected this word to be in the plural mode as it covers multiple laws. Instead we find a singular feminine mode. This is not something unique; for instance we find something analogous in Exodus 17,12 where Moses’ hands are described as remaining steady, i.e. ויהי ידיו אמונה.
+
+Verse 11
+
+
+
+Verse 12
+
+
+
+Verse 13
+
+ולא מעבר לים היא, “neither is it beyond the ocean;” this refers to the Mediterranean, which man cannot cross (as even if he had a ship) because the surface of the waters are dark (and he would get lost at night). (Ibn Ezra).
+
+Verse 14
+
+
+
+Verse 15
+
+
+
+Verse 16
+
+
+
+Verse 17
+
+
+
+Verse 18
+
+
+
+Verse 19
+
+העידותי בכם היום את השמים ואת הארץ, “I call as witness against you this day both heaven and earth;” witness in the positive as well as in the negative sense of the word. If you will perform the commandments in the Torah heaven and earth will testify on your behalf; if not, they will testify at the heavenly tribunal against you. They will do this by heaven denying the essential rain to make your crops ripen. (Deut. 11,17)
+
+Verse 20
+
+כי הוא חייך, “for He is your life;” a reference to Hashem.
+
+Chapter 31
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+וילך משה, “Moses went;” from near the Tabernacle where he had his residence, as we know from: והחונים לפני משכן ה' משה אהרן ובניו, “and the ones encamped in front of the Tent of meeting: Moses, Aaron and his sons.”He now went from each tribe to the next to advise them of his impending death. He assured them that they had nothing to fear from his impending death, but that they should take heart and support their new leader Joshua. Why did Moses feel that he had to address and reassure each tribe separately? Why did he not merely use his trumpets and call a great assembly of the whole nation? According to Rabbi Joshua in the name of Rabbi Levi of Sakkinon, the trumpets which Moses had made in the desert, G-d hid them so that no one, not even he himself, would ever blow them again, as it would have been unseemly to do so on the day when he knew he was going to die. On that day Moses’ control over events had come to an end.
+
+Verse 2
+
+אמר אלי לא תעבור את הירדן הזה, “He had said to me: you will not cross this river Jordan.” You, the people, will not lose anything by that fact, as G-d Himself will cross the river Jordan ahead of you, leading you. (verse 3)
+
+Verse 3
+
+כאשר דבר ה, “as the Lord had said.” This is a reference to Deuteronomy 18,15, where G-d had promised: “that He would raise a prophet amongst them, just like Moses.” He had also told him to take Joshua the son of Nun who had been filled with the spirit of G-d (Numbers 27,18).”
+
+Verse 4
+
+
+
+Verse 5
+
+אשר צויתי אתכם, “which I have commanded you.” This is a reference to Deut. 20,16, where G-d had commanded the Jewish people not to allow a single soul of the Canaanites to remain alive, (unless they had left that land of their own accord).
+
+Verse 6
+
+
+
+Verse 7
+
+לעיני כל ישראל, “in the sight of all of Israel;” this was necessary so that none of them would ever be able to say toJoshua that as long as Moses had been alive he had not had permission to assume the mantle of leadership.
+כי אתה תבא את העם הזה, “for you will come with this people;” seeing that here Moses was speaking with Joshua in the presence of the whole people, he honoured the Jewish people by not saying that Joshua would go ahead of them when crossing the Jordan, but that they would walk alongside them.
+
+Verse 8
+
+
+
+Verse 9
+
+אל הכהנים בני לוי הנושאים את הארון וגו, “to the priests the members of the tribe of Levi, who were charged with carrying the Holy Ark, etc.” Even though it was the Levites who carried the Holy Ark, and not the priests, (Numbers 7,8) as soon as Moses had died, the priests carried the Holy Ark when the Israelites were in the process of crossing the river Jordan. (Compare Talmud, tractate Sotah folio 33). They did so again when the people marched around Jericho and when they returned the Ark to its place in the days of King Solomon, when it was transferred from the Tabernacle. (Kings I 8,6) An alternate interpretation: seeing that it was the priests who assigned the transportation of the Ark to the Levites, as spelled out in Numbers 4,5, they could have been described as the prime movers. They were referred to there as נושאי הארון, “the carriers of the Ark.”
+
+Verse 10
+
+מקץ שבע שנים, “at the end of (every) seven years;” at the beginning of the eight’s year. [The sh’mittah year. Ed.] This was in order to enable the idle farmers to devote the whole year to the study of the Torah. בבא כל ישראל, “when the whole Jewish nation would come” (on the pilgrimage for Sukkot)
+במועד שנת השמטה, “on the feast of Sukkot;” seeing that this year is the first year in the new sh’mittah cycle which comprises seven years, why does the Torah refer to that year as שנת השמטה, the year of the sh’mittah? The reason is that many of the restrictions that applied during the previous year were still in force, such as the residue of the “harvest” of the previous year. (Compare Talmud, tractate Rosh Hashanah folio 12. It is stated there that any crop which had completed one third of its growth before the end of the sh’mittah year was still considered as subject to the regulations applicable during that year.)
+
+Verse 11
+
+תקרא את התורה הזאת, “you shall read out publicly this Torah;” this commandment was addressed to Joshua. This is why he is also referred to as the king.
+
+Verse 12
+
+הקהל את העם, “assemble the nation;” they are all available not having chores to attend to, seeing that they are not at home but in Jerusalem (or wherever the Tabernacle stood prior to Jerusalem having been captured by David about 400 years later).
+
+Verse 13
+
+
+
+Verse 14
+
+
+
+Verse 15
+
+
+
+Verse 16
+
+אשר הוא בא שמה בקרבו, “to which it (the nation of Israel) goes to be among them.” The words: בקרב הארץ, are treated as in the masculine mode, just as in Genesis 13,6: ולא נשא אותם הארץ, “and the land could not support (both) of them;” or as in Isaiah 9,18: נעתם ארץ, “the earth was shaken.” [The word ארץ, ארצות, “land, lands,” is treated as a feminine noun in the vast majority of instances when it occurs. Ed.]
+
+Verse 17
+
+והסתרתי פני מהם, “I will hide My face from them.” This is evidence of G-d’s fondness of the Jewish people, His acting like a father who while forced to discipline his son cannot bring himself to watch the pain he is inflicting upon him.
+
+Verse 18
+
+
+
+Verse 19
+
+ולמדה את בני ישראל, “and teach it to the Children of Israel!” G-d is speaking in this way to Joshua. [Seeing that Moses will no longer be around, as he is dying on this day, it is clear that these words must have been addressed to his successor. Ed.
+
+Verse 20
+
+
+
+Verse 21
+
+וענתה השירה הזאת, “and this song shall testify before them as a witness;” we must imagine this as if the “song” will reply to those who say “why have all these disasters befallen us?”
+לפניו, “in response to this;”
+כי לא תשכח מפי זרעו, “it shall not be forgotten from the mouth of their offspring;” although there are many chastisements, eventually this will end in words of comfort.
+
+Verse 22
+
+
+
+Verse 23
+
+ויצו את יהושע, “He commanded Joshua;” The Lord commanded him (not Moses) These words refer to verse 14 in our chapter.
+אתה תביא כי, “for you are going to bring;” seeing that the people were not present at the time when G-d said these words to Joshua, G-d did not have to pay them a special compliment, as Moses had done in verse 7.
+
+Verse 24
+
+
+
+Verse 25
+
+ויצו משה את הלוים, “Moses ordered the Levites, etc.” these are the Levites who had been mentioned in verse 9 as the “priests, who were the sons of the Levites;” Moses was not addressing the tribe of the Levites here. After all, the Levites at large were prohibited from touching the Holy Ark, much less carrying it.
+
+Verse 26
+
+
+
+Verse 27
+
+
+
+Verse 28
+
+ואעידה בם את השמים ואת הארץ, “and I will appoint as witnesses against them Heaven and Earth.” Here Moses actually appointed Heaven and Earth as witnesses, while earlier (in verse 30.19) he merely told the Jewish people that  these would be witnesses against them.
+
+Verse 29
+
+אחרי מותי . It is a historical fact that during the life time of Joshua and the elders of his time who survived him, the Jewish people remained absolutely loyal to G-d and His Torah. (Joshua 24,31)
+
+Verse 30
+
+את דברי השירה הזאת, “the words of this song;” this is a reference to the next portion, Haazinu, the major part of which consists of Moses’ parting song/poem to his nation. The subject is that G-d had provided for them in the desert as well as in the land of Israel, and how in spite of this they would forsake Him and be exiled, until eventually they would be redeemed from exile.
+
+Chapter 32
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+האזינו השמים, “hearken o heaven, etc.;” the word האזינו is derived from אזן, “ear.” Moses asks the heavens and the earth to lend their ears to what he is about to say. This is a direct continuation of the last verse in the previous portion, Vayelech, in which he had announced this poem/song to the people. He now calls on the eternal heaven and earth to act as witnesses to what he had to say, seeing that he, as a mortal, cannot do so anymore.
+האזינו השמים, “you have been witnesses when I gave the Torah to this people,” as Moses quoted G-d as saying in Exodus 20,20: כי מן השמים דברתי עמכם, “for I have spoken with you from the heaven”.
+ותשמע הארץ, “hear o earth,” singular mode, there being only one earth, seeing that the people were standing on it when they had said: נעשה ונשמע, “we will carry out the laws of the Torah as soon as we will hear them” (Exodus 24,7).
+האזינו, Moses addresses the heavens in the plural mode as the Sages suggested (in TB Hagiga 12b) there are seven different heavens.
+ותשמע הארץ, But the earth is only one, therefore he addresses the earth in the singular mode.
+האזינו השמים ותשמע הארץ, the prophet Isaiah (Isaiah 1,2) took his cue from Moses, when he said: שמעו שמים והאזיני ארץ, “hear o heavens and give ear o earth;” when Moses recited this poem he was far from heaven, standing on earth; this is why the verb to describe hearing that he used was האזינו when addressing the heavens. One normally addresses first the people most distant and asks them to pay attention to what one has to say. Isaiah, who spoke at the instruction of the Lord, felt closer to heaven at that time, so that he reversed the use of the terms שמע and האזין respectively. When speaking to someone close by, the expression !האזין is not appropriate. Isaiah, at the time, considered himself as closer to heaven than to earth, seeing that he delivered a message from G-d in the heaven. Some commentators feel that exactly the opposite is true, and that the expression האזין, is the correct expression to be used when addressing someone close by, whereas the expression שמע is reserved for some further away. Moses who was so familiar with heaven and what goes on there, commenced with. האזינו therefore, and used the term שמע to call on the earth to listen, as by that time he was no longer at home on earth and had almost been completely absorbed by the heavenly regions.
+השמים, with the definitive prefix ה, makes it plain that he addresses the whole range of angels who have their homes in heavenly regions.
+והארץ, and similarly, all the forces active on earth as part of what we call: “nature.”
+
+Verse 2
+
+יערוף כמטר לקחי, “may my discourse come down as rain;” the words that I am going to address to you are not meaningless, but just as the value of the rain when it comes down to earth is not immediately visible and felt as a benefit, nonetheless eventually it is responsible for the growing and ripening of the fruit on the trees, and its benefit becomes evident.” An alternate interpretation of Moses’ introductory comments: may it be the Lord’s will that my words will not return to me empty, but that they will grow like fruit in your hearts and in the hearts of all those who listen to them. May they act like the dew on the earth which promotes the growth of the grain crops. Moses mentions four different directions on earth here, as we will see, and just as he has called heaven and earth as witnesses, he appeals separately to all the four winds blowing from the four directions on the surfaces of the earth, north and south, east and west. He implies that if the Jewish people will conduct themselves as G-d wishes them to conduct themselves, the winds from each of these four directions will blow beneficially for them. Moses now addresses the four winds of Heaven. Just as he asked Heaven and Earth testify, so does he request the Winds to serve as witnesses. And if the Jewish people will observe the Torah, then these witnesses will direct benevolent winds toward them
+יערוף כמטר, this is a reference to west wind which originates in the neck of the world and usually brings rain in its wake.
+תזל כטל אמרתי, “may my speech distil just as the dew.” This is a reference to the northern wind, which is pleasant just like the dew.
+כשעירים עלי דשא, “as the small rain on the tender grass;” this is a reference to the wind blowing from the south which is stormy like its namesake, the billy goats.
+כרביבים, “and like the showers on the herbs.” This is a reference to the east wind, which is beneficial for seedlings and which blows most of the day. According to the opinion of our author, the east wind blows mostly in the morning, the south wind around noon, the west wind at the beginning of the night, and the northern wind around midnight. The northern wind is prevalent during the summer, when it is welcome, whereas when it blows in the winter it is difficult to bear; the opposite is the case with the wind originating in the south. The western wind is difficult to bear at any time. Eastern winds are always welcome [I presume the latter observations are meant to describe human reactions, as opposed to the reactions of the earth. Ed.].
+
+Verse 3
+
+כי שם ה' אקרא, “for I will proclaim the Holy Name of the Lord;” this refers to Moses’ previous reference to heaven and earth; he tells his people that at all times they need to proclaim the greatness of the Lord both in heaven an on earth; this is similar to the psalmist proclaiming in Psalms 69,35: הללוהו שמים וארץ, “praise the heavens and the earth!” The psalmist also phrases this thought when he said (Psalms 19,2) השמים מספרים כבוד אל, “the heavens tell of the glory of G-d.” We do all this whenever we read the Torah in public and a forum of ten male adults is present. The prophet Jeremiah, 33,25, has taught us that G-d is on record as saying that if it were not for His covenant with the Jewish people, He would not consider it worthwhile to have created the universe, i.e. day or night and all of nature that goes with it. The letters in the names of G-d themselves provide a hint, 6 letters which in addition to the four directions of earth point to heaven and earth themselves, [i.e. the number 6 reminding us of the number of days G-d took to create our universe.]
+כי שם ה' אקרא, these words have been interpreted by the author of the Targum Jerusalem (32.3) as meaning that Moses prophesied: “woe to you sinful the gentiles who mention the Holy Name of the Lord;” Even the angels are not able to pronounce that holy name until after the Jewish people here on earth have proclaimed it in the kedushah, by saying: קדוש קדוש קדוש three times. It was Moses who here provided the key to praising G-d in this mode. There are 21 words from the beginning of our portion, containing 85 letters. According to the Sifri, Moses said: “I am satisfied to be immediately behind in rank to seven angels,” i.e. to recite the holy Name of G-d after these twenty one words. This is the reason why the sages arranged for the part of our daily prayers known as “kedushah” to comprise a total of 21 words. [The 21 words are: נקדש את שמך בעולם כשם שמקדישים אותו בשמי מרום, וכן כתוב על יד נביאך וקרא זה אל זה ואמר קדוש הדוש קדוש. In the corresponding morning kedushah prayer on Sabbath mornings, there are 85 words, beginning with: נקדישך ונעריצך כסוד שיח שרפי קודש המקדישים שמד בקודש וגו'. We are not allowed to pronounce the critical words: קדוש קדוש קדוש until after an introduction of 85 words. The same is true of the kedushah prayer in the mussaph service, which commences with words: 'כתר יתנו לך המוני מעלה וגו.]
+
+Verse 4
+
+הצור תמים פעליו, “The Rock, all of whose works are perfect;” this is again a reference to the “heaven and earth,” and the four directions on earth, north south, east and west.
+תמים פעליו, all of G-d’s activities are performed in a perfect manner, as opposed to the works performed by man. When a human being constructs a building it will always be found that when he reviews it, that he had omitted something which needs replacing, adding, removing, or changing. Not so with anything G-d has constructed. One of the reasons man cannot complete something perfectly at the first try is that he has not created the raw materials that he uses in the building’s construction.
+כי כל דרכיו משפט, “for all His ways are just;” Moses wants to tell the Jewish people that although in the limited time that man spends on earth he cannot always live long enough; however, all that G-d has planned works out perfectly in the end, the fact is that G-d judges His people first for their wrong doings, (something that results in their repentance and rehabilitation) whereas He deals with the gentile nations later but they will not then have a chance to rehabilitate themselves.) The details of how this works will be spelled out in the verses following.
+
+Verse 5
+
+שחת לו לא בניו, “Is corruption His? No His children’s is the blemish.” Did G-d cause them to become corrupted, so that they would no longer be His children? Compare Hoseah 2,1: !לא עמי אתם, “You are not My people!” Rather it was your sins which have made you corrupt, so that you are no longer fit to be identified with your “father” in heaven.
+בניו מומם, “His children have become blemished, have caused it themselves;” Compare Leviticus 22,25, (according to Seforno) כי משחתם בהם מום בם, “for their corruption is within them, not only external.”
+
+Verse 6
+
+?הלה' תגמלו זאת, ”is this how you requite the Lord?” Do you repay His favours to you by worshipping other deities?
+ולא חכם, ”you surely are most unwise!” You have not acquired any wisdom. The word is a verb, i.e. החכים, “he became wise.” The reason why we have two vowels kametz here is on account of the phrase here terminating with the dividing cantillation sign etnachta.
+קנך, from תקון, healthy, in good condition. Compare Psalms 78,54: הר זה קנתה ימינו, “His right hand had acquired this mountain.”
+
+Verse 7
+
+זכור ימות עולם, “remember the days of old;” Moses now proceeds to remind the people of a whole list of acts of loving kindness G-d had performed for them (B’chor shor)
+בינו שנות דור ודור, “consider the years of many generations.” G-d had prepared a specific land on earth for the Jewish people already long before they had come into existence. (B’chor shor)
+
+Verse 8
+
+בהנחל עליון גוים, “When the Most High gave to the gentile nations, etc.;” He allocated to each nation its territory on earth.
+בהפרידו בני אדם, “at the time when He separated the children of man,” i.e. after the destruction of the Tower they had built. (Genesis chapter 11, 19)
+יצב גבולות עמים למספר בני ישראל, “He set the borders of the peoples according to the number of the Children of Israel.” He set aside 12 portions of land for the as yet unborn 12 founding fathers of the Jewish nation. There is a tradition that the twelve sons of Canaan (listed in Genesis chapter 10, where eleven have been named) who used to be slaves of the descendants of Shem, son of Noach, as per the curse of their grandfather Noach, received the lands which in due course were taken over from them by the 12 tribes of Israel under the leadership of Joshua. When the Israelites took over, the former inhabitants had no legal claim against the at all, as whatever slaves “own,” is really the property of their masters, and seeing that the Israelites were descendants of Shem, the Canaanites’ master, they had not had any title to that land ever. It is not surprising that one these tribes of Canaan split into two, during the approximately 300 years between the end of the deluge and the time of Avraham. The author has mentioned this tradition already in his commentary on Leviticus 20,24.
+
+Verse 9
+
+כי חלק ה׳ עמו, “for the portion of the Lord is His people.” He took His own share just as all the nations of the earth took a share each. (B’chor shor)
+יעקב חבל נחלתו, “Yaakov the lot of His inheritance;” there is a repetition here as the word חבל is understood as meaning the same as the word חלק. We find this word used in this sense in Psalms 16.6: חבלים נפלו לי, “tracts of land have fallen to my lot;” the same word is also used as meaning: “inheritance,” as one measures land by using a חבל, “rope.” (B’chor shor)
+
+Verse 10
+
+
+
+Verse 11
+
+
+
+Verse 12
+
+בדד ינחנו, “the Lord all by Himself did lead him;” in the Sifri, the word ינחנו is perceived as derived from מנוחה “rest;” G-d is understood by Moses as promising that in the future the Jewish people will experience rest and contentment in the world.
+
+Verse 13
+
+ירכיבהו על במותי ארץ, “He would make him ride on the high places on the earth;” we have a parallel of this promise in Isaiah 58,14: והרכבתיך על במותיך תדרוך, “I’ll set you astride the heights of the earth.”
+במותי ארץ, “the princes of the earth;” as in Deuteronomy 33 29: ואתה על במותימו תדרוך, “and you shall tread on their high places.” The letter ו is extraneous, and the letter מ should have a short vowel kametz, chataf kametz.
+ויניקהו דבש מסלע, “He made him suck honey from a rock;” this is a reference to the honey from dates which grows on palm trees between rocks and in the mountains. An alternate interpretation: the honey found in the crags of rocks is bee honey, as the bees hide it there. (B’chor shor) This would be in accordance with Rabbi Joseph quoted in the Targum when interpreting the line; כאשר תעשינה הדבורים, “as the bees produce”, on Deuteronomy 1,44.
+ושמן מחלמיש צור, “and oil out of a flinty rock.” It is the habit of olive trees to grow in areas surrounded by rocky earth., on Deuteronomy 1,44.
+
+Verse 14
+
+עם חלב כליות חטה, “with the kidney fat of wheat.” With the fat from the best grades of wheat, i.e. this kind of wheat is likened to the fat surrounding the kidneys. The kernels of such wheat are described as big as a kidney. These kernels have an indentation and a shape similar to kernels of wheat.
+
+Verse 15
+
+עשהו, “Who made him;” the word: עשה here is a simile for wealth, עושר, as in Numbers 24,18: וישראל עושה חיל, where it means that Israel is abandoning the G-d who has made it wealthy.” [This editor admits that he has not understood the interpretation nor its comparison to Numbers 24,18.]
+
+Verse 16
+
+
+
+Verse 17
+
+לשדים, “to demons;” the word is derived from the root שדד, “to ruin, lay waste.” Demons have that effect on the brains of human beings. (B’chor shor)
+לא ידעום, “that they have not known;” the brain of human beings is described as not possessing knowledge, as opposed to G-d Who is always described as “knowing,” i.e. וידע אלוקים, (Exodus 2,25) or כי ידעתי את מכאוביו, ”for I have known its pains;” (Exodus 3, 7) The socalled “deities” which idolaters worship have absolutely no knowledge of the emotions of the people who worship them. As to the reason why such “deities” cannot help their worshippers, this is because they are new, often even of more recent origin than their worshippers, .חדשים מקרוב באו
+לא שערום אבותיכם, “your fathers had not been in dread of them.” (their hairs, שער, did not stand on edge in fear of them.) Seeing that they did not punish your forefathers, פקד, you had no reason to fear them and sinned relentlessly.
+
+Verse 18
+
+צור ילדך, “of the Rock that begot you,” the word is used in the conjugation kal, actively, although its meaning is causative; we find an example of this mode in Genesis 10,24: וארפכשד ילד את שלח, “and Arpachshad sired Shalach,” instead of הוליד. Similarly, in the same verse: ושלח ילד את עבר, “and Shalach sired Ever.”
+תשי, “was unmindful;” the letter י in this word, is just like the letter י in Jeremiah 18,23: אלתמחי, where it is also superfluous and the prophet could have written: אל תמח, “do not wipe out!”
+מחוללך, “that bore you;” a reminder how when you were (brought out of Egypt you danced for joy and sang songs; מחולות, dances.
+
+Verse 19
+
+
+
+Verse 20
+
+אסתירה פני מהם, “I will hide My face from them;” by doing so I will await what awaits them when I do not supervise their fate every minute. We will see how useful the stars will be which they worship instead of Me. (B’chor shor)
+כי דור תהפוכות המ��, “for they are a perverse generation;” only yesterday they said: “we will carry out everything the Lord bids us to do as soon as we will hear the details;” (Exodus 24,7) today they say to a golden calf: “you have taken us out of Egypt.” (Exodus 32,4)
+
+Verse 21
+
+בלא עם, “with a vile nation.” (literally, a nonation). Compare Isaiah 23,13: "זה העם לא היה" “this nation never existed.”
+
+Verse 22
+
+כי אש קדחה באפי, “for a fire is kindled in My ostril;” the jealousy kindled that fire in G-d’s nostril. An alternate interpretation of this simile: though written in the active mode, this word is to be understood as if it had been written in the passive mode, i.e. נקדחה. We have other examples of words written in the active mode actually portraying something that has happened, i.e. passive; one such example is found in Genesis 14,3: כל אלה חברו, “all these (kings) came together,” whereas we would have expected the reflexive/passive mode נתחברו. (Compare Ibn Ezra)
+ותאכל ארץ ויבולה, “ it has consumed the earth and its produce.” This happened in order to starve your people.
+ותלהט מוסדי הרים, “and sets ablaze the foundations of the mountains.” Anyone hiding beneath the mountains will be forced to flee from fear of the approaching enemies. As an example, we may recall Judges 6,2, when the Israelites had dug tunnels to hide in caves from their adversaries under the mountains. An alternate interpretation of this simile: “setting the base of mountains ablaze,” means that they could not flee there on account of the fire.
+
+Verse 23
+
+אספה, “I will heap;” from the word אסיפה, collecting. The root is used also in Numbers 32,14: לספות עוד על חרון אף ה', “to augment still further G-d’s anger.
+
+Verse 24
+
+מזי רעב, “the wasting due to famine;” burned by hunger; compare Daniel 3,19, למזי לאתונא, “to heat up the kiln;”
+ולחמי רשף, “their flesh consumed by the vultures;” compare Proverbs 9,5: לכו לחמו בלחמי, “come and eat my bread;” (compare the commentaries on that phrase there.) Compare also Job 5,7: ובני רשף יגביהו עוף, “as the sparks fly upwards.”
+
+Verse 25
+
+
+
+Verse 26
+
+אמרתי אפאיהם, “I said I would make an end of them;” the word is related to פיאה, “corner, remnant,” I would not even leave a remnant of them. (B’chor shor)
+
+Verse 27
+
+ולא ה' פעל כל זאת, “and that not the Lord had brought all this about.” [Moses is quoting the enemies of the Jewish people. Ed.] They deny that our misfortune was G-d’s way of chastising His people.
+
+Verse 28
+
+כי גוי אובד עצות המה , “for they are a people void of counsel;” There are two opposing interpretations in the Sifri concerning who are the subject in this phrase; according to Rabbi Yehudah, the subject are the Jewish people; according to Rabbi Nechemyah, the subject are the gentile nations, who have no concept of how G-d’s ways of educational punishment works. According to RabbiNechemyah the words refer to what the gentile nations were quoted as saying in verse 27. According to Rabbi Yehudah, the Jewish people had rejected all the sound advice G-d had given them about how to live their lives by following the rules of the Torah.
+
+Verse 29
+
+לו חכמו, “if they (the Israelites) had been wise;” ישכילו זאת, “they would understand this;” Moses will elaborate on what the “this” is.
+יבינו לאחריתם, “they would understand that what has happened to them lately had been the natural result of their disloyalty to the covenant they had entered into with Hashem. What should have made them realise all this?
+
+Verse 30
+
+איכה ירדוף וגו, “how could one chase a thousand? How could a situation have changed so radically that whereas previously one Israelite could put 1000 gentiles to flight, and two Israelites could put ten thousand adversaries to flight, whereas now one gentile can put one thousand Israelites to flight, whereas by now the situation is reversed? Not only must we marvel at this fact but we must ask ourselves why something like this could have happened? Is it not obvious that this could only have happened because our “Rock” has abandoned us? Our author sites as proof that Moses was not exaggerating (Judges 20,10).
+רבבה, “ten thousand;”
+ושנים יניסו רבבה “and two men can put ten thousand of their adversaries to flight;” in other words, one can even put five thousand of the enemy to flight. When the Israelites were loyal to the Torah, the Torah described Leviticus 26,8, five as putting one hundred of the enemy to flight. When they were disloyal to the Torah the ratio of their enemies putting them to flight is multiplied; in fact when the Israelites pursue their enemies they catch them so fast that no astronomical figures have to be mentioned. The enemies fall before them like flies, do not need to be pursued for any great distance. When the Torah speaks of us fleeing, it does not mention being killed, rather it mentions that we will be so nervous that even when no pursuer is in sight we will flee. (Leviticus 26,17)
+
+Verse 31
+
+כי לא כצורנו צורם, “for not like our Rock, is their “rock;” this is still part of the rhetorical question asked by Moses in verse 30: “how can one man pursue one thousand?” In spite of all this, our enemies still insist on sitting in judgment of us! Our erstwhile success and present failure can only be ascribed to Divine interference both then and now. It is due to their Rock having sold them because of their sins.”
+
+Verse 32
+
+כי מגפן סדום גפנם, “for is then their vine of the vine of Sodom, and are then their grapes those that originate in Amora? (sister city of Sodom of old) Are all their thoughts sinful as the ones from those two cities, and is there nothing remotely sacred left in their philosophies? Did I not plant them as noble vines, etc.? (Jeremiah 2,21)
+
+Verse 33
+
+
+
+Verse 34
+
+הלא הוא כמוס עמדי, “is this not laid up in store with Me?” Moses refers to the day when retribution for all their sins will come, as will be explained forthwith.
+
+Verse 35
+
+לי נקם ושלם, “vengeance is Mine and recompense;” G-d will pay back to the Jewish people for all the sins that He had to watch them indulge in.
+וחש עתידות למו, “and the things that are to come will make haste in arriving. This is one of the examples of masculine and feminine modes being used apparently indiscriminately. [The word עתידות is in the feminine mode, whereas the word למו, is an adjective in the masculine mode. Ed.] Other examples of such inconsistent grammatical combinations are found in: Deut, 22,23: כי יהיה נערה בתולה, when there is (masculine pronoun) “when there is a young virgin;” or in Deut. 21,3: והיה העיר הקרובה, “and the nearest city will be etc.; the word עיר is feminine, where as the pronoun והיה is in the masculine mode. The author quotes more such examples. And so in this verse: וחש is masculine and עתידות feminine.  Ed.]
+
+Verse 36
+
+כי ידין, “for He will judge, etc.” this kind of judgment involves the sinner having to endure painful experiences on his body. An example of this is found in Job 36,31: בם ידין עמים, “by means of these things He controls people” (judges people), giving or denying them their food supply.
+ועל עבדיו יתנחם, “and He will repent Himself for His servants.” When His erstwhile servants who had become disloyal but had subsequently done penitence, He will repent His harsh decrees. We find confirmation of this in Jeremiah18,8.
+כי יראה כי אזלת יד, “when He sees that its strength is spent;” compare Isaiah 51,21: ושכורת ולא מיין, “and drunk but not from wine.”
+
+Verse 37
+
+ואמר אי אלהימו, and it is said: “where are their deities?” (a mocking question by Israel’s enemies) It makes fun of the people whom G-d had spent so much effort to redeem from Egypt, and who by now have fallen so low. All the deities they worship now in lieu of their G-d do not have the power between them to help them.
+
+Verse 38
+
+אשר חלב זבחימו יאכלו, “who did eat the fat of their sacrifices;” the sacrifices offered by the gentile nations to their respective deities. The fact is that the gentiles themselves consume the “offerings” they present to their inert deities.
+יקומו ויעזרכם, “let them arise now and help you!” The Israelites will say this about the deities of the gentiles when the time for their own salvation has come.
+
+Verse 39
+
+ראו עתה כי אני אני הוא, “See now that I, even I am He;” thus says the Lord to the nations that had enslave Israel.
+כי אני אני הוא, “I am the One Who will not change, always remain the same;”
+אני אמית ואחיה, “I kill and I resurrect;” about Him it has been said: ובלע המות לנצח, “He will do away with death forever;” (Isaiah 25,8) now the time has come that I will bring to life מחצתי, “I have wounded;” a reference to what He did to the Israelites in the not too distant past; ואני ארפה, “and I heal;” from now on I will heal them to remain well permanently.
+
+Verse 40
+
+ כי אשא אל שמים ידי, “for I lift up my hand to heaven;” as do human beings in order to ensure that the people present will listen to them.
+
+Verse 41
+
+ותאחז ידי, and My hand will hold on to judgment;” holding on to the sword with one’s hand, in order to administer justice.
+
+Verse 42
+
+אשכיר חצי מדם, “I will make My arrows drunk with blood.” Concerning this we read in Ezekiel 21,12: הנה באה ונהיתה נאם ה', “Behold!, it comes and has happened.” אשכיר חצי מדם, “how is it possible for arrows to become drunk with blood? The meaning is that G-d will make others drunk when they see what His arrows have accomplished. (Sifri)
+וחרבי תאכל בשר, “and My sword shall devour flesh.” How is it possible for a sword to devour flesh? It means that G-d will arrange for others to be fed with meat as a result of what My sword has accomplished. This can be compared to what Ezekiel wrote in Ezekiel 39,17: בן אדם אמור לצפור כל כנף ולכל חית השדה האספו מסביב על זבחי, “Now you, Ben Adam, says My Lord, Hashem, say to every winged bird and to the beasts in the field: ‘gather around Me, and take part in My feast,’ etc.” Our author quotes several more verses from Scripture containing a similar message; (Ezekiel 39,18, 39,19, including the use of the word “becoming drunk.”) This is the interpretation given by Sifri.
+מדם חלל ושביה, “from the blood of the slain and the captives (wounded?)” from what My arrows have done to the slain and the wounded of My people
+מראש פרעות אויב, “from the longhaired head of the enemy.” This verse has been truncated; it should read: מפרעות ראש אויב, “from the long haired enemy chiefs.”
+Rabbi Nechemyah interprets the whole sequence commencing with verse 27:
+27.דינו רמה וגו' פן יאמרו, completely differently, understanding it as being addressed to the nations of the world.
+28. כי גוי אובד עצות המה, “for any of the gentile nations are each a nation completely deprived of counsel, seeing that they do not even observe the seven basic laws given by the Lord to all of mankind, and they do not practice them.
+29. לו חכמו, “had they possessed any wisdom;” if they had possessed any wisdom they would have understood that if one man could have put a thousand of the enemy to flight, this could never have been possible by natural means, but only because this one man had been supported by a superior heavenly force, i.e. the G-d Who had taken the Jewish people out of Egypt. Similarly, if now one of their enemies could frighten a thousand of them, this could also only have been possible because their G-d had abandoned them at that point.
+יבינו לאחריתם, they would have realised that something similar or worse would happen to them for having enslaved the Jewish people, G-d’s people, as we know from verse 35 וחש עתידות למו, “this will come to pass speedily.”
+30. אם לא כי צורם מכרם, “unless their Rock had sold them.” This is the only reason why a single gentile had been able to put a thousand of them to flight. All of this the gentile nations should have understood.
+31. כי לא כצורנו צורם, “for their Rock is not like our rock, i.e. weak.” This is also why our enemies, the Jewish people, in the past had been able to lord it over us.
+32. כי מגפן סדום גפנם, “why did their Rock sell them? Because they acted as if their origin had been the vines of Sodom, and because they behaved at if they had been planted in Amorah. We have proof of this from the writings of Isaiah 3,9: “they avow their sins like Sodom and they do not conceal them.” None of them are good, they have all become confirmed sinners, but for the longest time due to G-d’s patience He had not demanded an accounting from them.
+34. הלא הוא כמוס עמדי, “what the gentile nations have been saying about My people, i.e. that they originated in Sodom and Amorah, is quite untrue; in fact I, the Lord have planted them as a noble plant.” (Jeremiah 2,21)
+35. לי נקם ושלם, “vengeance is Mine and the right to pay back the gentile nations;”לעת תמוט רגלם, “at the time when their feet shall slip.” (that of the gentile nations) כי קרוב ים אידם, “for the day of their calamity is near.”
+36. כי ידין, “for He will judge (those nations);” כי יראה, “when He sees;” Why will He choose that time to exact vengeance? because these nations had taken advantage of the Jewish people when these had been at a low point in their fortunes.
+37. The gentile nations had called out with glee: “where is their famous G-d now?”
+38. אשר חלב זבחימו יאכלו, “the G-d of Israel will consume the fate of its offerings;” יקומו ויעזרכם, “may they (these deities) arise and help you.” Seeing that the gentiles have blasphemed in such a manner the G-d of Israel will duly punish them.
+39. ראו עתה כי אני הוא, the reader is referred to the author’s commentary on this verse above.
+ואין מידי מציל, “and no one can save them from My hand.” This is G-d’s reply to the sarcastic words of the gentiles in verse 38.
+
+Verse 43
+
+הרנינו גוים עמו “sing aloud o you nations!” this is not a song of joy but a lament, similar to what we read in Lamentations 2,19: קומי רני בלילה, “arise cry out in the night!” These words are addressed to the nations which have enslaved the Jewish people. Why are these nations now to sing songs of mourning? Because G-d is avenging the innocent blood of Jews that has been spilled by them. An alternate interpretation of the words הרניו, etc.; “sing a song of praise nations, before the Lord!” Who are the “nations” that are supposed to sing this song of praise? The Israelites His people, seeing that He has avenged their blood. A third interpretation of this line: all the nations are urged to sing of praise of G-d’s people, the Jewish people. He has avenged their oppressors, i.e. the blood of His servants.
+וכפר, “and make expiation;” the word is used as one indicating pacification, appeasement. Compare Genesis 32,21, when Yaakov sends costly gifts to his brother Esau in order to make him forget that he had once taken his blessing The word by which he described this was אכפרה פניו, “I wish to appease him.”
+אדמתו עמו, “for the land of His people.” In classical Hebrew we find words where the letter ו is missing at the beginning of the word, such as Leviticus 21,14 וחללה זונה where we would have expected a connective letter ו at the beginning of the word זונה. Another example of that letter being missing is found in Chabakuk 3,11: ,שמש ירח עמד זבולה, “sun (and) moon stand still on high,” where the connective letter ו is missing before the word ירח, “moon.” In our verse also the letter ו is missing at the beginning of the word עמו, His people. G-d wishes to appease the earth of the Holy Land for having burdened it with absorbing blood shed of innocent Jews, by taking His revenge from the antisemites.
+
+Verse 44
+
+ויבא משה וידבר, “Moses came and spoke, etc.” this is a reference to what we read in Deut: 31,30: “Moses spoke in the ears of the people, etc.;”
+הוא והושע בן נון, “he and Joshua son of Nun;” They had both been commanded by G-d in chapter 31,14: “present yourselves in the Tent of Meeting and I will issue a command.” There is also another occasion when G-d commands Moses and Joshua simultaneously, to write down Moses’ parting song/poem for the people (in verse 19 chapter 31.) Why does the Torah here call Joshua by his birth name Hoshea? It is the custom of kings to instruct their servants in this manner Compare Joseph in Genesis 41,45, or Daniel and Chananiah, Mishael, and Azaryah being commanded by the king to change their Hebrew names (Daniel 1,7). In this instance, now that Joshua has become the King of the Israelites, he is addressed again by his original name of Hosea. Nonetheless, seeing the people had been used to his name Joshua already, this name is used in Scripture in most instances.
+
+Verse 45
+
+
+
+Verse 46
+
+
+
+Verse 47
+
+כי לא דבר רק הוא מכם, “for it is no vain thing for you;” You will not perform all these commandments without compensation. If you do not study the Torah you will not know when you will be guilty of transgressing a law and will die on account of this. (A reference to actively transgressing negative commandments) By the same token you will not know which commandments to fulfill in order to qualify for the rewards in store for you, and you will miss out on that.
+
+Verse 48
+
+בעצם היום הזה, “on this very day,” when he composed the song.
+
+Verse 49
+
+אשר על פני יריחו, “facing Jericho, with only the river Jordan intervening in between.
+
+Verse 50
+
+
+
+Verse 51
+
+
+
+Verse 52
+
+
+
+Chapter 33
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+וזאת הברכה, “and this was the blessing, etc.” the letter ו at the beginning of the word וזאת, indicates that the paragraph following is a continuation of what we have read immediately before. Whereas up to now Moses had admonished the people, he now switched to blessing them.
+
+Verse 2
+
+ ה' מסיני בא, “The Lord had come from Sinai;” some commentators understand this phrase as meaning: “the Lord, Whose glorious presence, shechinah, emanates fro Sinai, etc;” we find an example of such a construction in Psalms 134,3: יברכך ה׳ מסיני, “may the Lord Whose glorious presence emanates from Sinai, bless you;”
+וזרח משעיר למו, “and He shone forth from Seir, to them;” the sunrise is witnessed each morning from the East, the sun breaking forth from behind the mountains of Seir. It appears as if lightning suddenly illuminated the earth. [According to our author, these mountains are situated to the east of Mount Sinai. On our maps this is not quite so, as these mountains are more northern than easterly from Mount Sinai. Ed. ] הופיע מהר פארן, “He manifested Himself from the mountain of Paran. [This mountain is also assumed to be situated to the east of Mount Sinai. Ed.] The concept of G-d making His appearance from an easterly direction of the universe is seen as a tribute to the people of Israel, meaning that the Lord came forward toward them. According to Rashi on Numbers 34,3, on the words: ממדבר צין, where he elaborates in an unusually lengthy manner on the geography of that region, this is to be understood as a sign of His fondness of the people.
+מימינו אש דת למו, “at His right hand was a fiery law unto them.” That the right side is one which symbolises fondness we know from Song of Songs 2,6: וימינו תחבקני, “and His right hand embraces me.”
+אשדת, spelled in the text as a single word, but read as if it had been written: אש דת.
+
+Verse 3
+
+אף חובב עמים, “Lover, indeed of the peoples;” (the twelve tribes of Israel are termed “peoples). We know that the Israelites were viewed as “special” by G-d when He said to us in Exodus 19,5: והייתם לי סגולה, “you will be for Me a treasure;” Why is this so? It is because all of His holy beings are under His direct supervision. How does this work in practice? “והם תוכו לרגליו, “they are sitting between His feet;” Compare Exodus 19,17: ויתיצבו בתחתית ההר, “they had taken up their positions at the base of the Mountain.” (Sinai). An alternate interpretation: even at times when G-d is fond of the gentile nations and delivers the sinful Israelites into their hands, they still remain under His direct supervision, (though they may not be aware of it.)
+והם, “and they are;” Israel, תוכו לרגלך; after all when the gentiles persecute them it is only because they are G-d’s people, having entered into a covenant with Him to observe His commandments.לרגלך, this expression, presuming that G-d has physical dimensions, is also used in Genesis 30,30 where even the pagan Lavan acknowledges the existence and personal providence of Yaakov by his G-d when he enriched Lavan in order that the latter treat Yaakov fairly. This is why Yaakov could say to him there: ‘ויברך ה׳ אותך לרגלי, “He has blessed you at my foot.”Another interpretation of the words: והם תוכו לרגלך, “in the Holy Temple.” The Temple is perceived as G-d’s footstool on earth. His presence manifests itself in and around the Temple. This is where most Israelites are found three times a year at least.
+ישא מדברותיך, “receiving part of Your words.” This was a reference to the first two of the Ten Commandments during the revelation at Mount Sinai which the whole people heard directly from the mouth of G-d before having asked Moses to become their interpreter. (Deuteronomy, 5,21-26)
+
+Verse 4
+
+תורה צוה לנו משה, “Moses commanded the Torah to us;” whereas G-d had commanded them the first two commandments, Moses commanded them the remaining 611 commandments. (This is why the numerical value of the letters in the word תורה total 611) In spite of the extraordinary spiritual high level the whole people had attained at that time, i.e. they were able to “see” thunder not just hear it, they could not listen to the voice of the Lord any longer and had feared they would die.
+תורה צוה לנו משה וגו, this verse appears in a truncated mode and should by rights read: תורה צוה לנו משה להיותה מורשה לנו קהלת יעקב, ”Moses commanded us this Torah in order for it to become a heritage to the congregation of Yaakov.”
+
+Verse 5
+
+ויהי, “he became,” i.e. Moses; בישורון מלך בהתאסף ראשי עם, “King in Yeshurun, when the leaders of the people assembled.” This was recorded in Deuteronomy 4,10: באמור ה' אלי הקהל את העם ואשמיעם את דברי, when the Lord said to me: “assemble the people so that I can let them hear My words.”It is up to us to keep the Torah which He commanded us, and after having accepted it, it became a source of blessing for us.
+
+Verse 6
+
+יחי ראובן ואל ימות, “may Reuven live and not die;” Moses refers to the period when the members of that tribe would be in the vanguard of crossing the Jordan and battling the Canaanites.
+ויהי מתיו מספר, “let the number of his men of military age that had been counted not decline.” (Let them not suffer casualties)
+
+Verse 7
+
+וזאת ליהודה, “and this for Yehudah;” he meant that his blessing that Reuven should not suffer casualties in battle, should also apply to the men of military age of the tribe of Yehudah;At this point Rashi said (based on the Talmud tractate Sotah folio 7) that Moses gave the credit for Reuven’s having done penitence to how Yehudah had demeaned himself publicly when admitting that his daughterinlaw had become pregnant by him. (Genesis 38,26) In Genesis 37,29, we read about Reuven being mortified when Joseph was no longer in the pit the brothers had thrown him into. Although he had not even been present when Joseph was sold, he held himself responsible for not staying around at that time. Yehudah, though admitting his paternity of his daughterinlaw’s Tamar’s babies did not do so until challenged. Until Yehudah admitted his guilt publicly, Reuven had done so only privately; (Genesis 37,29). After hearing of Yehudah’s confession, he too admitted his defiling his father’s couch openly.
+שמע ה׳ קול יהודה, “hear o Lord the voice of Yehudah!” Whenever Yehudah finds himself in difficulties and appeals to You for help on behalf of his people, grant his plea! He is singled out for this as he normally leads the rest of the tribes in warfare. (Compare Judges 1,2) The same applied to Reuven, as he had been the first tribe to cross the Jordan and face the enemy. Compare Joshua 6,7.) Shimon did not need to be mentioned separately as that tribe always made common cause with Yehudah as reported in the Book of Judges. [His territory was an enclave within the territory of Yehudah. Ed.] (Compare Judges 1,3) A different interpretation of Moses’s pleading: יחי ראובן, “may Reuven live!” Seeing that the founding father of the tribe of Reuven had committed a serious offense against his father Yaakov, and the commandment of honouring father and mother is accompanied by the promise that people doing so would enjoy long life, (Exodus 20,12) it could be inferred that people failing to do so would have their lives cut short, Moses blesses the tribe, emphasising that the descendants of Reuven should not be affected by something their founding father had done wrong.
+וזאת ליהודה, “the following is the blessing for Yehudah, as distinct from praise for its founding father. Its founding father had also caused his father grief due to Joseph’s having been sold at the time was due to his suggestion. (Genesis 37,27) Moses was not willing to mention the name of the tribe of Shimon as Moses held him responsible in his heart for being the one who had first suggested that Joseph be killed. (Compare Rashi’s commentary on Genesis 42,24)
+
+Verse 8
+
+וללוי אמר וגו׳, “and of Levi he said, etc.” Moses referred to the Levite (singular) who had been chosen to wear the breastplate with the Urim and Tumim, (the High Priest of the people) evidence that he was considered a pious individual, 
+Even though G-d had put him to a test repeatedly, and although he had failed a test by the Lord at Massah/Merivah, he had nevertheless qualified to become so holy that he was not allowed to defile himself even for the burial of his father or mother or brother or son. [The High Priest in any generation is not allowed to cause himself to become ritually defiled except when a corpse has no one else who could bury him without delay; Leviticus 21,11) Ed.], 
+
+Verse 9
+
+כי שמרו אמרתיך, “for the Levites observed Your commandments not to defile the sanctity of the Tabernacle/Temple.” (Leviticus 21,12) None of the Levites committed the error of worshipping the golden calf, and they were prepared to execute family members whom they found doing so. (Sifri and Rashi)
+ובריתך ינצורו, “and they kept Your covenant.” The covenant G-d made with the priests whose status became hereditary from father to son. (Numbers 25,13)
+
+Verse 10
+
+יורו משפטיך ליעקב, “They will teach Your ordinances to Yaakov;” seeing that they are impartial people not showing undue favours to anyone, they are qualified to teach and help enforce Your laws. (Compare Ezekiel 44,23: ואת עמי יורו,”and My people they will instruct.) It is also written in Deut: 17,9: ובאת אל הכהנים הלוים והגידו לך את דבר המשפט, “when you will come to the priests, who are members of the tribe of the Levites, and they will tell you matters concerning the ordinances.”An alternate interpretation: “they will teach you the laws of the Torah, since they do not have to earn their living from farming, etc., they have the time to study and teach all these laws.” The reason they did not receive any share of the land of Israel was to enable them to do just that.
+
+Verse 11
+
+ופועל ידיו תרצה, “and may the work of his hands be welcomed by You;” the “work” Moses speaks of are the sacrifices of the priests who are members of this tribe. The expression נרצה is especially appropriate for the expiation for sins most sacrifices are meant to achieve. If anyone who is not a member of the priestly tribe offers such sacrifices they will not achieve this.
+מן יקומון, “from anyone rising up against the Israelites.”
+
+Verse 12
+
+לבנימין אמר, “to Binyamin he had said: Binyamin is mentioned by Moses immediately after the tribe of Levi, seeing that the major part of the Temple building was situated on its ancestral land, and the Levites and priests therefore were moving on that soil when they performed their priestly duties.
+ידיד ה, “the beloved one of the Lord;” he is called the beloved one because ישכון לבטח עליו, “seeing that the protective Presence of the Lord which resides in the Temple is constantly manifest on his ancestral land.” The term: עליו, in the sense of “by Him,” is also found in Numbers 2,20, ועליו מנשה, where it describes the location of the tribe of Menashe as next to Ephrayim, both parts of the tribe of Joseph.
+חופף עליו כל היום, “G-d’s manifestation covers him (Binyamin) all day long;” it saves him from potential attackers.
+ובין כתפיו שכן, ”and He dwells between his shoulders.” The word כתף, “shoulder,” is used by Moses as a metaphor, similar to Numbers 34,11, where it describes the slopes leading to the sea of Galilee as “shoulder.” The reason why this tribe received such a complimentary title is that its founding father was the only son of Yaakov who had not been involved in the sale of their brother Joseph. And furthermore, Benyamin was the only one of the twelve brothers who was born in the Land of Israel. This is why G-d’s Presence could feel so at home on its territory and that is why the Temple was located on it.
+
+Verse 13
+
+וליוסף אמר מבורכת ה' ארצו, “and of Joseph he said: “blessed by the Lord be his land;” When Adam, the first human being, had sinned by allowing himself to be seduced by his wife, the land on which he lived afterwards was cursed as a result, and his livelihood became one that required hard toil. Joseph, who had withstood the deduction by the wife of Potiphar, was rewarded in that the land his descendants dwelled on was especially blessed.
+
+Verse 14
+
+וממגד גרש ירחים, “and from the precious things due to the moons.” The fruit of the trees emanate from the earth, and the trees start growing at the beginning of the month. On each new moon a different category of fruit tree commences the cycle of growing and subsequently ripening. Our author quotes four examples of this as an illustration.
+
+Verse 15
+
+ומראש הררי קדם; “and from the top of the ancient mountains.” This is an expression of praise, as for instance in Jeremiah 2,3: ראשית תבואתה, “the first fruit of its harvest, orAmos 6,6: וראשית שמנים, “with the choicest oils.” Moses refers to the choicest mountains that were created during the first six days of creation.
+הררי קדם, the mountains of Ephrayim; the land allocated to the tribe of Joseph’s descendant Ephrayim, son of Joseph was especially mountainous. Compare Samuel I 1,1, צופים מהר אפרים, “from the district of Tzofim in the mountains of Ephrayim.
+
+Verse 16
+
+ורצון שוכני סנה, “May it enjoy the good will of Him (G-d) that dwells in the (burning) bush.”
+נזיר אחיו, (according to Rashi) ‘the one who had been separated from his brothers.” According to other commentators this ought to be translated as: “the prince among his brothers.” Use of the expression נזיר as meaning “prince” is found in Lamentations 4,7: זכו נזירה משלג, “her princes were purer than snow.” Joseph had clearly been at least a prince among his brothers.
+
+Verse 17
+
+בכור שורו, “His firstling bullock;” Joshua was the first king chosen by G-d from the descendants of Joseph. This is why he is referred to by Moses here as בכור, “firstborn.” The reason why Moses compares a king to an ox is because the ox or bullock is the king amongst the domesticated four legged mammals. (Talmud tractate Chagigah folio 13.)
+והם רבבות אפרים, “and they (the horns) are tens of thousands of the warriors of Ephrayim.” Seeing that Joshua was from the tribe of Ephrayim, the soldiers of that tribe would be the first to rally around him when war broke out.
+והם אלפי מנשה, the Israelites had a great leader from the tribe of Menashe also, by the name of Gideon, who was known for fighting with far fewer soldiers, i.e.,אלפי מנשה, the thousands of Menashe. Yaakov when on his deathbed, had insisted on placing his right hand on Ephrayim, the younger of the two brothers. This is reflected in Moses’ blessing here.
+
+Verse 18
+
+שמח זבולון, “rejoice Zevulun;” he had complained about the portions of ancestral land he had drawn. We read in the Talmud tractate Megillah, folio 6 That he complained about having received mountainous territory and sandy territory alongside the ocean, compared to Naftaly who had been given apparently fruitful earth in the mountainous regions, as had most other tribes. (Deborah praised this tribe in her victory song in Judges 5,18 as literally having mocked death in the constant danger as a seafaring tribe. When Zevulun had seen Naftaly completely exposed, as the other tribes simply failed to respond to Deborah’s call to arms, he responded without hesitation. Foreseeing all this in a prophetic vision, Moses is trying to calm Zevulun for having received his share near the beaches of the ocean where they would be far less exposed than Naftaly; would he have preferred to have been exposed to the dangers Naftaly faced?) It will be explained soon how Zevulun in fact benefited by his territory facing the ocean.
+בצאתך, “when you are setting out;” Moses blesses each tribe according to what he foresees will be its special needs. Zevulun as a seafarer, who derives his livelihood from maritime trade, will require a special blessing to keep his ships safe when they are on the high seas, so that his merchandise will not be lost at sea. Compare Yaakov’s blessing for him in Genesis 49,13, where reference is made to the beaches of the sea in connection with him. Moses blesses him in wishing him that instead of being fearful when setting out on each voyage, he should be joyful, confident of G-d’s help.
+ויששכר באהליך, whereas he blesses Yissochor by wishing him similar confidence seeing that his fertile soil may become the envy of his neighbours, so that he is forced to stand guard watching against potential robbers. Moses wishes him success in this. Yaakov had already hinted at this in his blessing for this son when he said in Genesis 49,14: רובץ בין המשפתים, “crouching among the sheepfolds.”
+
+Verse 19
+
+ושפני טמוני חול, “and the hidden treasures of the sand.” Sometimes when ships break up when at harbour and are buried deep in the sand; when the waters of the sea retreat, it is revealed that this sand which buried their ships had also hidden treasures which would have remained undiscovered if the ship had not broken up.
+
+Verse 20
+
+מרחיב גד, “Who enlarges Gad; Moses blesses him to whom G-d had given a large territory, suitable for raising sheep and cattle.
+וטרף זרוע אף קדקוד, “to tear off arm and scalp;” seeing that the scalp is mentioned last, it is clear that he disabled his opponent first by disabling his arm which carries his weapon. He does so by taking aim at the sword raised against him. By doing so he succeeds in not only disabling his opponent’s arm but decapitating him at the same time with one stroke.
+
+Verse 21
+
+וירא ראשית לו, “he chose a first part for himself.” Even though the Ammonites and Moabites dispute his territorial claims to its land, as is evident from Judges 11,13 and Yiftach rebutting their arguments. (Compare Rashi there) Another interpretation of this line: What is the meaning of the phrase: כי שם חלקת מחוקק צפון, “for in part of that land the grave of the Israelites’ lawgiver (Moses would be hidden)" Alternately, Reuven has been referred to as the lawgiver; in Judges 5,15, when Deborah describes him as such with the words: בפלגות ראובן גדולים חקקי לב, “among the clans of Reuven who were debating great decisions of the heart.” The Reuvenites had long been entrenched in these lands already, (at the time of Yiftach, 300 years after Moses had died). According to yet another interpretation the whole line speaks about both Reuven and Gad, the two tribes who had decided to settle on the east bank of the Jordan river. Since both of these tribes had proven outstandingly strong, Moses accords them recognition already in his parting words to the people.
+
+Verse 22
+
+יזנק מן הבשן, “he leaps forth from the region of Bashan.” He (Dan) conquers in that region, although it is well known as the habitat of lions and other ferocious beasts.
+
+Verse 23
+
+שבע רצון, Naftaly is satisfied, aware of having been favoured;” the fruit of his orchards is not only of the highest quality, but also ripens ahead of those in other regions of the land. Whenever he tastes them he is gratefully conscious of his good fortune.
+ומלא ברכת ה “and filled with G-d’s blessing.” Whoever visits his part of the land of Israel and blesses the Almighty for its fruits.
+
+Verse 24
+
+ברך מבנים אשר, “Asher be blessed more than the other sons (of Yaakov).” He receives these blessings from the other tribes, as proved from the end of this verse. 
+יהי רצוי אחיו, “let him be the most favoured among his brothers.” What is the reason why all the other tribes bless Asher? He is able to bathe his feet in oil, i.e. this tribe enjoys an abundance of oil harvested from the olive trees on his territory. All of his brothers can anoint themselves with this oil at minimal cost.
+ברוך מבנים אשר, according to Rashi, the interpretation of this line is that there is no other tribe that has enjoyed being as fruitful, having so many children. (Rashi quotes Sifri as his source, adding that he does not know the reason for this.) If we consider the numbers of the tribes’ male children provided by the Torah, Menashe appears to have been equally blessed if not more so. The latter, of course was not a son but a grandson of Yaakov.
+ יהי רצוי אחיו, according to tradition, when Reuven had defiled the couch of his father, it was Asher who told his other brothers about this. When hearing this, the brothers chided him for badmouthing their oldest brother. They ostracised him forthwith. Moses now revoked this ostracism. Seeing that when someone is ostracised this is introduced by the word: “be cursed,” Moses reversed this by now introducing his blessing of this tribe with an additional word of blessing, i.e. ברוך. When someone has been officially ostracised he is not allowed to engage in marital intercourse. He is also not allowed to anoint his skin with oil, nor to wear normal shoes; hence Moses refers to this tribe’s feet being shod with exceptionally strong shoes, i.e. his shoes are as strong as iron. [According to Rabbi Chavell, this interpretation is found in Tossaphot. Ed.]
+
+Verse 25
+
+דבאך, “your old age.” The expression is one of דאבה, “old age;” it is one of the words in which the sequence of two letters have been reversed, such as in כשבים and כבשים sheep, or שמלה and שלמה, both meaning: dress, or garment. Moses refers to the days of old age which often are days of anxiety and depression, i.e. דאבה. Moses blesses Asher in that even in his old age he would be full of vigour and enjoy the golden age. Compare a statement to this effect in the Talmud, tractate Chulin, folio 24.
+
+Verse 26
+
+
+
+Verse 27
+
+ומתחת זרועות עולם, “and underneath are the everlasting arms;” Asher is perceived riding on the globe which is seen as beneath the rider. The “arms” are seen as supporting the universe, carrying its weight. The One Who rules both the upper regions of the universe and its lower regions is seen as supporting Asher also.
+ויגרש מפניך אויב, “He thrusts out the enemy from before you. They are specifically: Amalek, Sichon and Og.,ויאמר: השמד, and Who said: “destroy,” i.e. תמחה את זכר עמלק “wipe out the memory of Amalek” (Deut 25,19” (Deut 25) and לא תחיה כל נשמה “do not allow a single soul to survive” (in the land of Canaan).
+
+Verse 28
+
+עין יעקב, “the fountain of Yaakov;” a metaphor for the descendants of Yaakov, as in Isaiah 48,1: וממי יהודה יצאו, “and who came forth from the waters of Yehudah.” (metaphor for “from the loins of”)
+
+Verse 29
+
+ויכחשו אויביך לך, “and when your enemies will try to deceive you, etc.;” your enemies will sometimes pretend to be your friends in order to lull you into a sense of security.
+
+Chapter 34
+
+
+
+Verse 1
+
+ ויעל משה, “Moses ascended;” G-d had told him to ascend Mount Nebo already in Numbers ,27,12; at that time the Mountain was called: הר העברים. Nonetheless, Moses had waited with doing this until he had blessed his people.
+הר נבו, “Mount Nebo.” This mountain is identical with the one called: הר העברים in Numbers chapter 27. It is also known as Rosh Hapisga (here, as well as in Deut. 3,27 and Numbers 21,20 and 23,14).
+The name in this verse appears to relate to the summit of that range of mountains which was situated on the territory of Reuven, as pointed out in Numbers 32,37 where the members of the tribe of Reuven are described as having built Nebo, etc.; when it is written concerning the territory of the tribe of Gad: “for that is where the grave of the lawgiver is situated,” (Deut. 33,21) it appears that this must have been at the boundary between the territories of Reuven and Gad.
+את כל הארץ, “the whole land;” Moses saw the entire land of Canaan with his physical eyes, more than what Joshua would step on with his feet during his wars of conquest. (Joshua 18, 210)
+את הגלעד, “the region known as Gilead;” Moses at the time when looking at the West Bank of the river Jordan was standing in that region, - 
+עד דן, “looking as far north as Dan,” the northern boundary of the land of Israel. (Compare what is written in Samuel I 3,20, etc.)
+
+Verse 2
+
+עד הים האחרון, “as far as the western boundary of the land of Israel.”
+
+Verse 3
+
+עיר התמרים, “the city of date palms;” so called as it was exceptionally excellent as mentioned specifically.
+
+Verse 4
+
+
+
+Verse 5
+
+
+
+Verse 6
+
+ויקבר אותו בגיא, “He was buried in the valley;” we have been given three points as to where Moses grave was situated. A) in the valley; B) in which valley? “in the land of Moav;” C) at what location? opposite Beyt Peor. Even after having been given these three details still no one ever located the precise point where Moses is buried. (Talmud tractate Sotah folio 13) This proves that he was not buried by a human being.
+עד היום הזה, “until this day.” The principal reason for this is to make it impossible for anyone to be buried next to him. This was in order to prevent necromancers from using this site for their purposes.
+
+Verse 7
+
+לא כהתה עינו, “his eye had not become dim;” he had exuded light until the end of his days, as he had when he had returned to earth from Mount Sinai on the last occasion.
+
+Verse 8
+
+ויבכו בני ישראל, “The Children of Israel wept, etc.” when Aaron had died the Torah describes “the whole house of Israel” as having mourned his passing. (Numbers 20,29) The reason for the difference was that at that time anyone seeing Moses cry at the death of his brother could not help crying also. When Moses died there was no one left of such a stature that it would cause him to cry also. [Alternately, the women did not weep at Moses’ passing.]
+
+Verse 9
+
+
+
+Verse 10
+
+ולא קם נביא עוד בישראל כמשה, “there never again arose in Israel a prophet of the stature of Moses;” the reason the word בישראל, “in Israel,” has been added here is to tell the reader that we do not need to be told that no such prophet arose amongst the gentiles, but that even among the Israelites there never arose a prophet to equal Moses in his stature. We had been given proof of this in Exodus 33,16, when the Torah wrote: נפלינו אני ועמך מכל העם אשר על פני האדמה, “and so that we are distinguished, I and Your people from all the people that are on the earth.”
+אשר ידעו ה' פנים אל פנים, “who knew the Lord face to face.” This has been recorded in Numbers 12,8: פה אל פה אדבר בו ומראה לא בחידות ותמונת ה' יביט, “with him I speak mouth to mouth, even manifestly and not in dark speeches and he beholds a visual image of the Lord.”An alternate interpretation: “G-d did know Moses face to face, but Moses did not know G-d face to face, for G-d Himself is on record as saying: כי לא יראני האדם וחי, “for no human being can see Me while he is still alive.” (Exodus 33,20)
+
+Verse 11
+
+
+
+Verse 12
+
+
+ולכל המורא, “and in all the awe inspiring manifestations;”
+לעיני כל ישראל, “in the sight of all of Israel.” Therefore they believed in him.
\ No newline at end of file